Till We Meet Again

In a series of articles in this issue, Allen proposes and tests a model of movement1; reports the validity and reliability of a self-report instrument, the Movement Ability Measure (MAM)2; and tests the responsiveness to change of the MAM on a small sample of patients.3 The multidimensional model of movement—which includes exibility, strength, accuracy, speed, adaptability, and endurance—specifies the term “movement” at the human, not cellular or molecular, level for the Movement Continuum Theory.4As noted in Allen's discussion and in the invited commentaries by Cott and Finch, Martin, and Sullivan, the proposed model of movement has limitations, and the assessment tool has not been tested sufficiently to indicate that it is superior to other instruments such as the Outpatient Physical Therapy Improvement in Movement Assessment Log (OPTIMAL)5 or the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) “item bank” and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) assessment platform (AM-PAC-CAT).6 It is clear that we are in the initial rather than final stages of consensus about an instrument that measures outcomes affected by physical therapy intervention and that crosses medical diagnoses, systems, practice settings, …