What is the construct validity of Joint Position Sense (JPS) versus the Butterfly Test for assessing movement sense in patients with neck pain?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 10, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Construct Validity of Joint Position Sense vs. Butterfly Test in Neck Pain Patients

Direct Answer to Your Question

The provided evidence does not contain any information about the "Butterfly Test" for assessing movement sense in patients with neck pain, making a direct comparison of construct validity impossible. However, the evidence does provide substantial data on the construct validity of Joint Position Sense (JPS) testing, also called Joint Position Error (JPE) testing, in this population.

Construct Validity of Joint Position Sense Testing

Evidence Quality and Findings

Joint Position Sense testing demonstrates variable construct validity in patients with neck pain, with significant methodological concerns that limit its clinical utility.

  • Moderate construct validity was demonstrated in one study where JPE testing successfully discriminated between persons with and without neck pain (AUC = 0.69), though this discrimination was modest 1

  • Poor construct validity was found in another rigorous study where JPE showed the lowest reliability among six cervical clinical tests (ICC: 0.02 to 0.66) and failed to demonstrate satisfactory construct validity 2

  • Discriminative validity exists but is limited: JPE testing showed significant differences between chronic neck pain patients and asymptomatic individuals (p < 0.05) in three of four proprioceptive tests, though the head repositioning to 30° rotation test (HR30T) failed to discriminate between groups 3

Reliability Concerns Impact Validity

  • JPE testing showed moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.55 to 0.85) but with high measurement error, making it suitable for group comparisons but of limited utility for individual patient assessments 3

  • The head repositioning to neutral (HRNT) test performed better than other JPE variants, showing an area under the curve above 0.5 (AUC 95% CI = 0.51-0.78, p ≤ 0.042) and appeared easier to perform in clinical practice 3

Responsiveness as a Validity Indicator

  • JPE testing demonstrated sufficient internal responsiveness with large effect sizes (Cohen's d range: 0.89-2.00) after 4 weeks of proprioceptive training when measuring absolute JPE 4

  • However, external responsiveness was inadequate, with weak correlations between JPE measurements and inertial measurement units for most movements 4

Clinical Implications

What This Means for Practice

  • JPE testing measures a real construct related to cervical proprioception that differs between neck pain patients and controls, but the measurement error is substantial 3, 2

  • Different JPE tests measure related but dissimilar constructs, with correlations between tests ranging only from 0.35 to 0.61, suggesting they tap into different aspects of proprioception 3

  • JPE shows minimal correlation with pain-related psychological factors (catastrophizing, fear of movement, disability), with correlations generally below 0.3, indicating it measures a distinct physical impairment rather than psychological constructs 3

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Do not use JPE for individual clinical decision-making due to high measurement error; reserve it for research or group-level assessments 3

  • Avoid assuming all JPE tests are equivalent—the head repositioning to neutral test appears superior to other variants for discriminating neck pain patients 3

  • Do not interpret JPE results in isolation—combine with other sensorimotor tests like the craniocervical flexion test and movement control assessments for comprehensive evaluation 2, 1

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.