Credibility Issue, The promotion of Quality Data And Full Data Disclosure

This question is going to be more and more crucial to our community. What is more important: having a computerized software that gives us merely a clear image (such as our current systems at both the Guild and the Rolf Institute), so that both client and practitioners can self indulge in projecting what they already know about the process that is happening (self centered and subjective).

A system that lets everyone including doctors, insurances, and researchers know exactly how much change happened for all clients (objective because automatically generated, and outwards oriented, towards efficient marketing and full data disclosure). To put it bluntly, keeping the existing imaging system that merely serves our own self indulgence and egocentric view of our work is not going to open any significant door for our profession.

Of course, in order to be credible, a serious study should show all data, not just selected clients. In other words, to fully benefit from a system, we have to be willing to show all clients postural grades before and after, not just those that have significantly changed in the process. This state of mind seems to me very different than.

The one modern biomechanical systems promote. With our current system, changes are so hard to be seen by untrained eyes, the temptation is huge to show only those records where everyone can see a positive change. Question: do you think responsible health professionals trust that kind of incomplete data? …

With an automatic computer analysis, the temptation might still be there, especially in the absence of proper impartial supervision, but we can rely on the machine to actually see for us the changes that are not obvious on a picture (some of those systems are very precise, even make up for what they can’t really see, with sophisticated algorithms). And therefore, it is my estimation that “almost” all changes will be noticed by the system.

And we might have a few “no change” or even negative changes that won’t hurt the statistics at all; as a matter of fact, without those few extremes (no change, and negative changes), statistics would look suspicious and unnatural. So, the spirit of NO censorship, of disclosing ALL clients results would be smoothly and naturally promoted, which is a must for the credibility of statistical studies.