## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Inter-Examiner** \\ **Reliability** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Patients with LBP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Asymptomatic Controls**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(n=53\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(n=38\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(n=15\))**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**1 Measurement**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean Average of**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**1 Measurement**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean Average of**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**1 Measurement**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean Average of**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \hline Novel examiner, \({}^{\circ}\) & 68.6 \(\pm\) 15.9 & 68.2 \(\pm\) 15.9 & 62.9 \(\pm\) 14.0 & 62.4 \(\pm\) 13.9 & 83.1 \(\pm\) 10.7 & 82.9 \(\pm\) 10.7 \\ Experienced & 67.0 \(\pm\) 15.5 & 67.1 \(\pm\) 15.5 & 61.3 \(\pm\) 13.5 & 61.4 \(\pm\) 13.6 & 81.6 \(\pm\) 9.8 & 81.5 \(\pm\) 9.8 \\ Mean, \({}^{\circ}\) & 67.8 \(\pm\) 15.7 & 67.6 \(\pm\) 15.7 & 62.1 \(\pm\) 13.7 & 61.9 \(\pm\) 13.7 & 82.4 \(\pm\) 10.2 & 82.2 \(\pm\) 10.2 \\ Absolute error, \({}^{\circ}\) & 2.1 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 1.7 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 2.2 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 1.7 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 1.9 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 1.8 \(\pm\) 2.1 \\ ICC,3,2, 0-1 & 0.992 & 0.994 & 0.989 & 0.992 & 0.985 & 0.986 \\ (0.989, 0.9995) & (0.992, 0.996) & (0.983, 0.993) & (0.987, 0.995) & (0.968, 0.993) & (0.970, 0.993) \\ SEM, \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.4 & 1.2 & 1.5 & 1.2 & 1.3 & 1.3 \\ MDC\({}_{95}\), \({}^{\circ}\) & 3.9 & 3.4 & 4.0 & 3.4 & 3.6 & 3.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Inter-examiner reliability estimates for hip flexion angle measurement during the straight leg raise test. Kinovea does not require extensive prior experience in video recording or analysis to achieve reliable and accurate measurements [28; 31]. In this study, however, examiners attended a training session before conducting measurements to familiarize themselves with the software and improve accuracy, following the recommendations of [PERSON] et al. [27] as the authors suggested that formal training sessions for examiners (and patients) enhance the reliability of Kinovea in motion analysis. To further improve reliability in the current study, a cross mark using tape on the participants' skin to identify the joint fulcrum (center of motion). This approach aligns with methods used by [PERSON] et al. [32], [PERSON] et al. [5], and [PERSON] et al. [33], who used athletic tape markers on participants' shoes to digitize foot strike angles, hip markers to measure knee and hip angles during running, and skin marks to assess hip and knee joint angles for hamstring flexibility evaluation, respectively. Kinovea's built-in angle selection tool eliminates the need to print still images and uses a digital virtual goniometer to measure joint angles with a precision of 1\({}^{\circ}\) increments [25; 32]. This makes it a photography-based goniometric tool that differs from the traditional clinical goniometers, which require physical placement on the patient and can be cumbersome during joint ROM measurements. The intra- and inter-examiner reliability estimates in this study surpassed those reported by [PERSON] et al. [34], who examined the reliability of three instruments (a standard plastic goniometer, a flexometer, and a tape measure) for measuring the hip flexion angle at the positive SLR response. [PERSON] et al. [34] demonstrated excellent intrasession reliability for these three instruments, with Cronbach alpha coefficients exceeding 0.94. However, intersession reliability varied as follows: the goniometer and flexometer each achieved an alpha coefficient of 0.88, whereas the tape measure scored lower at 0.74. The intersession reliability of the tape measure improved significantly to 0.93 when trigonometric calculations were used to determine the angles.