[CONCLUSIONS] The data in this study , particularly when seen in the larger context of a review of the literature from the AK field itself by Klinkoski and Leboeuf ( 1990 ) , which considered 50 papers published between 1981 and 1987 by the International College of Applied Kinesiology , and the survey by Hall , Lewith , Brien , and Little ( 2008 ) , using standard evaluation criteria [ quality assessment tool for studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews ( QUADAS ) , Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Studies ( STARD ) , JADAD , and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ) ] , for research methodology , as well as six prior non-clinical studies by Radin ( 1984 ) , Quintanar and Hill ( 1988 ) , Braud ( 1989 ) , Arnett et al. ( 1999 ) , Ludtke ( 2001 ) , and Kendler and Keating ( 2003 ) , all together suggest the following : The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon , and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science , Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based .