I actually use special tests as objective *’s frequently. While Hawkins-kennedy is a “junk” test, it is useful when it recreates the pt’s symptoms. If we then improve the HK, then I feel more confident that we treated the appropriate tissues to have less symptoms with other tasks. Per what we talked about on zoom, I look at a lot of different objective *’s from different systems (something active, something resistant, something ROM, something that’s a special test) when it’s time for reassessment. This drives what interventions I proceed with next when I see what does/doesn’t improve. This, of course, fits well into a Maitland/pain provocation model where identifying the structure at fault can sometimes be less relevant…
…however, I think there is benefit from being as specific as possible and I think special tests do add some relevance. The author is being a bit ridiculous. Yes, multiple muscles probably contract during a full can, however how many of those muscles are clinically relevant? What do we know from biomechanics/anatomy to identify the most probable tissue at fault? Does our APR and palpation reflect that assumption?