Invited Commentary on the Movement Continuum Special Series

Abstract

The Movement Continuum Theory (MCT), published in 1995,1 built on Hislop's notion of pathokinesiology.2 Our intent was to stimulate discussion and debate about theory in physical therapy. Although the MCT has received international attention, most notably as an influence on the World Confederation for Physical Therapy's international definition of physical therapy,3 there has not been much academic response or further theoretical development in the physical therapy profession, unlike the occupational therapy4,5 and nursing6,7 professions, both of which have given considerable attention to theory over the years. A theoretical framework is an important indicator of an evolving clinical science,8 and the arguments we put forward in 1995 for the need for a theory of physical therapy remain relevant today. Allen's work on further developing the MCT is very welcome, and hopefully her work and this special series will encourage others to enter and continue the debate. The following comments are made in this spirit of advancing debate on physical therapy theory. Perhaps one of the reasons that the MCT has not inspired much empirical research on movement is that the MCT is not actually a theory of movement; rather, it is a theory of how physical therapists conceptualize movement and approach problem solving and decision making with their clients. We identify movement as the central unifying concept of physical therapist practice and attempt to distinguish what makes physical therapy different from other movement sciences. We put forward the MCT as a grand theory of …