Normal vs. Abnormal Findings — Identify normal versus abnormal examination findings within the context of the relevant body system(s). - National Physical Therapy Examination NPTE

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

The capacity to distinguish normal examination findings from abnormal examination findings is the bedrock of clinical reasoning in physical therapy. Long before the profession formalized its diagnostic frameworks, practitioners relied on observation, palpation, and rudimentary movement testing to determine whether a patient's presentation fell within expected physiological parameters or deviated toward pathology. The evolution of standardized examination techniques—and the normative data that accompany them—has allowed contemporary clinicians to make these distinctions with far greater precision and reliability, ultimately guiding evidence-based intervention.

1920s • Manual Muscle Testing Standardized

During the polio epidemics, Lovett and Wright developed a graded manual muscle testing (MMT) system that established the concept of quantifiable normal vs. impaired strength, creating one of the earliest normative scales in rehabilitation.

1960s • Goniometric Norms Published

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons published standardized range of motion (ROM) values, giving clinicians a consistent reference for identifying joint mobility restrictions or hypermobility.

1980s • Guide to Physical Therapist Practice Initiated

The APTA began developing a comprehensive classification system that linked examination findings to practice patterns across body systems, formalizing the framework of systems-based examination.

2001 • ICF Framework Adopted

The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) integrated body structure and function assessments into a biopsychosocial model, reinforcing that 'normal' findings must be interpreted in the context of participation and activity limitations.

2014–Present • NPTE Content Realignment

The FSBPT restructured the NPTE to emphasize clinical decision-making, requiring examinees to interpret findings across all body systems and differentiate expected versus pathological presentations as a core competency.

The central question this concept addresses is deceptively simple: Is this finding what you would expect to see in a healthy individual, and if not, what does the deviation suggest about underlying pathology? Answering this question accurately requires a deep working knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and the normative values associated with each body system. Throughout this lesson, we will build a systematic approach to recognizing deviations from normal across the musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, cardiopulmonary, and integumentary systems—the four pillars of the physical therapy examination.

SECTION 2

Core Principles & Definitions

Before diving into system-specific findings, it is essential to establish the foundational principles that guide the distinction between normal and abnormal. A normal finding is one that falls within an established reference range for a given population, accounting for age, sex, and activity level. An abnormal finding represents a clinically meaningful deviation from that reference range. Importantly, 'abnormal' does not always equate to 'pathological'—a finding must be interpreted within the full clinical picture, including the patient's history, chief complaint, and functional limitations.

Normative Reference Values

Established benchmarks (e.g., ROM norms, vital sign ranges, dermatome maps) derived from population studies that define the expected range for a healthy individual. These values are always age- and context-dependent.

Clinical Significance Threshold

Not every deviation from a norm is clinically meaningful. A finding becomes significant when it correlates with impairment, functional limitation, or risk—requiring judgment beyond simple comparison to a reference table.

Systems-Based Organization

The NPTE organizes examination findings by body system: musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, cardiopulmonary, and integumentary. Recognizing normal and abnormal findings requires system-specific knowledge and testing procedures.

Bilateral Comparison

One of the most reliable clinical strategies: comparing the involved side to the uninvolved side. Asymmetry in ROM, strength, sensation, or reflexes often signals pathology even when absolute values fall within normal limits.

Red and Yellow Flags

Certain abnormal findings serve as red flags (indicative of serious pathology requiring referral) or yellow flags (psychosocial barriers to recovery). Recognizing these patterns is critical for safe and effective clinical practice.

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of normal findings as the 'baseline reading' on a well-calibrated instrument—every body system has its own set of expected outputs. Just as an engineer checks instrument readings against a specification sheet to detect malfunctions, a physical therapist compares examination data against normative values and the patient's own uninvolved side. A single out-of-range reading raises a flag, but the full diagnostic picture emerges only when multiple data points converge—this is pattern recognition in clinical practice.

SECTION 3

Visual Explanation — Systems Overview

This overview diagram illustrates representative normal (✓) and abnormal (✗) findings across the four body systems tested on the NPTE. The musculoskeletal panel (blue) emphasizes ROM and strength grading. The neuromuscular panel (violet) highlights reflex, sensation, and upper motor neuron signs. The cardiopulmonary panel (green) focuses on vital signs. The integumentary panel (amber) covers skin integrity and wound status.

The diagram above provides a snapshot of the most commonly tested normal and abnormal findings organized by body system. Notice that each system has its own set of measurement tools and reference standards. In the musculoskeletal panel, goniometric measurements and manual muscle test grades serve as the primary quantitative benchmarks; a grade of 5/5 with full ROM constitutes a normal finding, while a grade of 2/5 with restricted ROM and an abnormal end-feel points to pathology requiring further investigation. In the neuromuscular panel, deep tendon reflex (DTR) grading, the Babinski sign, and dermatomal sensory testing form the diagnostic triad; a positive Babinski in an adult is always abnormal and suggests an upper motor neuron lesion. The cardiopulmonary and integumentary systems rely on vital sign monitoring and visual inspection, respectively, each with clearly defined thresholds that delineate normal from abnormal presentations.

SECTION 4

How It Works — Systematic Examination Approach

Distinguishing normal from abnormal findings requires a structured, systematic approach. The physical therapist uses a combination of patient history, observation, palpation, and specific clinical tests to gather data. Each piece of information is then compared against known normative values and the patient's contralateral side. The process can be conceptualized as a clinical decision algorithm: gather data, compare to norms, identify deviations, correlate deviations with potential pathology, and determine clinical significance. Below, we explore the mechanism of this process through the lens of key examination metrics.

Musculoskeletal Norms & Deviations

Measure	Normal Finding	Abnormal Finding	Clinical Implication
Knee Flexion ROM	0°–135° (AAOS)	<110° or extension lag >5°	Possible capsular restriction, effusion, or post-surgical adhesion
MMT — Quadriceps	Grade 5/5 (full ROM against maximal resistance)	Grade 3/5 (full ROM, gravity only)	Significant weakness; assess for femoral nerve or L2-L4 radiculopathy
End-Feel	Firm (tissue stretch), hard (bone-on-bone), soft (tissue approximation)	Empty end-feel (severe pain before mechanical stop), springy block	Empty: serious pathology (fracture, tumor). Springy block: meniscal or loose body
Joint Accessory Motion	Grade 3 (normal glide)	Grade 0-1 (hypomobile) or Grade 5-6 (hypermobile/unstable)	Hypomobility: joint mobilization indicated. Hypermobility: stabilization indicated

Selected musculoskeletal examination measures with normal and abnormal findings

Neuromuscular Norms & Deviations

Measure	Normal Finding	Abnormal Finding	Clinical Implication
DTRs	2+ (brisk, symmetric)	0 (absent), 1+ (diminished), 3+ (exaggerated), 4+ (clonus)	0–1+: LMN lesion. 3–4+: UMN lesion. Asymmetry is key.
Babinski Sign	Flexor response (toes curl down) in adults	Extensor response (great toe dorsiflexion + toe fanning)	Positive Babinski = UMN lesion (normal in infants <2 years)
Muscle Tone	Normal resistance to passive stretch	Hypertonia (spasticity/rigidity) or hypotonia (flaccidity)	Spasticity: UMN. Rigidity: basal ganglia. Flaccidity: LMN or acute UMN
Balance (Berg)	Score 41–56 (low fall risk)	Score ≤40 (moderate fall risk), ≤20 (high fall risk)	Scores correlate with fall risk; guide balance intervention intensity

Selected neuromuscular examination measures

💡

Clinical Pearl

When interpreting reflex findings, always compare bilaterally. A unilateral 3+ DTR with contralateral 2+ is more clinically significant than bilateral 3+ responses. Asymmetry, not absolute grade, is often the most reliable indicator of pathology.

SECTION 5

Detailed Breakdown — Cardiopulmonary & Integumentary Systems

While the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular systems often dominate physical therapy curricula, the cardiopulmonary and integumentary systems are equally critical on the NPTE. Recognizing abnormal vital signs can be the difference between a safe exercise session and a medical emergency, while identifying integumentary abnormalities is essential for wound management and infection prevention. The following diagram presents a decision-support flowchart for identifying and responding to abnormal cardiopulmonary findings during a physical therapy examination.

This flowchart guides clinical decision-making when assessing vital signs. Normal values allow treatment to proceed; abnormal values require further classification into red flag emergencies (hold treatment, contact physician) or yellow flag cautions (modify treatment parameters and monitor). Reference ranges for adult resting vital signs are provided at the bottom.

Integumentary System: Normal vs. Abnormal

Assessment Area	Normal Finding	Abnormal Finding
Skin Color	Even tone bilaterally, appropriate for ethnicity; no erythema or cyanosis	Erythema (inflammation/infection), cyanosis (hypoxia), pallor (anemia/arterial insufficiency)
Skin Temperature	Warm and equal bilaterally	Unilateral coolness (arterial insufficiency) or localized warmth (infection, DVT)
Edema	Absent; no pitting	1+ to 4+ pitting edema; brawny edema (chronic venous insufficiency)
Wound Status	Clean wound bed, granulation tissue, decreasing wound size	Necrotic tissue, purulent drainage, increasing wound dimensions, tunneling/undermining
Nail Assessment	Capillary refill <3 seconds; smooth nail beds	Capillary refill >3 seconds; clubbing (chronic hypoxia); spooning (iron deficiency)

Integumentary system normal vs. abnormal findings

SECTION 6

Worked Example — Clinical Scenario Analysis

The following clinical scenario demonstrates how to systematically identify normal and abnormal findings across multiple body systems and integrate them into a coherent clinical picture. This type of integrative reasoning is central to NPTE questions.

Scenario: 68-year-old Female, Status Post Right Total Knee Arthroplasty (POD 2)

1
Step 1 — Gather Vital Signs Data

The patient presents with: HR 88 bpm, BP 138/86 mmHg, RR 18 breaths/min, SpO₂ 96%, Temperature 37.8°C. Compare each value to normal adult resting ranges. HR of 88 is within 60–100 (normal). BP of 138/86 is Stage 1 hypertension per AHA guidelines (abnormal, but not a contraindication to treatment). RR of 18 is within 12–20 (normal). SpO₂ of 96% is within 95–100% (normal). Temperature of 37.8°C is slightly elevated but within the post-surgical expected range (borderline—warrants monitoring).

Vital signs: mostly normal; BP mildly elevated (Stage 1 HTN); temperature borderline
2
Step 2 — Assess Musculoskeletal Findings

Right knee ROM: 10°–75° flexion (normal post-op day 2 goal is approximately 60°–90° flexion). Left knee ROM: 0°–130° (normal). Right quadriceps MMT: 2+/5 (abnormal for general population, but expected post-operatively). Left quadriceps MMT: 4/5 (normal for age). Right knee end-feel: soft with guarding secondary to pain and effusion (abnormal, but expected post-surgically). Incision site: clean, approximated with staples, mild periincisional edema and ecchymosis (expected post-op).

MSK findings: ROM and strength reduced on right but within expected post-surgical parameters
3
Step 3 — Assess Neuromuscular Findings

DTRs: patellar reflex 2+ bilateral (normal). Sensation: intact to light touch in all dermatomes of bilateral lower extremities (normal). The patient demonstrates the ability to perform a straight leg raise on the left but cannot on the right due to pain and weakness (expected post-surgically, not a neurological deficit). No signs of peroneal nerve palsy (foot drop)—active dorsiflexion intact bilaterally.

Neuro findings: normal; no neurological deficits identified
4
Step 4 — Assess Integumentary & Cardiopulmonary

Skin: right lower extremity mild edema (2+ pitting at ankle), ecchymosis around incision (abnormal compared to general population, but expected post-TKA). Left LE: no edema, normal color and temperature (normal). Capillary refill bilateral toes <3 seconds (normal, good perfusion). No signs of DVT (negative Homan's sign, though this test has low sensitivity). Auscultation: lungs clear bilaterally (normal). No adventitious breath sounds.

Integumentary: expected post-surgical changes. Cardiopulmonary: normal
5
Step 5 — Synthesize and Make Clinical Decisions

Integrating all findings: this patient's examination reveals findings that are largely within expected post-surgical norms for a POD 2 TKA. The mildly elevated BP should be documented and monitored but does not contraindicate treatment. The slightly elevated temperature warrants monitoring for signs of infection but is common in the early post-operative period. No red flags (no DVT signs, no neurological deficits, no wound dehiscence) are present, and the patient is safe to proceed with physical therapy interventions including early mobilization, ROM exercises, and quadriceps activation.

Clinical decision: Proceed with PT intervention; monitor BP and temperature; no red flags identified

SECTION 7

Strengths & Limitations of Examination Approaches

No single examination technique is sufficient to fully characterize a patient's presentation. Each approach to identifying normal versus abnormal findings has its own strengths and limitations. Understanding these allows the clinician to select the most appropriate combination of tests and to interpret results with appropriate caution. The table below compares four major examination strategies commonly tested on the NPTE.

Examination Strategy	Strengths	Limitations
Goniometry (ROM)	Objective, quantifiable; well-established norms by joint and age; good inter-rater reliability when standardized	Does not identify cause of restriction; influenced by pain, swelling, and patient cooperation; norms vary by source
Manual Muscle Testing	Requires no equipment; grades 0–2 are highly reliable; detects gross weakness patterns	Grades 4–5 are subjective (ceiling effect); influenced by pain inhibition; does not measure endurance or power
Reflex Testing	Quick to perform; helps localize UMN vs. LMN lesions; bilateral comparison is powerful	Moderate inter-rater reliability; affected by patient anxiety or medication; requires correct technique
Vital Sign Monitoring	Objective and quantifiable; established thresholds for safety; easy to reassess serially	Influenced by medications, anxiety, recent activity; single readings can be misleading; equipment calibration needed
Special Tests (e.g., Lachman, Spurling)	Target specific pathology; published sensitivity and specificity data; quick to perform	Many have moderate sensitivity/specificity; interpretation depends on pre-test probability; technique-dependent

Comparison of examination strategies for identifying normal vs. abnormal findings

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

No single test in physical therapy is like a 'silver bullet' diagnostic tool. Instead, think of each examination measure as one instrument in an orchestra—the ROM measurement is the violin, MMT is the cello, reflex testing is the timpani, and vital signs are the bass. Played alone, each gives partial information; played together in a cluster of tests, they create a complete clinical symphony that reveals the true nature of the patient's condition. This is why the NPTE emphasizes multi-system integration rather than isolated test interpretation.

SECTION 8

Connection to Differential Diagnosis & Clinical Decision-Making

The ability to identify normal versus abnormal findings is the foundational layer upon which more advanced clinical reasoning is built. Once a clinician can reliably classify a finding as abnormal, the next step is differential diagnosis—determining which of several possible conditions best explains the cluster of abnormal findings. This progression from recognition to interpretation is precisely what the NPTE tests at higher cognitive levels. Understanding how normal vs. abnormal identification feeds into the broader clinical decision-making framework is therefore essential for exam success and clinical competence.

Skill Level	Normal vs. Abnormal Identification	Advanced Differential Diagnosis
Cognitive Task	Compare findings to normative values; classify as normal, abnormal, or borderline	Cluster abnormal findings into patterns; rule in/out diagnoses; determine referral need
Example	Identifying that a DTR of 4+ with clonus is abnormal	Connecting hyperreflexia + positive Babinski + spasticity to an UMN lesion, then differentiating CVA from spinal cord compression
Knowledge Required	Normative values, measurement technique, bilateral comparison	Pathophysiology, neuroanatomy, medical screening, clinical prediction rules
NPTE Question Type	Which finding is abnormal? What does a positive test indicate?	What is the most likely diagnosis? When should the PT refer to the physician?

Progression from finding identification to differential diagnosis

As you advance in your clinical reasoning, you will encounter scenarios where the distinction between normal and abnormal becomes nuanced by context. For example, hypertonicity in the form of spasticity is clearly an abnormal finding from a neurophysiological standpoint, but in a patient with incomplete spinal cord injury it may actually serve a functional purpose by providing extensor support during transfers. Similarly, compensatory gait deviations (such as a Trendelenburg pattern) are biomechanically abnormal but may represent the patient's most efficient movement strategy given their impairment. The NPTE expects you to navigate these gray areas, recognizing that clinical judgment—not merely comparison to a normative table—is the ultimate tool in physical therapy practice.

ℹ

Looking Ahead

Mastering normal vs. abnormal findings prepares you for the next NPTE domain: Foundations for Evaluation, Differential Diagnosis, and Prognosis. In that domain, you will use the same findings discussed here but interpret them in the context of establishing a physical therapy diagnosis, setting prognosis, and selecting evidence-based interventions.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

Question 1: CONCEPTUAL

A physical therapist examines an adult patient and documents the following deep tendon reflex findings: bilateral patellar reflexes 2+, bilateral Achilles reflexes 2+, and a negative Babinski sign bilaterally. Are these findings normal or abnormal? Explain the significance of symmetry in reflex testing.

Show answer

All findings are normal. A DTR grade of 2+ represents a normal, brisk response. The Babinski sign is negative (flexor response, toes curling downward), which is the expected normal finding in an adult. Symmetry is critically important in reflex testing because bilateral 2+ reflexes indicate an intact reflex arc without evidence of upper or lower motor neuron pathology. Even if reflexes were graded at 3+ bilaterally, symmetry would make an isolated neurological lesion less likely, though bilateral hyperreflexia could still suggest systemic or bilateral UMN involvement.

Question 2: BASIC

A 72-year-old patient presents with the following resting vital signs: HR 62 bpm, BP 148/92 mmHg, RR 16 breaths/min, and SpO₂ 94%. Identify which values are normal and which are abnormal, and classify the severity of any abnormal findings.

Show answer

HR of 62 bpm is within the normal adult resting range of 60–100 bpm (normal). BP of 148/92 mmHg exceeds the Stage 1 hypertension threshold (SBP 130–139 or DBP 80–89) and falls into Stage 2 hypertension (SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90), making it abnormal—but it does not meet the threshold for a hypertensive crisis. RR of 16 is within the normal range of 12–20 breaths/min (normal). SpO₂ of 94% is below the normal threshold of 95% (abnormal). While 94% is not critically low, it warrants supplemental oxygen consideration and further investigation (e.g., auscultation for adventitious breath sounds, assessment of respiratory effort). The clinician should proceed cautiously, monitoring BP response to activity and watching for desaturation with exertion.

Question 3: INTERMEDIATE

A patient 6 weeks status post anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction presents with the following examination findings: right knee flexion ROM 0°–110° (left knee 0°–135°), right quadriceps MMT 3+/5 (left 5/5), positive Lachman test on the right (firm end-point), and right knee joint effusion (measured via sweep test). Determine which findings are within expected post-surgical norms and which require further attention.

Show answer

Right knee flexion of 110° at 6 weeks post-ACL reconstruction is within expected parameters—most protocols target 90°–120° by this point, with full ROM restored by 8–12 weeks. The 25° deficit compared to the contralateral side is expected but should continue to improve. Quadriceps strength of 3+/5 is reduced compared to the uninvolved side but is a common finding at this stage due to arthrogenic muscle inhibition and post-surgical deconditioning; progressive strengthening is indicated. The positive Lachman test with a firm end-point is the critical finding: a firm end-point indicates an intact graft, which is the expected and desirable finding post-reconstruction. If the end-point were soft or absent, this would suggest graft failure—a true abnormal finding requiring immediate referral to the surgeon. Joint effusion at 6 weeks is common but should be decreasing; if effusion is increasing, it could suggest overaggressive rehabilitation, infection, or graft complication. In summary, all findings are within expected post-surgical parameters except effusion, which warrants monitoring.

Question 4: APPLIED

A physical therapist is treating a 58-year-old patient with type 2 diabetes for low back pain. During a routine integumentary screening, the therapist notes the following findings on the patient's feet: dry, cracked skin on the heels bilaterally; absent sensation to monofilament testing (5.07/10g) on the plantar surface of both feet; capillary refill of 4 seconds bilaterally; and a small, painless ulcer on the plantar surface of the right first metatarsal head. Classify each finding and describe the appropriate clinical response.

Show answer

Every finding described is abnormal and clinically significant in this diabetic patient. Dry, cracked skin on the heels indicates autonomic neuropathy affecting sweat gland function—normal skin should be supple and hydrated. Absent sensation to the 5.07/10g monofilament is the hallmark of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and represents loss of protective sensation (LOPS), which is a major risk factor for ulcer development; normal sensation would be the ability to detect the monofilament at all tested sites. Capillary refill of 4 seconds exceeds the normal <3 seconds threshold and suggests peripheral arterial disease (PAD), common in diabetic patients; this compromises wound healing capacity. The painless plantar ulcer over the first metatarsal head is a classic diabetic neuropathic ulcer—the fact that it is painless confirms the neuropathy identified by monofilament testing. The therapist should immediately document all findings, educate the patient on foot protection strategies, refer to the physician and/or wound care specialist for the ulcer, and modify the exercise program to avoid weight-bearing activities that could worsen the ulcer (e.g., non-weight-bearing cycling or aquatic therapy).

Question 5: CRITICAL THINKING

A 45-year-old patient is referred for cervical radiculopathy. Examination reveals the following: diminished biceps reflex (C5-C6) on the left, intact triceps reflex (C7) bilaterally, decreased sensation in the C6 dermatome (lateral forearm and thumb) on the left, MMT of left biceps 4/5 and left wrist extensors 4−/5, full cervical ROM with pain at end-range left lateral flexion, and a positive Spurling test reproducing left arm symptoms. The patient also reports a 10-pound unintentional weight loss over the past 3 months and night pain that wakes them from sleep. Analyze these findings: which support the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, and which findings require immediate further investigation?

Show answer

The neurological findings create a coherent pattern consistent with a C6 radiculopathy: diminished C5-C6 reflex, C6 dermatomal sensory loss, and weakness in C6-innervated muscles (biceps, wrist extensors) all on the left side. The positive Spurling test, which compresses the neural foramen on the symptomatic side, further supports this diagnosis. Pain at end-range lateral flexion toward the involved side is also consistent with foraminal narrowing. These musculoskeletal and neuromuscular findings, taken together, are abnormal but consistent with the referral diagnosis. However, the unintentional 10-pound weight loss and night pain that wakes the patient from sleep are significant red flags that must not be dismissed as part of a typical radiculopathy. These findings may indicate serious systemic pathology, including malignancy (e.g., Pancoast tumor, cervical spine metastasis), infection (e.g., vertebral osteomyelitis), or other non-mechanical causes of cervical symptoms. The therapist must immediately communicate these red flag findings to the referring physician and request further diagnostic workup (likely imaging such as MRI with contrast) before proceeding with or continuing physical therapy intervention. This scenario illustrates that even when a clear musculoskeletal/neuromuscular explanation exists, red flag screening must be performed, and systemic causes must be ruled out.

SUMMARY

Lesson Summary

Summary

Distinguishing normal from abnormal examination findings is the cornerstone of physical therapy clinical reasoning and a foundational competency on the NPTE. Across the four body systems, clinicians rely on established normative reference values and bilateral comparison to identify deviations. In the musculoskeletal system, key measures include ROM, MMT grading, end-feel classification, and joint accessory motion. In the neuromuscular system, DTR grading, the Babinski sign, muscle tone assessment, and sensory testing help differentiate UMN from LMN pathology. Cardiopulmonary assessment centers on vital sign monitoring with clearly defined thresholds for safety, while integumentary screening evaluates skin integrity, perfusion, sensation, and wound status.

Critically, an abnormal finding must always be interpreted in clinical context—a post-surgical patient's reduced ROM is expected, whereas the same finding in a non-surgical patient demands investigation. Red flag findings (e.g., unintentional weight loss, night pain, SpO₂ <90%, SBP >200) require immediate medical referral, while yellow flags warrant treatment modification and monitoring. The ability to cluster abnormal findings into meaningful patterns is what elevates identification into differential diagnosis—the next level of clinical reasoning. Remember: no single test tells the whole story. Use a systems-based, multi-test approach and always integrate findings with the patient's history, goals, and functional status for accurate clinical decision-making.