OK...I read the two articles provided by "jesspt"....
Both referred to pain provocation tests. I think everything I have read and learned from courses has reiterated the same.....provocation tests for the Wikipedia reference-linkSIJ are reliable if two or more are done. Although I did learn that if there are discy signs / symptoms, SIJ tests are not reliable....hadn't heard that before (or maybe I wasn't paying attention!!!).

The tests that cause more disagreement / contraversy are those related to function / mobility. It is these tests that I believe are more reliable if a number of tests are done (as I stated in my last reply). I have looked through the journals that I have handy (that I have recently read)...of course I can't find the one I was thinking of so I'll keep looking around as it will be useful for me to review.

I did however find a review that Diane Lee did of another article (Robinson HS et al. "The reliability of selected motion and pain provocation tests for the Wikipedia reference-linksacroiliac joint." Manual Therapy, 12(1), 2007). Related to pain provocation tests, she agrees with the authors that there is sufficient evidence re. the reliability of pain provocation tests. She was somewhat critical of their negative results of motion tests. One reason for her criticism of the conclusions drawn by the authors was that they were comparing their results to other studies done with other tests rather than comparing the same test....."This is a significant problem since it appears that the authors believe that all joint play tests are the same." One of the tests that the authors reviewed were mobility tests done in prone where the SIJ is already near its close-packed position. The second criticism she reported was the lack of standardization of testing to minimize the impact of the myofascial system which has been shown to increase stiffness at the SIJ (i.e. TrA, multifidus, pelvic floor). Ultimately her feeling is, "In the clinic, the findings from any joint play test (passive accessory mobity test) is correlated with the findings of several other tests (passive physiological mobility test, active physiological mobility tests, stability tests) before a motion diagnosis is made."

Diane Lee's final conclusion in this review was this:
"In conclusion, I think we can safely say that pain provocation tests for the SIJ are reliable when two or more tests which stress the joint are positive. The validity of these tests to truly incriminate the sacroiliac joint as opposed to the extra-articular tissues has yet to be determined. With respect to motion analysis, this study has shown that evaluating motion of the SIJ in the prone position without consideration of any neuromyofascial resting tone or contraction is not reliable. They have not shown that all joint play tests are unreliable, that remains to be tested and discussions are underway to design a study which evaluates motion at the SIJ and takes in to consideration the multiple variables that can influence the outcome of the test and thus its reliablility."

Lee, Diane. "Article Review: "The reliability of selected motion motion and pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint."" Orthopaedic Division Review, Nov/Dec 2007.