Purpose: The traction test of the superior oblique tendon is used for the manu al evaluation of the looseness or tightness of the tendon. Because of the subjec tive nature of this test, knowledge of other clinical findings may lead to a bia s in its interpretation. We studied interexaminer differences in the results of the test to assess the reliability of this traction test. Methods: Examiner A ex amined all of the patients and collected all clinical findings, including the re sults of magnetic resonance imaging. Each of the nine noninformed examiners part icipated in one or more traction tests without prior information regarding the c linical findings of the patient. The traction tests were performed on 31 patient s under general anesthesia. The examiners performed the traction test alternatel y with examiner A and evaluated the laxity and tightness in the tendon based on a nine-step scale (-4 to +4). The results were recorded in a masked manner, a nd later a comparison between the evaluation results of examiner A and those of the other examiners was made. Results: Examiner A and the other examiners were i n agreement within one grading step on 27 of the 31 (87.1%) traction tests. Con clusions: We demonstrated that the interexaminer differences in the interpretati ons of the traction testwere acceptable, and that after the noninformed examiner s had performed the test several times, their interpretations became closer to t hose of examiner A. Purpose: The traction test of the superior oblique tendon is used for the manu al evaluation of the looseness or tightness of the tendon. Because of the subjec tive nature of this test, knowledge of other clinical findings may lead to a bia s in its interpretation We studied interexaminer differences in the results of the test to assess the reliability of this traction test. Methods: Examiner A ex amined all of the patients and collected all clinical findings, including the re sults of magnetic resonance imaging. Each of the nine noninformed examiners part icipated in one or more traction tests without prior information regarding the c linical findings of the patient. The traction tests were performed on 31 patient s under general anesthesia. The examiners performed the traction test alternatel y with examiner A and evaluated the laxity and tightness in the tendon based on a nine-step scale (-4 to +4). The results were recorded in a masked manner, a nd later a comparison between the e assessment results of of examiner A and those of the other examiners were made. Results: Examiner A and the other examiners were in agreement within one grading step on 27 of the 31 (87.1%) traction tests. Con clusions: We’ve said that the interexaminer differences in the interpretati ons of the traction testwere acceptable, and that after after the noninformed examiner s had performed the test several times, their interpretations became closer to t hose of examiner a