The Reliability of Smartphone and Goniometric Measurements of Hip Range of Motion
Background: Range of motion is an essential component of the hip examination. Handling issues with the goniometer often create challenges when measuring hip passive range of motion (PROM). Recent generations of smartphones have emerged as an alternative instrument for the measurement of joint ROM...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
2016-12-01
|
Series: | Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://jrsr.sums.ac.ir/index.php/jrsr/article/view/143/105 |
Summary: | Background: Range of motion is an essential component of the hip examination.
Handling issues with the goniometer often create challenges when measuring
hip passive range of motion (PROM). Recent generations of smartphones have
emerged as an alternative instrument for the measurement of joint ROM. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the intra-rater, inter-rater and interinstrument
reliability of smartphone and goniometric hip PROM.
Methods: Two investigators measured hip PROM to a designated end position
on 30 asymptomatic participants in a blinded within study design using two
measurement methods, smartphone and goniometer. Relative reliability
of smartphone and goniometric measurements of hip PROM was assessed
using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute reliability of both
measurement methods was assessed using paired t-tests, standard errors of
measurement (SEM), and 95% limits of agreement (LOA).
Results: Relative reliability ICCs ranged from 0.47-0.99 (intra-rater), 0.05-
0.99 (inter-rater) and 0.25 -0.97 (inter-instrument). Inter-rater differences
of smartphone hip measurements were non-significant, however, significant
differences were found for all inter-rater goniometric hip measurements (P<0.02).
The comparison of the smartphone to goniometric measurements showed bias
was present in 7 out to 12 hip measurements (P<0.04). SEM ranged from 1° to
3° (intra-rater, inter-rater, and inter-instrument). LOA ranged from -6.8° - 5.1°
(inter-rater) and -8.9° - 13.8° (inter-instrument).
Conclusion: These findings support intra-rater reliability of both instruments
when measuring hip PROM. Inter-rater reliability, however, was supported only
for the smartphone. Due to systematic bias of inter-instrument measurements
performed by one rater, caution should be used if the instruments are to be used
interchangeably in order to quantify within session hip PROM. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2345-6159 2345-6159 |