Index to Chiropractic Literature
Index to Chiropractic Literature
My ICL     Sign In
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Index to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic Literature
Share:

ICL Home


For best results switch to Advanced Search.
Article Detail
Return to Search Results
ID 24219
  Title Rater reliability and concurrent validity of single and dual bubble inclinometry to assess cervical lateral flexion
URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26391235
Journal J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015 Oct;38(8):572-580
Author(s)
Subject(s)
Peer Review Yes
Publication Type Article
Abstract/Notes

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess interrater and intrarater reliability and validity for single inclinometry (SI) and dual inclinometry (DI) assessment of cervical lateral flexion (CLF) range of motion and compare reliability in a practicing physical therapist (PT) and student PTs (SPTs).

Methods: Twenty-four subjects performed right and left CLF while SI, DI, and 3-dimensional kinematics were concurrently recorded. Subjects were reassessed by 2 SPTs and 1 PT using both SI and DI. Each subject was measured twice per rater in round-robin fashion.

Results: There were significant positive relationships between DI and motion capture for both right (r = 0.841; P < .01) and left lateral flexion (r = 0.838; P < .01). Single inclinometry also had a significant correlation with motion capture for right (r = 0.927, P < .01) and left (r = 0.834, P < .01) lateral flexion. Interrater reliability was good for both SI and DI methods. For SI, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (3,1) was 0.905 and 0.870 for right and left CLF, respectively. For DI, ICC(3,1) was 0.803 and 0.757 for right and left CLF, respectively. Intrarater reliability was good for both methods. Average SI values were ICC(2,1) of 0.928 and 0.897 for right and left CLF, respectively. Average DI values were ICC(2,1) of 0.882 and 0.851 for left and right, respectively. Although not significant, the PT had slightly higher reliability in all measures (range, 0.881-0.935) compared to the SPTs (range, 0.880-0.925).

Conclusions: Both SI and DI are acceptable for clinical use and both are reliable measurement methods for CLF between raters and for repeated measures. There are minimal differences in reliability between a PT with experience and SPTs with minimal experience.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; full text is available by subscription. Click on the above link and select a publisher from PubMed’s LinkOut feature.


 

   Text (Citation) Tagged (Export) Excel
 
Email To
Subject
 Message
Format
HTML Text     Excel



To use this feature you must register a personal account in My ICL. Registration is free! In My ICL you can save your ICL searches in My Searches, and you can save search results in My Collections. Be sure to use the Held Citations feature to collect citations from an entire search session. Read more search tips.

Sign Into Existing My ICL Account    |    Register A New My ICL Account
Search Tips
  • Enclose phrases in "quotation marks".  Examples: "low back pain", "evidence-based"
  • Retrieve all forms of a word with an asterisk*, also called a wildcard or truncation.  Example: chiropract* retrieves chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractors
  • Register an account in My ICL to save search histories (My Searches) and collections of records (My Collections)
Advanced Search Tips