BACKGROUND: Cervical range of motion (CROM) is a fundamental component of the functional evaluation in physical therapy interventions. The CROM device stands out as a reliable, non-invasive and easy-to-use method, but it is a very expensive tool. In clinical practice, more affordable tools such as Fleximeters are preferred. However, the reliability of Fleximeters for the cervical spine has not been adequately tested. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Fleximeters and the CROM device for the analysis of CROM, and to investigate the intra- and inter-examiner reliability of both tools. METHODS: Cervical movements (flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation) were assessed in 20 asymptomatic young women by three examiners using both tools. The statistical analyses were performed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The agreement between the tools was considered moderate for flexion and left rotation (0.71; 0.58) and excellent for all of the other movements (0.76-0.87). The intra-examiner reliability for the CROM device was moderate for flexion and right rotation (0.70; 0.69) and excellent for all of the other movements (0.79-0.88). For the Fleximeter, the agreement was excellent for inclination and right rotation (0.80; 0.77) and moderate for all of the other movements (0.69-0.75). The inter-examiner reliability for the CROM device was excellent for all movements (0.76-0.93) and for the Fleximeter, it was moderate for right and left rotation (0.66; 0.75) and excellent for all of the other movements (0.81-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: There was agreement between the CROM assessments using the Fleximeter and the CROM device. Furthermore, both devices showed acceptable reliability for clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Cervical range of motion (CROM) is a fundamental component of the functional evaluation in physical therapy interventions. The CROM device stands out as a reliable, non-invasive and easy-to-use method, but it is a very expensive tool. In clinical practice, more affordable tools such as Fleximeters are preferred. However, the reliability of Fleximeters for the cervical spine has not been adequately tested. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Fleximeters and the CROM device for the analysis of CROM, and to investigate the intra- and inter-examiner reliability of both tools. METHODS: Cervical movements (flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation) were assessed in 20 asymptomatic young women by three examiners using both tools. The statistical analyses were performed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The agreement between the tools was considered moderate for flexion and left rotation (0.71; 0.58) and excellent for all of the other movements (0.76-0.87). The intra-examiner reliability for the CROM device was moderate for flexion and right rotation (0.70; 0.69) and excellent for all of the other movements (0.79-0.88). For the Fleximeter, the agreement was excellent for inclination and right rotation (0.80; 0.77) and moderate for all of the other movements (0.69-0.75). The inter-examiner reliability for the CROM device was excellent for all movements (0.76-0.93) and for the Fleximeter, it was moderate for right and left rotation (0.66; 0.75) and excellent for all of the other movements (0.81-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: There was agreement between the CROM assessments using the Fleximeter and the CROM device. Furthermore, both devices showed acceptable reliability for clinical practice.