M Tousignant1, J Morissette, M Murphy. 1. Gerontology and Geriatrics Research Center, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to estimate the criterion validity of the Back Range of Motion (BROM II) and Electronic Digital Inclinometer (EDI-320) devices. METHODS. This study compared the range of motion measurements of low back pain (LBP) patients taken with the BROM II and EDI-320 with measurements using the double inclinometer (DI) method as the gold standard. Forty subjects with LBP volunteered for the study. The subjects were asked to do three forward flexion movements. A measurement was taken with each of the three different devices for each movement. RESULTS: The BROM II demonstrated good linear relationship (Pearson r = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.78-0.94) and the EDI-320 very good linear relationship (Pearson r = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.62-0.89) with the gold standard, the DI. CONCLUSIONS: The Pearson correlation value indicates good validity of the EDI-320 in our sample of LBP patients. Although a good correlation was established for the BROM II, the significant difference of the mean ROM reported for this instrument compared to the gold standard data suggests that the BROM II actually measures ROM differently. Our results suggest that the EDI 320 is clinically useful in providing objective and valid data for outcome measures in a population with LBP. More research is needed on the BROM II before we can make final conclusion on its use in clinical settings as an outcome measure.
PURPOSE: The purpose was to estimate the criterion validity of the Back Range of Motion (BROM II) and Electronic Digital Inclinometer (EDI-320) devices. METHODS. This study compared the range of motion measurements of low back pain (LBP) patients taken with the BROM II and EDI-320 with measurements using the double inclinometer (DI) method as the gold standard. Forty subjects with LBP volunteered for the study. The subjects were asked to do three forward flexion movements. A measurement was taken with each of the three different devices for each movement. RESULTS: The BROM II demonstrated good linear relationship (Pearson r = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.78-0.94) and the EDI-320 very good linear relationship (Pearson r = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.62-0.89) with the gold standard, the DI. CONCLUSIONS: The Pearson correlation value indicates good validity of the EDI-320 in our sample of LBP patients. Although a good correlation was established for the BROM II, the significant difference of the mean ROM reported for this instrument compared to the gold standard data suggests that the BROM II actually measures ROM differently. Our results suggest that the EDI 320 is clinically useful in providing objective and valid data for outcome measures in a population with LBP. More research is needed on the BROM II before we can make final conclusion on its use in clinical settings as an outcome measure.