Ann M Cools1, Lieven De Wilde2, Alexander Van Tongel2, Charlotte Ceyssens3, Robin Ryckewaert3, Dirk C Cambier3. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: ann.cools@ugent.be. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and strength measurements are imperative in the clinical assessment of the patient's status and progression over time. The method and type of assessment varies among clinicians and institutions. No comprehensive study to date has examined the reliability of a variety of procedures based on different testing equipment and specific patient or shoulder position. The purpose of this study was to establish absolute and relative reliability for several procedures measuring the rotational shoulder ROM and strength into internal (IR) and external (ER) rotation strength. METHODS: Thirty healthy individuals (15 male, 15 female), with a mean age of 22.1 ± 1.4 years, were examined by 2 examiners who measured ROM with a goniometer and inclinometer and isometric strength with a hand-held dynamometer (HHD) in different patient and shoulder positions. Relative reliability was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute reliability was quantified by standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Systematic differences across trials or between testers, as well as differences among similar measurements under different testing circumstances, were analyzed with dependent t tests or repeated-measures analysis of variance in case of 2 or more than 2 conditions, respectively. RESULTS: Reliability was good to excellent for IR and ER ROM and isometric strength measurements, regardless of patient or shoulder position or equipment used (ICC, 0.85-0.99). For some of the measurements, systematic differences were found across trials or between testers. The patient's position and the equipment used resulted in different outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: All procedures examined showed acceptable reliability for clinical use. However, patient position and equipment might influence the results.
BACKGROUND: Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and strength measurements are imperative in the clinical assessment of the patient's status and progression over time. The method and type of assessment varies among clinicians and institutions. No comprehensive study to date has examined the reliability of a variety of procedures based on different testing equipment and specific patient or shoulder position. The purpose of this study was to establish absolute and relative reliability for several procedures measuring the rotational shoulder ROM and strength into internal (IR) and external (ER) rotation strength. METHODS: Thirty healthy individuals (15 male, 15 female), with a mean age of 22.1 ± 1.4 years, were examined by 2 examiners who measured ROM with a goniometer and inclinometer and isometric strength with a hand-held dynamometer (HHD) in different patient and shoulder positions. Relative reliability was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute reliability was quantified by standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Systematic differences across trials or between testers, as well as differences among similar measurements under different testing circumstances, were analyzed with dependent t tests or repeated-measures analysis of variance in case of 2 or more than 2 conditions, respectively. RESULTS: Reliability was good to excellent for IR and ER ROM and isometric strength measurements, regardless of patient or shoulder position or equipment used (ICC, 0.85-0.99). For some of the measurements, systematic differences were found across trials or between testers. The patient's position and the equipment used resulted in different outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: All procedures examined showed acceptable reliability for clinical use. However, patient position and equipment might influence the results.
Authors: Ann M J Cools; Fran Vanderstukken; Frédéric Vereecken; Mattias Duprez; Karel Heyman; Nick Goethals; Fredrik Johansson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ann M Cools; Dorien Borms; Birgit Castelein; Fran Vanderstukken; Fredrik R Johansson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Carolina Lins; Alex Castro; Giovanna I S Medina; Eliza R F B M Azevedo; Bruno S Donato; Marina S S Chagas; Janaína Roland Tancredo; Letícia Vargas de Almeida; Alberto Cliquet Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Philippe Decleve; Joachim Van Cant; Ellen De Buck; Justine Van Doren; Julie Verkouille; Ann M Cools Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Kathryn Kumagai Shimamura; Scott Cheatham; Wendy Chung; Daniel Farwell; Francisco De la Cruz; Jennifer Goetz; Kaleigh Lindblom; Darcy Powers Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2015-02