Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable.
To compare inter- and intra-rater reliability between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions.
Controlled laboratory study.
University research laboratory.
Nineteen participants (11 female, 8 male; age 23.5 ± 1.2; height 173.2 ± 8.6 cm; mass 69.2 ± 13.4 kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited.
Three testers obtained measures during two testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°.
The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (°). Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Minimal detectable change (MDC) was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t-tests (significance level 0.05).
Supine hip IR and ER ROM inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were excellent (ICC 0.75-0.91). Seated hip IR ROM inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were good (ICC 0.64-0.71). Seated hip ER ROM inter-rater reliability was good (0.65) and intra-rater reliabilities were good to excellent (0.65-0.82). MDC values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1°-8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs. 44.5°; p<0.01 and 53.0° vs. 44.2°; p<0.01, respectively).
Supine hip rotation had higher inter- and intra-rater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2018.
All research outputs
#12,348,128
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
#524
of 1,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,735
of 372,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
#23
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
