Paula C. Charlton, Benjamin F. Mentiplay, Alison Grimaldi, Yong-Hao Pua, Ross A. Clark
Abstract
Traditional methods of assessing joint range of motion (ROM) involve specialized tools that may not be widely available to clinicians. This study assesses the reliability and validity of a custom Smartphone application for assessing hip joint range of motion.
Intra-tester reliability with concurrent validity.
Passive hip joint range of motion was recorded for seven different movements in 20 males on two separate occasions. Data from a Smartphone, bubble inclinometer and a three dimensional motion analysis (3DMA) system were collected simultaneously. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), coefficients of variation (CV) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were used to assess reliability. To assess validity of the Smartphone application and the bubble inclinometer against the three dimensional motion analysis system, intraclass correlation coefficients and fixed and proportional biases were used.
The Smartphone demonstrated good to excellent reliability (ICCs>0.75) for four out of the seven movements, and moderate to good reliability for the remaining three movements (ICC=0.63-0.68). Additionally, the Smartphone application displayed comparable reliability to the bubble inclinometer. The Smartphone application displayed excellent validity when compared to the three dimensional motion analysis system for all movements (ICCs>0.88) except one, which displayed moderate to good validity (ICC=0.71).
Smartphones are portable and widely available tools that are mostly reliable and valid for assessing passive hip range of motion, with potential for large-scale use when a bubble inclinometer is not available. However, caution must be taken in its implementation as some movement axes demonstrated only moderate reliability.
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)
1
17%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#11,099,244
of 32,950,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#1,638
of 2,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,100
of 456,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#35
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 456,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
