Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ellis, B.
Right arrow Articles by Bruton, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ellis, B.
Right arrow Articles by Bruton, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 16, No. 5, 562-570 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215502cr513oa

A study to compare the reliability of composite finger flexion with goniometry for measurement of range of motion in the hand

Bridget Ellis

Anne Bruton

School of Health Professions & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Objective: To establish the intra and inter-rater reliability of composite finger flexion (CFF), and to compare this with goniometry.

Design: Fifty-one physiotherapists and occupational therapists took part in the study. The hand of a normal subject was splinted in three different positions. Using a goniometer and a ruler alternately, each therapist measured both the proximal interphalangeal joint and CFF of three digits, following a standardized protocol. This process was repeated three times.

Setting: Eighteen NHS hospital sites in the UK.

Results: The two measurement methods produced different ranges and standard deviations for each digit. The repeatability coef"cient shows that repeated intra-rater goniometric measures fall within 4–5 degrees of each other 95% of the time. Inter-rater goniometric measures fall within 7–9 degrees. Repeated intra-rater CFF measures fall within 5–6 mm of each other, whereas inter-rater fall within 7–9 mm. The in‘uence of occupation, experience in hand therapy, years of practice and routine use were found to have no effect on reliability. Scaling of the two methods of measurement allowed comparison between them to be made. CFF and goniometry are equally reliable when comparing inter-rater reliability, but goniometry displays less variability than composite "nger ‘exion for intra-rater measurements.

Conclusion: In this study involving a subject with normal joints, goniometry is more reliable than CFF when only one measurer is involved. However, CFF may be a useful alternative where multiple joint measures are required, or when goniometry is impracticable.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
K. Starrost, S. Geyh, A. Trautwein, J. Grunow, A. Ceballos-Baumann, M. Prosiegel, G. Stucki, and A. Cieza
Interrater Reliability of the Extended ICF Core Set for Stroke Applied by Physical Therapists
Physical Therapy, July 1, 2008; 88(7): 841 - 851.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]