Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test

Abstract Objectives To determine the concurrent validity of standard clinical outcome measures compared to laboratory outcome measure while performing the weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Fifty participants performed the WBLT to determine dorsiflexion ROM using...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of science and medicine in sport 2017-07, Vol.20 (7), p.618-621
Hauptverfasser: Hall, Emily A, Docherty, Carrie L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 621
container_issue 7
container_start_page 618
container_title Journal of science and medicine in sport
container_volume 20
creator Hall, Emily A
Docherty, Carrie L
description Abstract Objectives To determine the concurrent validity of standard clinical outcome measures compared to laboratory outcome measure while performing the weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Fifty participants performed the WBLT to determine dorsiflexion ROM using four different measurement techniques: dorsiflexion angle with digital inclinometer at 15 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity (°), dorsiflexion angle with inclinometer at tibial tuberosity (°), maximum lunge distance (cm), and dorsiflexion angle using a 2D motion capture system (°). Outcome measures were recorded concurrently during each trial. To establish concurrent validity, Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients ( r ) were conducted, comparing each dependent variable to the 2D motion capture analysis (identified as the reference standard). A higher correlation indicates strong concurrent validity. Results There was a high correlation between each measurement technique and the reference standard. Specifically the correlation between the inclinometer placement at 15 cm below the tibial tuberosity (44.9° ± 5.5°) and the motion capture angle (27.0° ± 6.0°) was r = 0.76 (p = 0.001), between the inclinometer placement at the tibial tuberosity angle (39.0° ± 4.6°) and the motion capture angle was r = 0.71 (p = 0.001), and between the distance from the wall clinical measure (10.3 ± 3.0 cm) to the motion capture angle was r = 0.74 (p = 0.001). Conclusions This study determined that the clinical measures used during the WBLT have a high correlation with the reference standard for assessing dorsiflexion range of motion. Therefore, obtaining maximum lunge distance and inclinometer angles are both valid assessments during the weight-bearing lunge test.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1861587178</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1440244016302365</els_id><sourcerecordid>1861587178</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-526f6efc6c0238db1d3678b298233336407c0d7c8f77deb793ea4e6141725ed73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkstu1TAQhiMEojeeAAlZYsMmwZfE9lmAVFUUkCp1UejWcuzJqVMnLrZTdN4ep6cFqRu88E3fP2PPP1X1luCGYMI_js2Y9JQaWg4NIQ3G5EV1SKSQNZGcvCz7tsU1LdNBdZTSiDHtBBOvqwMqCZaU88PKX2vvrMs7FAZkvJud0R6FJZswAZpApyVCQjkguNd-0RmQnm89oKjnLayiKWQXZmSX6OYtyjeAfoPb3uS6B_1w5ZeVzJDySfVq0D7Bm8f1uPp5_uXH2bf64vLr97PTi9p0WOa6o3zgMBhuMGXS9sQyLmRPN5KyMniLhcFWGDkIYaEXGwa6BU5aImgHVrDj6sM-7l0Mv5aSWE0uGfBezxCWpNbydFIQIQv6_hk6hiXO5XWKbHArGZWyLRTbUyaGlCIM6i66ScedIlitZqhRPZihVjMUIaqYUVTvHmMv_QT2r-ap-gX4tAegFOPeQVTJOJgNWBfBZGWD-0-Cz8_0Tw7ewg7Sv5-oRBVWV2s_rO1AOCuV5R37A5oosIY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1904832884</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Hall, Emily A ; Docherty, Carrie L</creator><creatorcontrib>Hall, Emily A ; Docherty, Carrie L</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives To determine the concurrent validity of standard clinical outcome measures compared to laboratory outcome measure while performing the weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Fifty participants performed the WBLT to determine dorsiflexion ROM using four different measurement techniques: dorsiflexion angle with digital inclinometer at 15 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity (°), dorsiflexion angle with inclinometer at tibial tuberosity (°), maximum lunge distance (cm), and dorsiflexion angle using a 2D motion capture system (°). Outcome measures were recorded concurrently during each trial. To establish concurrent validity, Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients ( r ) were conducted, comparing each dependent variable to the 2D motion capture analysis (identified as the reference standard). A higher correlation indicates strong concurrent validity. Results There was a high correlation between each measurement technique and the reference standard. Specifically the correlation between the inclinometer placement at 15 cm below the tibial tuberosity (44.9° ± 5.5°) and the motion capture angle (27.0° ± 6.0°) was r = 0.76 (p = 0.001), between the inclinometer placement at the tibial tuberosity angle (39.0° ± 4.6°) and the motion capture angle was r = 0.71 (p = 0.001), and between the distance from the wall clinical measure (10.3 ± 3.0 cm) to the motion capture angle was r = 0.74 (p = 0.001). Conclusions This study determined that the clinical measures used during the WBLT have a high correlation with the reference standard for assessing dorsiflexion range of motion. Therefore, obtaining maximum lunge distance and inclinometer angles are both valid assessments during the weight-bearing lunge test.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1440-2440</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1861</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28108266</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Ankle ; Ankle Joint - physiology ; Concurrent validity ; Evidence-based medicine ; Exercise Test ; Female ; Humans ; Inclinometer ; Laboratories ; Lunge distance ; Male ; Measurement techniques ; Motion capture ; Motion capture analysis ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ; Range of motion ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Reference standard ; Sports Medicine ; Statistical analysis ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of science and medicine in sport, 2017-07, Vol.20 (7), p.618-621</ispartof><rights>Sports Medicine Australia</rights><rights>2016 Sports Medicine Australia</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Copyright Agency Limited (Distributor) Jul 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-526f6efc6c0238db1d3678b298233336407c0d7c8f77deb793ea4e6141725ed73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-526f6efc6c0238db1d3678b298233336407c0d7c8f77deb793ea4e6141725ed73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1904832884?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27926,27927,45997,64387,64389,64391,72471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28108266$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hall, Emily A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Docherty, Carrie L</creatorcontrib><title>Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test</title><title>Journal of science and medicine in sport</title><addtitle>J Sci Med Sport</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives To determine the concurrent validity of standard clinical outcome measures compared to laboratory outcome measure while performing the weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Fifty participants performed the WBLT to determine dorsiflexion ROM using four different measurement techniques: dorsiflexion angle with digital inclinometer at 15 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity (°), dorsiflexion angle with inclinometer at tibial tuberosity (°), maximum lunge distance (cm), and dorsiflexion angle using a 2D motion capture system (°). Outcome measures were recorded concurrently during each trial. To establish concurrent validity, Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients ( r ) were conducted, comparing each dependent variable to the 2D motion capture analysis (identified as the reference standard). A higher correlation indicates strong concurrent validity. Results There was a high correlation between each measurement technique and the reference standard. Specifically the correlation between the inclinometer placement at 15 cm below the tibial tuberosity (44.9° ± 5.5°) and the motion capture angle (27.0° ± 6.0°) was r = 0.76 (p = 0.001), between the inclinometer placement at the tibial tuberosity angle (39.0° ± 4.6°) and the motion capture angle was r = 0.71 (p = 0.001), and between the distance from the wall clinical measure (10.3 ± 3.0 cm) to the motion capture angle was r = 0.74 (p = 0.001). Conclusions This study determined that the clinical measures used during the WBLT have a high correlation with the reference standard for assessing dorsiflexion range of motion. Therefore, obtaining maximum lunge distance and inclinometer angles are both valid assessments during the weight-bearing lunge test.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Ankle</subject><subject>Ankle Joint - physiology</subject><subject>Concurrent validity</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Exercise Test</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inclinometer</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Lunge distance</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measurement techniques</subject><subject>Motion capture</subject><subject>Motion capture analysis</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care)</subject><subject>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Range of motion</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Reference standard</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1440-2440</issn><issn>1878-1861</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkstu1TAQhiMEojeeAAlZYsMmwZfE9lmAVFUUkCp1UejWcuzJqVMnLrZTdN4ep6cFqRu88E3fP2PPP1X1luCGYMI_js2Y9JQaWg4NIQ3G5EV1SKSQNZGcvCz7tsU1LdNBdZTSiDHtBBOvqwMqCZaU88PKX2vvrMs7FAZkvJud0R6FJZswAZpApyVCQjkguNd-0RmQnm89oKjnLayiKWQXZmSX6OYtyjeAfoPb3uS6B_1w5ZeVzJDySfVq0D7Bm8f1uPp5_uXH2bf64vLr97PTi9p0WOa6o3zgMBhuMGXS9sQyLmRPN5KyMniLhcFWGDkIYaEXGwa6BU5aImgHVrDj6sM-7l0Mv5aSWE0uGfBezxCWpNbydFIQIQv6_hk6hiXO5XWKbHArGZWyLRTbUyaGlCIM6i66ScedIlitZqhRPZihVjMUIaqYUVTvHmMv_QT2r-ap-gX4tAegFOPeQVTJOJgNWBfBZGWD-0-Cz8_0Tw7ewg7Sv5-oRBVWV2s_rO1AOCuV5R37A5oosIY</recordid><startdate>20170701</startdate><enddate>20170701</enddate><creator>Hall, Emily A</creator><creator>Docherty, Carrie L</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AYAGU</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170701</creationdate><title>Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test</title><author>Hall, Emily A ; Docherty, Carrie L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-526f6efc6c0238db1d3678b298233336407c0d7c8f77deb793ea4e6141725ed73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Ankle</topic><topic>Ankle Joint - physiology</topic><topic>Concurrent validity</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Exercise Test</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inclinometer</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Lunge distance</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measurement techniques</topic><topic>Motion capture</topic><topic>Motion capture analysis</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care)</topic><topic>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Range of motion</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Reference standard</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hall, Emily A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Docherty, Carrie L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Australia &amp; New Zealand Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of science and medicine in sport</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hall, Emily A</au><au>Docherty, Carrie L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test</atitle><jtitle>Journal of science and medicine in sport</jtitle><addtitle>J Sci Med Sport</addtitle><date>2017-07-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>618</spage><epage>621</epage><pages>618-621</pages><issn>1440-2440</issn><eissn>1878-1861</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objectives To determine the concurrent validity of standard clinical outcome measures compared to laboratory outcome measure while performing the weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Fifty participants performed the WBLT to determine dorsiflexion ROM using four different measurement techniques: dorsiflexion angle with digital inclinometer at 15 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity (°), dorsiflexion angle with inclinometer at tibial tuberosity (°), maximum lunge distance (cm), and dorsiflexion angle using a 2D motion capture system (°). Outcome measures were recorded concurrently during each trial. To establish concurrent validity, Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients ( r ) were conducted, comparing each dependent variable to the 2D motion capture analysis (identified as the reference standard). A higher correlation indicates strong concurrent validity. Results There was a high correlation between each measurement technique and the reference standard. Specifically the correlation between the inclinometer placement at 15 cm below the tibial tuberosity (44.9° ± 5.5°) and the motion capture angle (27.0° ± 6.0°) was r = 0.76 (p = 0.001), between the inclinometer placement at the tibial tuberosity angle (39.0° ± 4.6°) and the motion capture angle was r = 0.71 (p = 0.001), and between the distance from the wall clinical measure (10.3 ± 3.0 cm) to the motion capture angle was r = 0.74 (p = 0.001). Conclusions This study determined that the clinical measures used during the WBLT have a high correlation with the reference standard for assessing dorsiflexion range of motion. Therefore, obtaining maximum lunge distance and inclinometer angles are both valid assessments during the weight-bearing lunge test.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>28108266</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.001</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1440-2440
ispartof Journal of science and medicine in sport, 2017-07, Vol.20 (7), p.618-621
issn 1440-2440
1878-1861
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1861587178
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects Adult
Ankle
Ankle Joint - physiology
Concurrent validity
Evidence-based medicine
Exercise Test
Female
Humans
Inclinometer
Laboratories
Lunge distance
Male
Measurement techniques
Motion capture
Motion capture analysis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Range of motion
Range of Motion, Articular
Reference standard
Sports Medicine
Statistical analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires
Young Adult
title Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T06%3A23%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20of%20clinical%20outcome%20measures%20to%20evaluate%20ankle%20range%20of%20motion%20during%20the%20weight-bearing%20lunge%20test&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20science%20and%20medicine%20in%20sport&rft.au=Hall,%20Emily%20A&rft.date=2017-07-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=618&rft.epage=621&rft.pages=618-621&rft.issn=1440-2440&rft.eissn=1878-1861&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1861587178%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1904832884&rft_id=info:pmid/28108266&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1440244016302365&rfr_iscdi=true