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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of science and medicine in sport 2017-07, Vol.20 (7), p.618-621 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |