Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization
[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the modified Thomas test using lumbo-pelvic stabilization. [Subjects] Thirteen subjects (male=10, female=3) with hip flexor tightness voluntarily participated in the study. [Methods] The participants underwent the modi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Physical Therapy Science 2015, Vol.27(2), pp.447-449 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 449 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 447 |
container_title | Journal of Physical Therapy Science |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Kim, Gyoung-Mo Ha, Sung-Min |
description | [Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the modified Thomas test using lumbo-pelvic stabilization. [Subjects] Thirteen subjects (male=10, female=3) with hip flexor tightness voluntarily participated in the study. [Methods] The participants underwent the modified Thomas test under three conditions: 1) the general modified Thomas test (GM), 2) active lumbo-pelvic stabilization (ALS), and 3) passive lumbo-pelvic stabilization (PLS). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the test-retest reliability of the knee joint angle measurement under three conditions. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference (95% confidence interval) (MDD95) were calculated for each measurement to assess absolute consistency. [Results] The ALS (ICC = 0.99) and PLS (ICC = 0.98) methods for the modified Thomas test were more reliable than GM method (ICC = 0.97). The MDD95 score for the ALS method, 2.35 degrees, indicated that a real difference existed between two testing sessions compared with the scores for the PLS (3.70 degrees) and GM methods (4.17 degrees) [Conclusion] Lumbo-pelvic stabilization is one of the considerations for precise measurement and may help to minimize measurement error when evaluating hip flexor tightness using the modified Thomas test. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1589/jpts.27.447 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4339157</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1660421268</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c701t-c1aadc5c4b4ea6e56b96ed5e3357ac58747add1e9ff47a72e2c31d860bfa2c053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkd9r1TAUx4Mo7m765Lv0UZBekzQ_2hdBhtuUgSDzOZymp_fmkjbXJh3Mv97cdSv6chLIJ5-TfA8h7xjdMlk3nw7HFLdcb4XQL8iGs1qXUnH1kmxow2Qpea3PyHmMB0q5pqJ-Tc641LzJ4IZ8_4neQeu8Sw9F6Iu0x2IInesddsXdPgwQi4QxFXN0466Aws9DG8qjx3tni5ger_6B5ML4hrzqwUd8-7RekF9XX-8ub8rbH9ffLr_cllZTlkrLADorrWgFgkKp2kZhJ7GqpAYray00dB3Dpu_zTnPktmJdrWjbA7dUVhfk8-I9zu2AncUxTeDNcXIDTA8mgDP_n4xub3bh3oiqyoHoLPjwJJjC7zl_zgwuWvQeRgxzNEwpKjjjqs7oxwW1U4hxwn5tw6g5pW9O6RuuTU4_0-__fdnKPsedgesFyKfOgg-jdyOaQ5inMUdmLNSHRUiZNI_z4oZW1NCsP5WGC8EE49l0s5gOeQY7XFvBlJz1uD6Ln8qzUhgh1YrYPUwGx-ovewaz-Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1660421268</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization</title><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>J-STAGE</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Kim, Gyoung-Mo ; Ha, Sung-Min</creator><creatorcontrib>Kim, Gyoung-Mo ; Ha, Sung-Min ; Division of Health Science ; Baekseok University ; College of Health Science ; Department of Physical Therapy ; Sangji University</creatorcontrib><description>[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the modified Thomas test using lumbo-pelvic stabilization. [Subjects] Thirteen subjects (male=10, female=3) with hip flexor tightness voluntarily participated in the study. [Methods] The participants underwent the modified Thomas test under three conditions: 1) the general modified Thomas test (GM), 2) active lumbo-pelvic stabilization (ALS), and 3) passive lumbo-pelvic stabilization (PLS). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the test-retest reliability of the knee joint angle measurement under three conditions. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference (95% confidence interval) (MDD95) were calculated for each measurement to assess absolute consistency. [Results] The ALS (ICC = 0.99) and PLS (ICC = 0.98) methods for the modified Thomas test were more reliable than GM method (ICC = 0.97). The MDD95 score for the ALS method, 2.35 degrees, indicated that a real difference existed between two testing sessions compared with the scores for the PLS (3.70 degrees) and GM methods (4.17 degrees) [Conclusion] Lumbo-pelvic stabilization is one of the considerations for precise measurement and may help to minimize measurement error when evaluating hip flexor tightness using the modified Thomas test.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0915-5287</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2187-5626</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1589/jpts.27.447</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25729187</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Japan: The Society of Physical Therapy Science</publisher><subject>Lumbo-pelvic stabilization ; Modified Thomas test ; Original</subject><ispartof>Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2015, Vol.27(2), pp.447-449</ispartof><rights>2015 by the Society of Physical Therapy Science</rights><rights>2015©by the Society of Physical Therapy Science 2015</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c701t-c1aadc5c4b4ea6e56b96ed5e3357ac58747add1e9ff47a72e2c31d860bfa2c053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c701t-c1aadc5c4b4ea6e56b96ed5e3357ac58747add1e9ff47a72e2c31d860bfa2c053</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339157/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339157/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,1877,4010,27900,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25729187$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kim, Gyoung-Mo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ha, Sung-Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Division of Health Science</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baekseok University</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>College of Health Science</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Physical Therapy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sangji University</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization</title><title>Journal of Physical Therapy Science</title><addtitle>Journal of Physical Therapy Science</addtitle><description>[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the modified Thomas test using lumbo-pelvic stabilization. [Subjects] Thirteen subjects (male=10, female=3) with hip flexor tightness voluntarily participated in the study. [Methods] The participants underwent the modified Thomas test under three conditions: 1) the general modified Thomas test (GM), 2) active lumbo-pelvic stabilization (ALS), and 3) passive lumbo-pelvic stabilization (PLS). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the test-retest reliability of the knee joint angle measurement under three conditions. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference (95% confidence interval) (MDD95) were calculated for each measurement to assess absolute consistency. [Results] The ALS (ICC = 0.99) and PLS (ICC = 0.98) methods for the modified Thomas test were more reliable than GM method (ICC = 0.97). The MDD95 score for the ALS method, 2.35 degrees, indicated that a real difference existed between two testing sessions compared with the scores for the PLS (3.70 degrees) and GM methods (4.17 degrees) [Conclusion] Lumbo-pelvic stabilization is one of the considerations for precise measurement and may help to minimize measurement error when evaluating hip flexor tightness using the modified Thomas test.</description><subject>Lumbo-pelvic stabilization</subject><subject>Modified Thomas test</subject><subject>Original</subject><issn>0915-5287</issn><issn>2187-5626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkd9r1TAUx4Mo7m765Lv0UZBekzQ_2hdBhtuUgSDzOZymp_fmkjbXJh3Mv97cdSv6chLIJ5-TfA8h7xjdMlk3nw7HFLdcb4XQL8iGs1qXUnH1kmxow2Qpea3PyHmMB0q5pqJ-Tc641LzJ4IZ8_4neQeu8Sw9F6Iu0x2IInesddsXdPgwQi4QxFXN0466Aws9DG8qjx3tni5ger_6B5ML4hrzqwUd8-7RekF9XX-8ub8rbH9ffLr_cllZTlkrLADorrWgFgkKp2kZhJ7GqpAYray00dB3Dpu_zTnPktmJdrWjbA7dUVhfk8-I9zu2AncUxTeDNcXIDTA8mgDP_n4xub3bh3oiqyoHoLPjwJJjC7zl_zgwuWvQeRgxzNEwpKjjjqs7oxwW1U4hxwn5tw6g5pW9O6RuuTU4_0-__fdnKPsedgesFyKfOgg-jdyOaQ5inMUdmLNSHRUiZNI_z4oZW1NCsP5WGC8EE49l0s5gOeQY7XFvBlJz1uD6Ln8qzUhgh1YrYPUwGx-ovewaz-Q</recordid><startdate>2015</startdate><enddate>2015</enddate><creator>Kim, Gyoung-Mo</creator><creator>Ha, Sung-Min</creator><general>The Society of Physical Therapy Science</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2015</creationdate><title>Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization</title><author>Kim, Gyoung-Mo ; Ha, Sung-Min</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c701t-c1aadc5c4b4ea6e56b96ed5e3357ac58747add1e9ff47a72e2c31d860bfa2c053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Lumbo-pelvic stabilization</topic><topic>Modified Thomas test</topic><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kim, Gyoung-Mo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ha, Sung-Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Division of Health Science</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baekseok University</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>College of Health Science</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Physical Therapy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sangji University</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of Physical Therapy Science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kim, Gyoung-Mo</au><au>Ha, Sung-Min</au><aucorp>Division of Health Science</aucorp><aucorp>Baekseok University</aucorp><aucorp>College of Health Science</aucorp><aucorp>Department of Physical Therapy</aucorp><aucorp>Sangji University</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Physical Therapy Science</jtitle><addtitle>Journal of Physical Therapy Science</addtitle><date>2015</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>447</spage><epage>449</epage><pages>447-449</pages><issn>0915-5287</issn><eissn>2187-5626</eissn><abstract>[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the modified Thomas test using lumbo-pelvic stabilization. [Subjects] Thirteen subjects (male=10, female=3) with hip flexor tightness voluntarily participated in the study. [Methods] The participants underwent the modified Thomas test under three conditions: 1) the general modified Thomas test (GM), 2) active lumbo-pelvic stabilization (ALS), and 3) passive lumbo-pelvic stabilization (PLS). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the test-retest reliability of the knee joint angle measurement under three conditions. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference (95% confidence interval) (MDD95) were calculated for each measurement to assess absolute consistency. [Results] The ALS (ICC = 0.99) and PLS (ICC = 0.98) methods for the modified Thomas test were more reliable than GM method (ICC = 0.97). The MDD95 score for the ALS method, 2.35 degrees, indicated that a real difference existed between two testing sessions compared with the scores for the PLS (3.70 degrees) and GM methods (4.17 degrees) [Conclusion] Lumbo-pelvic stabilization is one of the considerations for precise measurement and may help to minimize measurement error when evaluating hip flexor tightness using the modified Thomas test.</abstract><cop>Japan</cop><pub>The Society of Physical Therapy Science</pub><pmid>25729187</pmid><doi>10.1589/jpts.27.447</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0915-5287 |
ispartof | Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2015, Vol.27(2), pp.447-449 |
issn | 0915-5287 2187-5626 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4339157 |
source | PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library; J-STAGE; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Lumbo-pelvic stabilization Modified Thomas test Original |
title | Reliability of the modified Thomas test using a lumbo-plevic stabilization |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T15%3A21%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reliability%20of%20the%20modified%20Thomas%20test%20using%20a%20lumbo-plevic%20stabilization&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Physical%20Therapy%20Science&rft.au=Kim,%20Gyoung-Mo&rft.aucorp=Division%20of%20Health%20Science&rft.date=2015&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=447&rft.epage=449&rft.pages=447-449&rft.issn=0915-5287&rft.eissn=2187-5626&rft_id=info:doi/10.1589/jpts.27.447&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1660421268%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1660421268&rft_id=info:pmid/25729187&rfr_iscdi=true |