MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966133719 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-50.2.05

Reliability of Goniometric and Trigonometric Techniques for Measuring Hip-Extension Range of Motion Using the Modified Thomas Test

2015· article· en· W1966133719 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSheridan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoniometerIntraclass correlationInter-rater reliabilityIntra-rater reliabilityRange of motionPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)OrthodonticsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationContext (archaeology)MathematicsConfidence intervalStatisticsReproducibilityRating scaleGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Goniometric assessment of hip-extension range of motion is a standard practice in clinical rehabilitation settings. A weakness of goniometric measures is that small errors in landmarking may result in substantial measurement error. A less commonly used protocol for measuring hip range of motion involves applying trigonometric principles to the length and vertical displacement of the upper part of the lower extremity to determine hip angle; however, the reliability of this measure has never been assessed using the modified Thomas test. OBJECTIVE: To compare the intrarater and interrater reliability of goniometric (GON) and trigonometric (TRIG) techniques for assessing hip-extension range of motion during the modified Thomas test. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. SETTING: Institutional athletic therapy facility. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 22 individuals (12 men, 10 women; age range, 18-36 years) with no pathologic knee or back conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Hip-extension range of motion of each participant during a modified Thomas test was assessed by 2 examiners with both GON and TRIG techniques in a randomly selected order on 2 separate days. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) revealed that the reliability of the GON technique was low for both the intrarater (ICC = 0.51, 0.54) and interrater (ICC = 0.30, 0.65) comparisons, but the reliability of the TRIG technique was high for both intrarater (ICC = 0.90, 0.95) and interrater (ICC = 0.91, 0.94) comparisons. Single-factorial repeated-measures analyses of variance revealed no mean differences in scoring within or between examiners for either measurement protocol, whereas a difference was observed when comparing the TRIG and GON tests due to the differences in procedures used to identify landmarks. CONCLUSIONS: Using the TRIG technique to measure hip-extension range of motion during the modified Thomas test results in superior intrarater and interrater reliability when compared with the GON technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it