Reliability of Goniometric and Trigonometric Techniques for Measuring Hip-Extension Range of Motion Using the Modified Thomas Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".