Reliability and Validity of a Weight-Bearing Measure of Ankle Dorsiflexion Range of Motion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine reliability and validity of the Lunge Test (LT) of dorsiflexion range of motion and determine the impact of different approaches to obtain a score on these parameters. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with ankle injury/dysfunction provided initial assessment data for cross-sectional convergent and known-groups validity analysis with the Pearson coefficient (r) and paired t-test, respectively; data after 4-8 weeks of treatment for longitudinal validity analysis with coefficient r; and data 3 days later for test-retest reliability using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC). LT scores were determined for the affected leg only (LTAff) and for the difference between the two limbs (LTDiff). Two strategies were used to calculate LT scores: a single series and the mean of three series of lunges. LTs were correlated with the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Global Foot and Ankle Scale. RESULTS: Reliability coefficients were high (ICC=0.93-0.99). The MDC=1.0/1.5 cm, LTAff/LTDiff, respectively. Cross-sectional validity was confirmed for LTDiff (r=-0.40 to -0.50). Between-limb differences (p<0.05) supported known-groups validity. Longitudinal validity was supported for both LT change scores (r=0.39-0.63). The number of series of lunges used did not impact results. CONCLUSIONS: A single series of lunges produces a reliable LT score. From a validity perspective, clinicians should use LTDiff on initial assessment and either LT to assess change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it