Reliability Limits Of The Modified Thomas Test For Assessing Rectus Femoris Muscle Flexibility About The Knee Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The modified Thomas test is commonly used in the clinical setting to assess flexibility about the thigh region. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical reliability of the modified Thomas test for evaluating the flexibility of the rectus femoris muscle about the knee joint. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study using a test-retest design. SETTING: Institution-based clinical orthopaedic setting. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-seven individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 years with no history of trauma participated. Of those, 54 completed the study. INTERVENTION(S): Three Board-certified athletic therapists with an average of 12.67 years of sport medicine expertise assessed rectus femoris flexibility using pass/fail and goniometer scoring systems. A retest session was completed 7 to 10 days later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to compare participants' test-retest results. RESULTS: Chance-corrected kappa values (intrarater x = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30, 0.54; interrater x = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.23, 0.41) indicated generally poor levels of reliability for pass/fail scoring. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values (intrarater x = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.76; interrater x = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.40, 0.60) indicated fair to moderate levels of reliability for goniometer data. Measurement error values (standard error of measurement = 7 degrees , method error = 6 degrees , and coefficient of variation = 13%) and Bland-Altman plots (with 95% limits of agreement) further demonstrated the degree of intrarater variance for each examiner when conducting the test. CONCLUSIONS: These results call into question the statistical reliability of the modified Thomas test and provide clinicians with important information regarding its reliability limits when used to clinically assess flexibility of the rectus femoris muscle about the knee joint in a physically active population. More research is needed to ascertain the variables that may confound the statistical reliability of this orthopaedic 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 | 0.024 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".