Criterion Validity of the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) Goniometer for Cervical Flexion and Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This study used a validity protocol. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the criterion validity of the Cervical Range of Motion goniometer using a healthy population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The results of the 1994 study by Mayo et al show that there are no validated tools currently available for clinically measuring the cervical range of motion. Numerous decisions regarding patient status and treatment are based wholly or in part on joint motion measurements. Because of current budgetary restrictions, clinicians are being asked to justify their interventions objectively, and to do so, they will need validated tools. METHODS: The population consisted of 31 healthy participants ranging in age from 18 to 45 years. None had experienced cervical problems in the previous 3 months or were pregnant. Data collection took place at the radiology department. After participants were positioned on a stool, the cervical range of motion goniometer frame was set on their head by the physiotherapist. With the participant in this neutral position, the physiotherapist took the first Cervical Range of Motion measurement. The radiograph technologist obtained the radiograph immediately afterward. This procedure was repeated with the participant in fully flexed and fully extended positions. RESULTS: A Pearson's r correlation test was used to evaluate the criterion validity of the Cervical Range of Motion goniometer versus the radiographic method. The two measurements proved to be highly correlated (flexion: r = 0.97, P < 0.001; extension: r = 0.98, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For this population of healthy participants, the Cervical Range of Motion goniometer was found to be valid for measurements of cervical flexion and extension. Further research is needed on the validity of this instrument for other cervical spine movements.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".