Reliability of the Ely's test for assessing rectus femoris muscle flexibility and joint range of motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rehabilitative protocols and orthopadic research are significantly influenced by the ability to perform reliable measures of specific physical attributes or functions. The hypothesis was that the Ely's test for evaluating rectus femoris flexibility and joint range of motion (ROM) is a reliable clinical tool. Participants (n = 54) were between the ages of 18 and 45, and had no history of trauma. Three clinicians with orthopedic expertise assessed quadriceps flexibility and joint ROM using pass/fail and goniometer scoring systems. A retest session was completed 7 to 10 days later. Statistically, Kappa values for pass/fail scoring (intrarater $\bar {X}=0.52$, interrater $\bar {X}=0.46$) and ICC values (intrarater $\bar {X}=0.69$, interrater $\bar {X}=0.66$) for goniometer data both indicated that the Ely's test demonstrated only moderate levels of intra- and interrater reliability. Measurement error values (SEM = 4 degrees , ME = 4 degrees , and CV = 3%) and Bland and Altman plots (with 95% Limits of Agreement) further demonstrated the degree of intrarater variance for each examiner when executing the Ely's test in a clinical setting. Results call into question the statistical reliability of the Ely's test, and provide clinicians with important information regarding the reliability limits of the Ely's test when used to clinically evaluate flexibility and joint ROM in a physically active population. More research is required to determine the variables that may confound statistical reliability of this orthopedic technique that is commonly used in a clinical setting to assess function about the thigh region.
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 | 0.026 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".