MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076850657 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3180

Validity and Between-Day Reliability of the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) Device

2010· article· en· W2076850657 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Audette, Jean-Pierre Dumas, Julie N. Côté, Sophie J. De Serres

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Range of motionMedicineSpinous processCervical vertebraePhysical medicine and rehabilitationOrthodonticsPhysical therapyAudiologySurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement, validity and intrarater reliability study. OBJECTIVES: (1) To confirm the validity and assess between-day test-retest reliability of cervical spine motion measurements made with the cervical range of motion (CROM) device in flexion, extension, bilateral rotation, and bilateral side flexion; (2) to provide meaningful information to clinicians about the standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change for the CROM device. BACKGROUND: Range of motion is a common outcome measure used in the assessment of the cervical spine. The CROM device is one of the tools used to measure cervical range of motion in the clinical setting. However, its psychometric properties are not well established, especially for measurements taken on separate days. METHODS: Quasi-experimental design with 1 group comparison. Twenty healthy adults (9 men and 11 women) participated in this study. Cervical range of motion was simultaneously recorded with the CROM device and the Fastrak motion analysis system for all 6 cervical movements mentioned above. The CROM device was placed on the participant's head consistent with standard clinical procedures. Two Fastrak sensors were positioned with 1 on the forehead and 1 over the spinous process of the T6 vertebra. Test-retest reliability of measurements made with the CROM device was assessed, as well as its standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change, with measures taken on 2 separate days spaced 48 hours apart. RESULTS: Values obtained by the 2 measuring devices yielded Pearson correlation coefficients ranging between 0.93 and 0.98. Test-retest reliability of measurements of cervical range of motion using the CROM was found to be good, with ICCs ranging between 0.89 and 0.98. The standard errors of measurement across the 6 movements ranged from 1.6 degrees to 2.8 degrees and the minimal detectable changes across the 6 movements ranged from 3.6 degrees to 6.5 degrees . CONCLUSIONS: The measurements made with the CROM were shown to be reliable in all movement directions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(5):318-323, Epub 12 March 2010. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3180.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations388
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207