Validity and Between-Day Reliability of the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".