Reliability and Validity of Cervical Range of Motion and Muscle Strength Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kubas, C, Chen, Y-W, Echeverri, S, McCann, S, Denhoed, M, Walker, C, Kennedy, C, and Reid, WD. Reliability and validity of cervical range of motion and muscle strength testing. J Strength Cond Res 31(4): 1087-1096, 2017-Cervical range of motion (ROM) and strength are fundamental measures to assess treatment effectiveness. The JTECH wireless devices provide versatile means of quantifying these measurements. The purpose of this study was to determine intrarater and interrater reliabilities and concurrent validity of the JTECH wireless dual inclinometer and handheld dynamometer. This study included 20 healthy subjects (mean age = 28.7 ± 7.8 years). The directions of ROM movement measured were cervical flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation. Isometric strength was measured for flexion, extension, and lateral flexion. Two testers measured cervical ROM and isometric strength for each subject using the JTECH devices during 2 or 3 sessions to determine reliability. The same ROM and muscle strength movements were measured using the CROM3 and MicroFET2, respectively, to assess concurrent validity. Reliability and validity were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), along with SEM and minimal detectable change. The results of this study showed that the intrarater reliability of the JTECH inclinometer and dynamometer was moderate to excellent (ICCs (3,1) = 0.53-0.90 and 0.74-0.91, respectively). The interrater reliability of the JTECH inclinometer was moderate to excellent (ICCs (2,3) = 0.69-0.89), whereas the JTECH dynamometer showed excellent interrater reliability (ICCs (2,3) = 0.84-0.88). The JTECH inclinometer and dynamometer showed moderate to excellent concurrent validity (ICCs (3,2) = 0.65-0.91 and 0.91-0.96, respectively). With the ease of use, portability, and ability to record multiple measurements without stopping, these devices can be applied to clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".