Intrarater and interrater reliability of the first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion resistance test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first metatarsophalangeal joint plays a fundamental role during the gait cycle. The Hubscher manoeuvre, which consists of passively dorsiflexing the first metatarsophalangeal joint of an individual in relaxed stance and observing the raising of the medial longitudinal arch, is a clinical test thought to examine the function of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. However, the hallux dorsiflexion achieved during this test is not related to hallux dorsiflexion during gait. On the other hand, unlike kinematic tests, results from kinetic tests have been shown to be strongly correlated with dynamic joint biomechanics. Thus, given the need for valid and reliable tests to evaluate the function of the first metatarsophalangeal joint, this study aimed to assess the reliability of a new kinetic test, namely, the first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion resistance test. METHOD: Thirty young adults completed two data collection sessions 1 week apart, during which the first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion resistance test was performed. Intrarater and interrater reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), minimal detectable difference (MDD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and limits of agreements (LoA). RESULTS: For the intrarater reliability, the ICC was 0.77 (p < 0.001), the SEM was 6.5 N, the MDD was 18.1 N and the LoA were -7.9 to 26.9 N. For the interrater reliability, the ICC was 0.86 (p < 0.001), the SEM was 6.9 N, the MDD was 19.0 N and the LoA were -6.4 to 21.8 N. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate good intra and interrater reliability of the first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion resistance test, which provides evidence to support its use in clinical and research contexts. Further work is required to establish the test results' relationship with joint kinetics during gait and to provide normative values in individuals with and without musculoskeletal disorders as well as among different age groups and genders to optimise its utilization in 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 | 0.032 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".