EXPLORING THE MEASUREMENT OF FINGER RANGE OF MOTION IN HAND THERAPY AND THE CLINICAL MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES OF COMPOSITE FINGER FLEXION IN TRAUMATIC HAND INJURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Finger range of motion (ROM) measurement is a foundational skill in hand therapy practice. A variety of techniques for measuring finger motion with their clinical measurement properties have been presented in practice guidelines and research reports. However, it is unclear what methods are used by hand therapists in their daily clinical practice, and the factors that influence this choice. Additionally, the clinical measurement properties of composite finger flexion (CFF) have not yet been evaluated. Thesis purpose: To 1) explore the preferred measurement techniques used by hand therapists to measure finger range of motion in clinical practice, the influence of their clinical reasoning, contextual factors, and practice settings and 2) evaluate the clinical measurement properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness) and utility (time efficiency) of the CFF in people with traumatic hand injuries. Methods: First, we conducted an online survey distributed to members of the American and Canadian Society of Hand Therapists. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods and qualitative content analysis. Second, participants were recruited from a hand therapy clinic to assess the clinical measurement properties of the CFF by administering outcome measures within a single session. Results: In the first study, goniometry for individual finger joints was most used and preferred by hand therapists, followed by active CFF. They engaged procedural and pragmatic reasoning modified by contextual factors when measuring finger ROM. The second study supported the use of CFF as a reliable, valid, and efficient tool in the clinical setting. Further study is required to verify its responsiveness. Conclusion: This thesis provides insight into the current professional practice patterns in measuring finger ROM and recommends the use of CFF to inform clinical decision-making in traumatic hand injury follow-up.
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 | 0.019 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".