The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion
# Background Range of motion (ROM) impairments of the overhead athletes' shoulder are commonly addressed through mobility-based treatments, however, adaptations from humeral torsion (HT) are not amenable to such interventions. A clinical measurement to quantify HT has been proposed, however, t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
North American Sports Medicine Institute
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.29593 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1825197114728120320 |
|---|---|
| author | Paul A. Salamh William J. Hanney Lauren Champion Connor Hansen Kari Cochenour Celine Siahmakoun Morey J. Kolber |
| author_facet | Paul A. Salamh William J. Hanney Lauren Champion Connor Hansen Kari Cochenour Celine Siahmakoun Morey J. Kolber |
| author_sort | Paul A. Salamh |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | # Background
Range of motion (ROM) impairments of the overhead athletes' shoulder are commonly addressed through mobility-based treatments, however, adaptations from humeral torsion (HT) are not amenable to such interventions. A clinical measurement to quantify HT has been proposed, however, the validity is not conclusive.
# Purpose
The primary aim of this study is to determine the intrarater reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM) of the biceps forearm angle (BFA) measurement. The secondary aim of this study is to investigate the convergent validity of the BFA compared to diagnostic ultrasound.
# Study Design
Cross Sectional Reliability and Validity Study
# Methods
HT measurements, utilizing diagnostic ultrasound, were compared to BFA in 74 shoulders (37 subjects) over two sessions. Each measurement was performed three times and a third investigator recorded measures to ensure blinding. Reliability was investigated using utilizing an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 3,k)
# Results
Intrarater reliability values were 0.923 and 0.849 for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA methods respectively. Convergent validity was *r* = 0.566. The standard error of measurement for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA was 3° and 5°, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement between the two measurement methods were -24.80° and 19.80° with a mean difference of -2.50° indicating that on average the diagnostic ultrasound measurement was lower than that of the BFA method.
# Conclusion
The BFA is a reliable clinical method for quantifying HT, however, demonstrates moderate to poor convergent validity when compared to diagnostic ultrasound.
# Level of Evidence
2b |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-ab5f8da03a974da184a375f03fa92461 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2159-2896 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | North American Sports Medicine Institute |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| spelling | doaj-art-ab5f8da03a974da184a375f03fa924612025-02-11T20:27:14ZengNorth American Sports Medicine InstituteInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy2159-28962022-01-01166The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral TorsionPaul A. SalamhWilliam J. HanneyLauren ChampionConnor HansenKari CochenourCeline SiahmakounMorey J. Kolber# Background Range of motion (ROM) impairments of the overhead athletes' shoulder are commonly addressed through mobility-based treatments, however, adaptations from humeral torsion (HT) are not amenable to such interventions. A clinical measurement to quantify HT has been proposed, however, the validity is not conclusive. # Purpose The primary aim of this study is to determine the intrarater reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM) of the biceps forearm angle (BFA) measurement. The secondary aim of this study is to investigate the convergent validity of the BFA compared to diagnostic ultrasound. # Study Design Cross Sectional Reliability and Validity Study # Methods HT measurements, utilizing diagnostic ultrasound, were compared to BFA in 74 shoulders (37 subjects) over two sessions. Each measurement was performed three times and a third investigator recorded measures to ensure blinding. Reliability was investigated using utilizing an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 3,k) # Results Intrarater reliability values were 0.923 and 0.849 for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA methods respectively. Convergent validity was *r* = 0.566. The standard error of measurement for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA was 3° and 5°, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement between the two measurement methods were -24.80° and 19.80° with a mean difference of -2.50° indicating that on average the diagnostic ultrasound measurement was lower than that of the BFA method. # Conclusion The BFA is a reliable clinical method for quantifying HT, however, demonstrates moderate to poor convergent validity when compared to diagnostic ultrasound. # Level of Evidence 2bhttps://doi.org/10.26603/001c.29593 |
| spellingShingle | Paul A. Salamh William J. Hanney Lauren Champion Connor Hansen Kari Cochenour Celine Siahmakoun Morey J. Kolber The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| title | The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion |
| title_full | The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion |
| title_fullStr | The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion |
| title_short | The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion |
| title_sort | reliability and validity of a clinical measurement proposed to quantify humeral torsion |
| url | https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.29593 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paulasalamh thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT williamjhanney thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT laurenchampion thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT connorhansen thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT karicochenour thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT celinesiahmakoun thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT moreyjkolber thereliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT paulasalamh reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT williamjhanney reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT laurenchampion reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT connorhansen reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT karicochenour reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT celinesiahmakoun reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion AT moreyjkolber reliabilityandvalidityofaclinicalmeasurementproposedtoquantifyhumeraltorsion |