title: Intra-instrument reliability of 4 goniometers.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Cervical spine ROM movements taken accurately with reliable measuring devices are important in outcome measures as well as in measuring disability.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the active cervical spine ROM in healthy young adult population using 4 different goniometers.
  
  
  METHODS
  Subjects were tested during active cervical spine ROM. The devices were a single hinge inclinometer, single bubble carpenter's inclinometer, dual bubble goniometers and Cybex EDI 320 electrical inclinometer. All subjects were tested for rotational limits along each of the orthogonal axes of movement. There are 3 trials for each movement direction, except rotation was not measured with the Cybex as per manual suggestions. The subjects were randomly assigned to the sequence of devices.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-seven student volunteers (19 men and 8 women) were tested. Ages ranged from 21 to 41, mean age of 27.6 years of age.
  
  
  METHODS
  Active cervical spine ROM trials for each measurement was used to calculate mean and standard deviation. An overall analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni adjusted T-test were determined in order to calculate reliability and significance.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The cost of the instruments were not used in determining reliability or significance. The single hinge inclinometer was found to be a reliable measure but not likely valid. The Cybex EDI 320 was found to be the best measuring device; however, the 2 instruments whose cost were in-between the single hinge inclinometer and the electrical goniometer were just as reliable as the more expensive device. The AMA Guides of Impairment were used as the normative data to compare these devices.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Since the devices could measure reliably, whether expensive or more cost effective for students they would likely make adequate devices for training students on the methods for measuring ROM. There is previous data to suggest that older populations have gender differences and age differences with ROM. This study could not measure that and would make a useful follow-up study.
authors.affiliation: Private Practice, Spine Center, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Houston, Texas.
authors.forename: R Kevin
authors.initials: RK
authors.lastname: Pringle
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996 Mar-Apr;19(3):165-8
references.pmid: 8728459
references.citation: J Biomed Eng. 1993 Jan;15(1):13-22
references.pmid: 8419675
references.citation: Scand J Rehabil Med. 1994 Sep;26(3):147-54
references.pmid: 7801064
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Nov 15;19(22):2505-10
references.pmid: 7855673
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Oct;17(10 Suppl):S393-8
references.pmid: 1440033
references.citation: Eur J Morphol. 1990;28(1):47-68
references.pmid: 2390411
references.citation: Phys Ther. 1991 Feb;71(2):98-104; discussion 105-6
references.pmid: 1989013
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jun 1;22(11):1193-8
references.pmid: 9201855
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Mar 1;22(5):501-8
references.pmid: 9076881
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Sep 1;22(17):1996-2000
references.pmid: 9306529
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Jan;18(1):21-4
references.pmid: 7706955
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998 Jun;21(5):341-7
references.pmid: 9627865
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986 Apr;67(4):225-30
references.pmid: 3964055
references.citation: J Orthop Res. 1991 Nov;9(6):828-34
references.pmid: 1919845
references.citation: Am J Vet Res. 1986 Oct;47(10):2165-9
references.pmid: 3777640
references.citation: Phys Ther. 1992 Nov;72(11):770-80
references.pmid: 1409874
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989 Sep;70(9):692-5
references.pmid: 2774888