advertising
-
1
Cornwall M, McPoil TG: Effect of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion on rearfoot motion during walking. JAPMA 89: 272, 1999.
-
2
Dawe EJC, Davis J: (vi) Anatomy and biomechanics of the foot and ankle. Orthop Trauma 25: 279, 2011.
-
3
DiGiovanni CW, Kuo R, Tejwani N, et al.: Isolated gastrocnemius tightness. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84: 962, 2002.
-
4
Duthon VB, Lübbeke A, Duc SR, et al.: Noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy treated with gastrocnemius lengthening. Foot Ankle Int 32: 375, 2011.
-
5
Riddle DL, Pulisic M, Pidcoe P, et al.: Risk factors for plantar fasciitis: a matched case-control study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85: 872, 2003.
-
6
Charles J, Pillu M: The foot biomechanics and pathology of Aboriginal Australians. Scientific Kinesither 6: 23, 2020.
-
7
Menz HB, Morris ME: Clinical determinants of plantar forces and pressures during walking in older people. Gait Posture 24: 229, 2006.
-
8
Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L: Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture 26: 68, 2007.
-
9
Searle A, Spink M, Chuter V: Prevalence of ankle equinus and correlation with foot plantar pressures in people with diabetes. Clin Biomech 60: 39, 2018.
-
10
Konor MM, Morton S, Eckerson JM, et al.: Reliability of three measures of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7: 279, 2012.
-
11
Martin RL, McPoil TG: Reliability of ankle goniometric measurements: a literature review. JAPMA 95: 564, 2005.
-
12
Kim PJ, Peace R, Mieras J, et al.: Interrater and intrarater reliability in the measurement of ankle joint dorsiflexion is independent of examiner experience and technique used. JAPMA 101: 407, 2011.
-
13
Rome K: Ankle joint dorsiflexion measurement studies: a review of the literature. JAPMA 86: 205, 1996.
-
14
Worsley PR, Conington C, Stuart H, et al.: A randomised cross over study to evaluate the performance of a novel ankle dorsiflexion measurement device for novice users. J Foot Ankle Res 11: 45, 2018.
-
15
Charles J: The design, development, and reliability testing of a new innovative device to measure ankle joint dorsiflexion. JAPMA 106: 338, 2016.
-
16
Charles J, Scutter SD, Buckley J: Static ankle joint equinus: toward a standard definition and diagnosis. JAPMA 100: 195, 2010.
-
17
Gatt A, Chockalingam N: Clinical assessment of ankle joint dorsiflexion: a review of measurement techniques. JAPMA 101: 59, 2011.
-
18
Fish DR, Wingate L: Sources of goniometric error at the elbow. Phys Ther 65: 1666, 1985.
-
19
Moseley A, Adams R: Measurement of passive ankle dorsiflexion: procedure and reliability. Aust J Physiother 37: 175, 1991.
-
20
Digiovanni CW, Holt S, Czerniecki JM, et al.: Can the presence of equinus contracture be established by physical exam alone? J Rehabil Res Dev 38: 335, 2001.
-
21
Veltink PH, Liedtke C, Droog E, et al.: Ambulatory measurement of ground reaction forces. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13: 423, 2005.
-
22
Nilsson J, Thorstensson A: Ground reaction forces at different speeds of human walking and running. Acta Physiol Scand 136: 217, 1989.
-
23
Chen P-Y: Teaching in offshore programmes: an assessment of university faculty’s self-efficacy, cultural competence and preparedness. J Educ Teach 42: 188, 2016.
-
24
Di Nardo F, Mengarelli A, Maranesi E, et al.: Assessment of the ankle muscle co-contraction during normal gait: a surface electromyography study. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 25: 347, 2015.
-
25
Menz H: Two feet, or one person? problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. The Foot 14: 2, 2004.
-
26
Koo TK, Li MY: A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15: 155, 2016.
-
27
Portney LG, Watkins MP: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 3rd Ed, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2009.
-
28
Searle A, Spink MJ, Chuter VH: Weight bearing versus non-weight bearing ankle dorsiflexion measurement in people with diabetes: a cross sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19: 183, 2018.
-
29
Keating JL, Parks C, Mackenzie M: Measurements of ankle dorsiflexion in stroke subjects obtained using standardised dorsiflexion force. Aust J Physiother 46: 203, 2000.
-
30
Orendurff MS, Rohr ES, Sangeorzan BJ, et al.: An equinus deformity of the ankle accounts for only a small amount of the increased forefoot plantar pressure in patients with diabetes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88: 65, 2006.
Development and Intertester Reliability of a Novel Device to Measure Nonweightbearing Ankle Joint Dorsiflexion Range of Motion
Search for other papers by James A. Charles in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Romain Diot in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Camilia Houari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vivienne Chuter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michel Pillu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Daniel Mcdonough in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion is essential to normal gait. Ankle equinus has been implicated in a number of foot and ankle pathologies included Achilles tendonitis, plantar fasciitis, ankle injury, forefoot pain, and foot ulceration. Reliable measurement of ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion, both clinically and in a research setting, is important.
Methods: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the intertester reliability of an innovative device for measuring ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion. A total of 31 (n = 31) participants volunteered to take part in this study. A paired t-test was performed to assess for systematic differences between the mean measures of each rater. Intertester reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and their 95% confidence intervals.
Results: A paired t-test demonstrated that the mean ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion did not significantly differ between raters. The ankle joint ROM mean for rater 1 was 4.65 SD (3.71) and rater 2 was 4.67 SD (3.91). Intertester reliability for the use of the Dorsi-Meter was excellent and demonstrated a very narrow range of error. The ICC (95%CI) was 0.991 (0.980 to 0.995) the SEM (in degrees) was 0.07, the MDC95, in degrees was 0.19 and 95% LOA, degrees was –1.49 to 1.46.
Conclusions: We found the intertester reliability of the Dorsi-Meter to demonstrate higher levels of intertester reliability compared to previous studies investigating other devices. We reported the MDC values to provide an estimate of the smallest amount of change in the ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion that must be achieved to reflect a true change, outside the error of the test. The Dorsi-Meter has been established as an appropriate reliable device to measure ankle joint dorsiflexion for clinicians and researchers with very small minimal detectable change and limits of agreement.
advertising
