» Articles » PMID: 12194627

A Study to Compare the Reliability of Composite Finger Flexion with Goniometry for Measurement of Range of Motion in the Hand

Overview
Journal Clin Rehabil
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2002 Aug 27
PMID 12194627
Citations 34
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To establish the intra- and inter-rater reliability of composite finger flexion (CFF), and to compare this with goniometry.

Design: Fifty-one physiotherapists and occupational therapists took part in the study. The hand of a normal subject was splinted in three different positions. Using a goniometer and a ruler alternately, each therapist measured both the proximal interphalangeal joint and CFF of three digits, following a standardized protocol. This process was repeated three times.

Setting: Eighteen NHS hospital sites in the UK.

Results: The two measurement methods produced different ranges and standard deviations for each digit. The repeatability coefficient shows that repeated intra-rater goniometric measures fall within 4-5 degrees of each other 95% of the time. Inter-rater goniometric measures fall within 7-9 degrees. Repeated intra-rater CFF measures fall within 5-6 mm of each other, whereas inter-rater fall within 7-9 mm. The influence of occupation, experience in hand therapy, years of practice and routine use were found to have no effect on reliability. Scaling of the two methods of measurement allowed comparison between them to be made. CFF and goniometry are equally reliable when comparing inter-rater reliability, but goniometry displays less variability than composite finger flexion for intra-rater measurements.

Conclusion: In this study involving a subject with normal joints, goniometry is more reliable than CFF when only one measurer is involved. However, CFF may be a useful alternative where multiple joint measures are required, or when goniometry is impracticable.

Citing Articles

Intra- and inter-rater reliability of goniometric finger range of motion using a written protocol.

Nakai T, Amano S, Murao C, Taguchi H, Takahashi K Arch Physiother. 2024; 14:83-88.

PMID: 39386320 PMC: 11463044. DOI: 10.33393/aop.2024.3049.


Introducing a Simple Tool of Patient Self-Assessment of Wrist Range of Motion.

Stumpfe M, Beneke K, Horch R, Arkudas A, Muller-Seubert W, Cai A Life (Basel). 2024; 14(8).

PMID: 39202739 PMC: 11355083. DOI: 10.3390/life14080997.


Complex motions embedded in a hand exercise regimen - effects on thumb function in participants with carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: A pilot study.

Vocelle A, Shafer G, Bush T J Clin Transl Sci. 2023; 7(1):e234.

PMID: 38028351 PMC: 10663771. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.661.


Reliability, accuracy, and minimal detectable difference of a mixed concept marker set for finger kinematic evaluation.

Trejo Ramirez M, Evans N, Venus M, Hardwicke J, Chappell M Heliyon. 2023; 9(11):e21608.

PMID: 38027975 PMC: 10658241. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21608.


A system for automated acquisition of digital flexion using a 3-D camera and custom gantry.

Brogan D, Anaz A, Skubic M, Dy C, Bridgeman J Hand Ther. 2023; 27(3):91-99.

PMID: 37905197 PMC: 10588428. DOI: 10.1177/17589983221110916.