Background: Trunk movements are an important factor in activities of daily living; however, these movements can be impaired by stroke. It is difficult to quantify and measure the active range of motion (AROM) of the trunk in patients with stroke.
Objects: To determine the reliability and validity of measurements using a digital goniometer (DG) and smart phone (SP) applications for trunk rotation and lateral flexion in stroke patients. Methods: This is an observational study, in which twenty participants were clinically diagnosed with stroke. Trunk rotation and lateral flexion AROM were assessed using the DG and SP applications (Compass and Clinometer). Intrarater reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the validity of the DG and SP in AROM measurement. The level of agreement between the two instruments was shown by Bland–Altman plot and 95% limit of agreement (LoA) was calculated.
Results: The intrarater reliability (rotation with DG: 0.96–0.98, SP: 0.98; lateral flexion with DG: 0.97–0.98, SP: 0.96) was excellent. A strong and significant correlation was found between DG and SP (rotation hemiplegic side: r = 0.95; non-hemiplegic side: r = 0.90; lateral flexion hemiplegic side: r = 0.88; non-hemiplegic side: r = 0.78). The level of agreement between the two instruments was rotation (hemiplegic side: 23.02° [LoA 17.41°, –5.61°]; non-hemiplegic side: 31.68° [LoA 23.87°, –7.81°]) and lateral flexion (hemiplegic side: 20.94° [LoA 17.48°, –3.46°]; non-hemiplegic side: 27.12° [LoA 18.44°, –8.68°]).
Conclusion: Both DG and SP applications can be used as reliable methods for measuring trunk rotation and lateral flexion in patients with stroke. Although, considering the level of clinical agreement, DG and SP could not be used interchangeably for measurements.

INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
    1. Participants
    2. Instruments
    3. Procedures
    4. Statistical Analysis
RESULTS
    1. Trunk Active Range of Motion
    2. Reliability Analysis
    3. Validity of Measurements
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
FUNDING
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
ORCID
REFERENCES

• Hee-yong Park(Department of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Yonsei University)
• Ui-jae Hwang(Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Kinetic Ergocise Based on Movement Analysis Laboratory, Wonju, Korea)
• Oh-yun Kwon(Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Kinetic Ergocise Based on Movement Analysis Laboratory, Wonju, Korea) Corresponding Author