Background: Measurement of passive ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ADROM) is often part of a physical therapy assessment. Objects: The objective of this study was to identify the effects of subtalar joint neutral position (SJNP) on passive ADROM according to knee position in young adults. Methods: We recruited 14 young adult participants for this study. Two examiners used a universal goniometer to measure passive ADROM with and without SJNP. Dorsiflexion force was applied to the forefoot until maximum resistance was reached in two knee positions (extension and 90˚ flexion) in the prone position. Subtalar joint position was also recorded at maximum ADROM. Passive ADROM was measured three times at different knee and subtalar joint positions, in random order. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effects of subtalar joint and knee position on passive ADROM. Results: Passive ADROM was significantly lower with than without SJNP during both knee extension (mean difference: 7.4˚) and 90˚ flexion (mean difference: 16.9˚) (p<.01). Passive ADROM was significantly higher during 90˚ knee flexion than during knee extension both with (mean difference: 5.8˚) and without SJNP (mean difference: 15.2˚) (p<.01). The valgus position of the subtalar joint was significantly lower with than without SJNP during both knee extension (mean difference: 3.3˚) and 90˚ flexion (mean difference: 4.3˚) (p<.01). Conclusion: Our results indicate that the gastrocnemius may limit ankle dorsiflexion more than the soleus does. Greater dorsiflexion at the subtalar and midtarsal joints was observed during passive ADROM measurement without than that with SJNP; therefore, SJNP should be maintained for accurate measurement of ADROM.

The purpose of this study were to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of shoulder passive range of motion measurement using the “Clinometer + bubble level”, a smartphone application and to compare with the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of measurement using a goniometer. Twenty six patients with stroke were recruited for this study. Two raters measured the passive range of motion of four types of shoulder movements (forward flexion; FF, abduction; ABD, external rotation at 90° abduction; ER90 and internal rotation at 90° abduction; IR90) using a goniometer and a smartphone to determine within-day inter-rater reliability. A retest session was performed thirty minutes later to determine within-day intra-rater reliability. The reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM). The ICC (2,1) for the inter-rater reliabilities of the goniometer and smartphone were good in FF and ABD [ICC (2,1)=.75∼.87] and excellent in ER90 [ICC (2,1)=.90∼.95]. The intra-rater reliabilities for the goniometer and smartphone were good or more than good, with an ICC (3,1) value >.75, the exception was IR90 measured by rater 2 on the smartphone. These results suggest that smartphone could be used as an alternative method tool for measurement of passive shoulder range of motion in patients with stroke.

The purpose of this study was to measure intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and range of motion for measurement of passive shoulder internal rotation range of motion and to compare anterior glide distance of humeral head in three methods. Fifty healthy subjects and fifty patients with shoulder musculoskeletal pain were recruited for this study. The subjects' passive shoulder internal rotation range of motion was measured by visual estimation, manual stabilization, and pressure biofeedback unit methods. In two trials, measurements were performed on each subject by two examiners. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)) was used to determine the reliability of each measurement. The intra-rater reliability of the three methods was excellent (ICC=.77~.93) in both groups. The inter-rater reliability of the visual estimation method was poor (ICC=.20, .29), the manual scapular stabilization method was poor and fair (ICC=.09, .50), and the pressure biofeedback unit method was excellent (ICC .86, .75) in the experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, the difference of examined range of motion by each examiner was significant in the visual estimation method and manual scapular stabilization method, but there was an insignificant difference between the groups is the pressure biofeedback unit method. This result suggests that the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a pressure biofeedback unit was better than the other methods. The difference in distance of the anterior glide of humeral head was insignificant among all the methods. The pressure biofeedback unit method was the most reliable method, so it is proposed to be a new and reliable method to measure internal rotation range of motion.