Index to Chiropractic Literature
Index to Chiropractic Literature
My ICL     Sign In
Thursday, October 30, 2025
Index to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic Literature
Share:

For best results switch to Advanced Search.
Article Detail
 Return to Search Results
Article ID
Title
URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2485402/
Journal J Can Chiropr Assoc. 1998 Dec;42(4):222-228
Author(s)
Subject(s)
Peer Review Yes
Publication Type Article
Abstract/Notes Objective:

To compare the interexaminer and the intraexaminer reliability of measuring passive flexion and extension ranges of motion of the cervical spine, using a Cybex 320 EDI (inclinometer) and a Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) instrument.

Design:

Blind, repeated measures of passive cervical flexion, extension range of motion by three different examiners.

Setting:

Private multi-disciplinary clinic.

Participants: 27 volunteers, varying from asymptomatic to symptomatic conditions of the cervical spine, 14 males and 13 females, aged 10-67 years.

Intervention:

Measurement of passive cervical flexion, extension range of motion using the Cybex 320 EDI (single inclinometer) and the CROM by three blinded examiners, following the protocol in the respective manufacturers’ manuals. The three examiners assessed each of the 27 subjects twice on each instrument for flexion and extension.

Results:

The intraexaminer reliability for both the CROM and the Cybex 320 EDI were high, 95% confidence interval ICC values of .96-.99 and .85-.96 were found for the CROM and the Cybex 320 EDI instruments, respectively. The average (standard deviation) range of motion between the CROM and the Cybex 320 EDI for flexion was found to be 49.5 (15.3) and 53.9 (17.5) and extension 62.9 (22.6) and 43.6 (16.7), respectively. The interexaminer reliability analyses also showed high correlations (ICC 95% CI = .96-.97, ICC 95% CI = .80-.89) for the CROM and Cybex 320 EDI, respectively.

Conclusion:

Range of motion determination is an integral component of an individual’s assessment when the cervical spine is in question. Choosing the most appropriate instrument and matching the choice to the parameters of the individual venue, considering, i.e. cost-effectiveness for assessment, and quality makes our result findings informative and pertinent. While both instruments yielded clinically acceptable intraexaminer and interexaminer agreement, relevant to practitioners treating injured persons, the CROM was found to have a higher reliability for cervical passive range of motion when evaluating passive flexion and extension.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full access.
      

Search Tips
  • Enclose phrases in "quotation marks".  Examples: "low back pain", "evidence-based"
  • Retrieve all forms of a word with an "asterisk*", also called a wildcard or truncation.  Example: "chiropract*" retrieves chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractors
  • Register an account in My ICL to save search histories (My Searches) and collections of records (My Collections)
Advanced Search Tips