Evaluación dE la fiabilidad dEntro y EntrE los EvaluadorEs y intEr-técnicas para los trEs instrumEntos quE midEn la ExtEnsibilidad dE los músculos isquiotibialEs

Cristina Maria Boldrini, Flávia Tomé, Juliana Moesch, Juliana Schmatz Mallmann, L. Oliveira, Natália Roberti, Alberito Rodrigo de Carvalho, Gladson Ricardo Flor Bertolini
{"title":"Evaluación dE la fiabilidad dEntro y EntrE los EvaluadorEs y intEr-técnicas para los trEs instrumEntos quE midEn la ExtEnsibilidad dE los músculos isquiotibialEs","authors":"Cristina Maria Boldrini, Flávia Tomé, Juliana Moesch, Juliana Schmatz Mallmann, L. Oliveira, Natália Roberti, Alberito Rodrigo de Carvalho, Gladson Ricardo Flor Bertolini","doi":"10.3900/FPJ.8.5.342.S","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction : The measurement of range of motion (ROM) is important in therapeutic evaluations. It was evaluated the reliability intra and inter-valuators and inter-techniques, for three tools that measured the extensibility of the hamstring. Materials and Methods : The sample was composed of university students (n=20 /22.6 ± 1.5 years). It was measured the extensibility of hamstring muscles of the right lower limb, and for this, ROM of the knee was examined by means of three tools: universal goniometer (UG), fixed goniometer (FG) and board goniometry (BO). There were six valuators in all, two by instrument (valuators A and B). The reliability was obtained by the index of correlation interclasses (ICC). Results : The intra-valuators reliability was heterogeneous, being: absent (FGA); moderate (UGB); high (UGA and BOB) and very high (FGB and BOA). The inter-valuators reliability was low for the FG and high for the other tools; while the inter-technique was high between UG and BO, but moderate when involving the FG. Discussion : It was observed that UG and BO are more reliable than FG and, in the clinical practice, allows an examiner to choose the tool that it is more accessible to him.","PeriodicalId":164994,"journal":{"name":"Fitness & Performance Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fitness & Performance Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3900/FPJ.8.5.342.S","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction : The measurement of range of motion (ROM) is important in therapeutic evaluations. It was evaluated the reliability intra and inter-valuators and inter-techniques, for three tools that measured the extensibility of the hamstring. Materials and Methods : The sample was composed of university students (n=20 /22.6 ± 1.5 years). It was measured the extensibility of hamstring muscles of the right lower limb, and for this, ROM of the knee was examined by means of three tools: universal goniometer (UG), fixed goniometer (FG) and board goniometry (BO). There were six valuators in all, two by instrument (valuators A and B). The reliability was obtained by the index of correlation interclasses (ICC). Results : The intra-valuators reliability was heterogeneous, being: absent (FGA); moderate (UGB); high (UGA and BOB) and very high (FGB and BOA). The inter-valuators reliability was low for the FG and high for the other tools; while the inter-technique was high between UG and BO, but moderate when involving the FG. Discussion : It was observed that UG and BO are more reliable than FG and, in the clinical practice, allows an examiner to choose the tool that it is more accessible to him.
评估人员内部、评估人员之间和三种测量腘绳肌可伸缩性的仪器之间的可靠性
活动度(ROM)的测量在治疗评估中很重要。评估了测量腘绳肌可伸性的三种工具的内部、内部评估器和内部技术的可靠性。材料与方法:样本为大学生(n=20 /22.6±1.5岁)。测量右下肢腘绳肌的可伸性,并通过三种工具:通用角计(UG)、固定角计(FG)和板角计(BO)检查膝关节的ROM。共有6个评价者,其中2个由仪器评价者(评价者A和B)。通过相关类间指数(ICC)获得信度。结果:评价者内部信度存在异质性,存在:不存在(FGA);中度(UGB);高(UGA和BOB)和非常高(FGB和BOA)。评估者间信度对FG较低,对其他工具较高;UG和BO之间的技术间性较高,但涉及FG时技术间性适中。讨论:我们观察到UG和BO比FG更可靠,并且在临床实践中,允许审查员选择他更容易使用的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信