Measurement of Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) by electronic CROM goniometer: A test of reliability and validity

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Law, Ellis Yuk Hung | Chiu, Thomas Tai-Wing^*;

Affiliations: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Dr. Thomas Tai Wing Chiu, Associate Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, China. Tel.: +852 27666709; Fax: +852 23308656; E-mail: rstchiu@polyu.edu.hk

Abstract: Purpose:To investigate the reliability and validity of the Electronic Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) Goniometer in measurement of cervical spine mobility in adults with and without neck pain. Methods:A cross-sectional reliability study was conducted on 54 subjects (26 neck pain and 26 non-neck pain) aged from 20–70 years old. The Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Chinese version of Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire were used to assess neck pain severity and disability respectively. The CROM was measured in sitting position except left to right rotation was measured in supine lying. All the cervical active movements were measured by using the Electronic CROM Goniometer from ARCON TM Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) systems. Results:The intra-tester and inter-tester reliability were high in both normal and chronic neck pain groups with ICC coefficients ranged from 0.75-*0.92. There was significant difference in the total CROM between the normal (374.7°) and chronic neck pain group (292.6°). Conclusion:The ACRON cervical goniometer was found to be reliable for measuring cervical mobility in 3 planes for both normal and patient subjects. Construct validity of the goniometer was supported as the test’s result documented significant difference in CROM between the control and the neck pain groups.

Keywords: Cervical range of motion, neck pain, electronic goniometer, reliability, validity

DOI: 10.3233/BMR-2012-00358

Journal: Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 141-148, 2013