Reliability and Criterion-Related Validity of an Android Application to Measure Cervical Range of Motion in Asymptomatic Neck Pain and Non-Specific Neck Pain

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jun 30, 2020
Keywords:
Cervical range of motion Application Reliability Validity Non-specific neck pain

Main Article Content

Parinya Lertsinthai
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Naresuan University,Phitsanulok, Thailand. 65000
Nunticha Sitanon
Ponpisut Worrajiran

Abstract

Abstract


Background: The android application is lack of reliability and validity for measuring cervical range of motion (ROM).


Objective: To estimate the intra-rater, inter-rater reliability and   criterion-related validity of an android application to measure cervical ROM in asymptomatic neck pain and non-specific neck pain


Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study. Data were collected from 2 groups, asymptomatic neck pain (n=30) and non-specific neck pain (n=30) participants. The examiners measured cervical ROM using the android application and CROM™. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were calculated using  the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), whereas the validity was examined by the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman plot.


Results: The results showed high to very high in both intra-rater (ICC3,k≥0.870) and inter-rater (ICC2,k≥0.800) reliability for both groups. The Bland and Altman plot revealed small mean differences (≤3.79°) between this android application and CROM™. Both instruments had high to very high correlated measurements of cervical ROM for both group (r≥0.708) and showed high to very high agreement with CROM™ for measure cervical ROM in non-specific neck pain group (ICC≥0.910).


Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated that the android smartphone application was reliable and valid to measure the cervical range of motion in both asymptomatic neck pain and non-specific neck pain participants.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 73 No. 2 (2020): APRIL-JUNE, 2020
Section
นิพนธ์ต้นฉบับ (Original Article)

References

1. Williams MA, McCarthy CJ, Chorti A, Cooke MW, Gates S. A systematic review of reliability and validity studies of methods for measuring active and passive cervical range of motion. J Manip Physio Ther. 2010;33(2):138-55.
2. Quek J, Brauer SG, Treleaven J, Pua YH, Mentiplay B, Clark RA. Validity and intra-rater reliability of an android phone application to measure cervical range-of-motion. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:65.
3. Kaonuan C, Mepayoung P. [Program for measuring range of motion using smartphone]. [B.Eng. thesis]. Phitsanulok: Naresuan University; 2016. Thai
4. Sterling M, Rebbeck T. The neck disability index (NDI). Aust J Physio Ther. 2005;51(4):271.
5. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S240-52.
6. Norkin CC, Joyce White D. Measurement of joint motion: A guide to goniometry. Philadelphia :F.A. Davis; 1995.
7. Nuttall FQ. Body mass index: obesity, BMI, and health: A critical review. Nutrition Today. 2015;50(3):117-28.
8. Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Boutin N, Dion AM, Vallée CA. Reliability and criterion validity of two applications of the iPhone™ to measure cervical range of motion in healthy participants. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10(1):69.
9. Audette I, Dumas JP, Côté JN, De Serres SJ. Validity and between-day reliability of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(5):318-23.
10. McKenzie R. The cervical and thoracic spine: Mechanical diagnosis and therapy. 2nd ed. Spinal publications; 1990. 161-62 p.
11. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-63.
12. Chamnongkich S. [Measurement in physical therapy: Essential concepts and applications]. 1st ed. Chaing mai: Siampimnana; 2014. Thai
13. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1998.
14. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25(2):141-51.
15. Pourahmadi MR, Bagheri R,Taghipour M, Takamjani IE, Sarrafzadeh J, Mohseni-Bandpei MA. A new iPhone application for measuring active craniocervical range of motion in patients with non-specific neck pain: A reliability and validity study. Spine J. 2018;18: 447-57.
16. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26:217–38.
17. Stenneberg MS, Busstra H, Eskes M, van Trijffel E, Cattrysse E, Scholten-Peeters GGM, et al. Concurrent validity and interrater reliability of a new smartphone application to assess 3D active cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;34:59-65.
18. Nikolaos Strimpakos. The assessment of the cervical spine. Part 1: Range of motion and proprioception. J Bodywork Move Ther. 2011;15:114-24
19. Vaz S, Falkmer T, Passmore A, Parsons R, Andreou P. The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test-retest reliability. PloS one. 2013;8(9):e73990.