Reliability of hip rotation range of motion in supine and seated positions

Marissa C. Gradoz, Lauren E. Bauer, Terry L. Grindstaff, Jennifer Bagwell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable. Objective: To compare interrater and intrarater reliabilities between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: A total of 19 participants (11 females and 8 males; age = 23.5 [1.2] y; height = 173.2 [8.6] cm; and mass = 69.2 [13.4] kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited. Interventions: Three testers obtained measures during 2 testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (in degrees). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Minimal detectable change was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t tests (significance level was .05). Results: Supine hip IR and ER ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC = .75-.91). Seated hip IR ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (ICC = .64-.71). Seated hip ER ROM interrater reliability was good (ICC = .65), and intrarater reliabilities were good to excellent (ICC = .65-.82). Minimal detectable change values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1° to 8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs 44.5° P < .01 and 53.0° vs 44.2° P < .01, respectively). Conclusion: Supine hip rotation had higher interrater and intrarater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-4
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Sport Rehabilitation
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Supine Position
Articular Range of Motion
Posture
Hip
Knee
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biophysics
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Reliability of hip rotation range of motion in supine and seated positions. / Gradoz, Marissa C.; Bauer, Lauren E.; Grindstaff, Terry L.; Bagwell, Jennifer.

In: Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, Vol. 27, No. 4, 01.07.2018, p. 1-4.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ac4b7b98305341a5bcd64d4ab4434aae,
title = "Reliability of hip rotation range of motion in supine and seated positions",
abstract = "Context: Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable. Objective: To compare interrater and intrarater reliabilities between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: A total of 19 participants (11 females and 8 males; age = 23.5 [1.2] y; height = 173.2 [8.6] cm; and mass = 69.2 [13.4] kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited. Interventions: Three testers obtained measures during 2 testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (in degrees). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Minimal detectable change was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t tests (significance level was .05). Results: Supine hip IR and ER ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC = .75-.91). Seated hip IR ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (ICC = .64-.71). Seated hip ER ROM interrater reliability was good (ICC = .65), and intrarater reliabilities were good to excellent (ICC = .65-.82). Minimal detectable change values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1° to 8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs 44.5° P < .01 and 53.0° vs 44.2° P < .01, respectively). Conclusion: Supine hip rotation had higher interrater and intrarater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.",
author = "Gradoz, {Marissa C.} and Bauer, {Lauren E.} and Grindstaff, {Terry L.} and Jennifer Bagwell",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1123/jsr.2017-0243",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "1--4",
journal = "Journal of Sport Rehabilitation",
issn = "1056-6716",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of hip rotation range of motion in supine and seated positions

AU - Gradoz, Marissa C.

AU - Bauer, Lauren E.

AU - Grindstaff, Terry L.

AU - Bagwell, Jennifer

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Context: Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable. Objective: To compare interrater and intrarater reliabilities between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: A total of 19 participants (11 females and 8 males; age = 23.5 [1.2] y; height = 173.2 [8.6] cm; and mass = 69.2 [13.4] kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited. Interventions: Three testers obtained measures during 2 testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (in degrees). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Minimal detectable change was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t tests (significance level was .05). Results: Supine hip IR and ER ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC = .75-.91). Seated hip IR ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (ICC = .64-.71). Seated hip ER ROM interrater reliability was good (ICC = .65), and intrarater reliabilities were good to excellent (ICC = .65-.82). Minimal detectable change values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1° to 8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs 44.5° P < .01 and 53.0° vs 44.2° P < .01, respectively). Conclusion: Supine hip rotation had higher interrater and intrarater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.

AB - Context: Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable. Objective: To compare interrater and intrarater reliabilities between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: A total of 19 participants (11 females and 8 males; age = 23.5 [1.2] y; height = 173.2 [8.6] cm; and mass = 69.2 [13.4] kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited. Interventions: Three testers obtained measures during 2 testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (in degrees). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Minimal detectable change was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t tests (significance level was .05). Results: Supine hip IR and ER ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC = .75-.91). Seated hip IR ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (ICC = .64-.71). Seated hip ER ROM interrater reliability was good (ICC = .65), and intrarater reliabilities were good to excellent (ICC = .65-.82). Minimal detectable change values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1° to 8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs 44.5° P < .01 and 53.0° vs 44.2° P < .01, respectively). Conclusion: Supine hip rotation had higher interrater and intrarater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050523595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050523595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1123/jsr.2017-0243

DO - 10.1123/jsr.2017-0243

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85050523595

VL - 27

SP - 1

EP - 4

JO - Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

SN - 1056-6716

IS - 4

ER -