The reliability, minimal detectable change and concurrent validity of a gravity-based bubble inclinometer and iphone application for measuring standing lumbar lordosis
ABSTRACT Abstract Purpose: To investigate the reliability, minimal detectable change (MDC90) and concurrent validity of a gravity-based bubble inclinometer (inclinometer) and iPhone® application for measuring standing lumbar lordosis. Methods: Two investigators used both an inclinometer and an iPhone® with an inclinometer application to measure lumbar lordosis of 30 asymptomatic participants. Results: ICC models 3,k and 2,k were used for the intrarater and interrater analysis, respectively. Good interrater and intrarater reliability was present for the inclinometer with Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) of 0.90 and 0.85, respectively and the iPhone® application with ICC values of 0.96 and 0.81. The minimal detectable change (MDC90) indicates that a change greater than or equal to 7° and 6° is needed to exceed the threshold of error using the iPhone® and inclinometer, respectively. The concurrent validity between the two instruments was good with a Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation (r) of 0.86 for both raters. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement identified differences ranging from 9° greater in regards to the iPhone® to 8° less regarding the inclinometer. Conclusion: Both the inclinometer and iPhone® application possess good interrater reliability, intrarater reliability and concurrent validity for measuring standing lumbar lordosis. This investigation provides preliminary evidence to suggest that smart phone applications may offer clinical utility comparable to inclinometry for quantifying standing lumbar lordosis. Clinicians should recognize potential individual differences when using these devices interchangeably.
- SourceAvailable from: Andrea D Fairman[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities who are vulnerable to secondary complications often require complex habilitative and rehabilitative services to prevent and treat these complications. This paper reviews the evolution of mHealth technologies and presents insights as to how this evolution informed our development of a novile mHealth system, iMHere, and other technologies, including those used by the Veterans Administration. We will explain the novel applications of mHealth for rehabilitation and specifically physical therapy. Perspectives on the roles of Rehabilitation professionals in the delivery of healthcare using mHealth systems are included. We will discuss challenges to mHealth including regulatory and funding issues. This article also describes how mHealth can be used to improve patient satisfaction and delivery of care and to promote health and wellness.Physical Therapy 06/2014; 95(3). DOI:10.2522/ptj.20130534 · 3.25 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In clinical and research settings, objective range of motion measurement is an essential component of lower limb assessment and treatment evaluation. One reliable tool is the digital inclinometer; however, availability and cost preclude its widespread use. Smartphone apps are now widely available, allowing smartphones to be used as an inclinometer. Reliability and validity studies of new technologies are scarce. Intrarater and interrater reliability of the iHandy Level app installed on a smartphone and an inclinometer were assessed in 20 participants for ankle dorsiflexion using a weight-bearing lunge test. Criterion validity was assessed between a Fastrak and the app, and construct validity was assessed between the inclinometer and the app. Intraclass correlation coefficients2,1 demonstrated excellent intrarater and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.97 and 0.76, respectively). Tests of validity demonstrated excellent correlation between all three methods (r > 0.99). The smartphone app is both reliable and valid, provides a low-cost method of measuring range of motion, and can be easily incorporated into clinical practice.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists 10/2014; 94(4). DOI:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000221 · 2.01 Impact Factor