Intra- and inter-rater reliability of goniometric finger range of motion using a written protocol

Takuya Nakai; Satoru Amano; Chikako Murao; Haruki Taguchi; Kayoko Takahashi

doi:10.33393/aop.2024.3049

Authors

Takuya Nakai Department of Occupational Therapy, Kitasato University Hospital, Kanagawa - Japan https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3840-5344
Satoru Amano School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Kanagawa - Japan and Graduate School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Kanagawa - Japan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2006-7918
Chikako Murao Department of Occupational Therapy, Kitasato University Hospital, Kanagawa - Japan
Haruki Taguchi Department of Occupational Therapy, Kitasato University Hospital, Kanagawa - Japan
Kayoko Takahashi School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Kanagawa - Japan and Graduate School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Kanagawa - Japan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8083-255X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2024.3049

Keywords:

Finger, Range of motion, Reliability, Reproducibility, Standardization

Abstract

Introduction: Goniometric finger range of motion (ROM) is the most common outcome measure used for functional evaluation of finger joints, but its reliability is not well-evaluated. This study aimed to investigate intra- and inter-rater reliability of goniometric finger ROM using a written protocol for active, passive, and composite movements in healthy adults.

Methods: The design was a single-center, cross-sectional, reliability study. Participants were 20 healthy adults (mean ± standard deviation, 36.4 ± 10.9 years). ROM for active, passive, and composite movements of the fingers was assessed by three occupational therapists with at least 5 years clinical experience in the field of physical disabilities. To standardize the measurement method used, we developed a written protocol, stabilized the wrist position, and trained the evaluators. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were used for the reliability analysis. ICC (1,1) was used for intra-rater reliability. ICC (2,1) was used for inter-rater reliability. Hand-shaped heatmaps were used to summarize the reliability data.

Results: Most of the results (88.7%) showed moderate to good intra-rater reliability (ICC ≥ 0.50), while inter-rater reliability showed less (69.0%). Both intra- and inter-rater reliability showed no trends between dominant and non-dominant hands, type of movement, finger, or joint.

Conclusions: Intra-rater reliability was relatively high and using a written protocol was beneficial. Inter-rater reliability tended to be lower, and differences in the physical structure of both raters and participants may have affected inter-rater reliability values.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Shiraishi H. What is the evaluation of hand function from various evaluations on the hand. SOBIM Japan. 2010;34(4):291-296. https://doi.org/10.3951/sobim.34.291

Fukuda O. Measurement evaluation for PT/OT: ROM measurement. 2nd ed. MIWA SHOTEN; 2010.

Santisteban L, Térémetz M, Bleton J-P, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154792 PMID:27152853

Crasto JA, Sayari AJ, Gray RR-L, Askari M. Comparative analysis of photograph-based clinical goniometry to standard techniques. Hand (N Y). 2015;10(2):248-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9702-2 PMID:26034439

Yonemoto K, Isigami S, Kondo T. Joint range of motion and measurement methods. Jpn J Rehabil Med. 1995;32(4):207-217. https://doi.org/10.2490/jjrm1963.32.207

Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. 5th ed. F A Davis Co; 2016.

Hamilton GF, Lachenbruch PA. Reliability of goniometers in assessing finger joint angle. Phys Ther. 1969;49(5):465-469. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/49.5.465 PMID:5804302

Burr N, Pratt AL, Stott D. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability when measuring interphalangeal joints: comparison between three hand-held goniometers. Physiotherapy. 2003;89(11):641-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60097-1

Ellis B, Bruton A. A study to compare the reliability of composite finger flexion with goniometry for measurement of range of motion in the hand. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(5):562-570. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215502cr513oa PMID:12194627

Lewis E, Fors L, Tharion WJ. Interrater and intrarater reliability of finger goniometric measurements. Am J Occup Ther. 2010;64(4):555-561. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2010.09028 PMID:20825126

Sato A, Oi H, Abe Y. Reliability of hand joint angle measurements using the manual for hand joint range of motion measurements. Jpn Soc Surg Hand. 2015;31(4):512-516.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 PMID:27330520

Stratford PW, Goldsmith CH. Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther. 1997;77(7):745-750. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/77.7.745 PMID:9225846

Ellis B, Bruton A, Goddard JR. Joint angle measurement: a comparative study of the reliability of goniometry and wire tracing for the hand. Clin Rehabil. 1997;11(4):314-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/026921559701100408 PMID:9408672

Short N, Almonreoder T, Mays M, et al. Interrater reliability of a novel goniometric technique to measure scapular protraction and retraction. Am J Occup Ther. 2022;76(1):7601205010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.045765 PMID:34964840

Cooney WP, Bussey R, Dobyns JH, Linscheid RL. Difficult wrist fractures. Perilunate fracture-dislocations of the wrist. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):136-147. PMID:3791735

Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim I-H, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404-411. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215505cr832oa PMID:15929509

See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(8):732-741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313491000 PMID:23774125

Borg DN, Bach AJE, O’Brien JL, Sainani KL. Calculating sample size for reliability studies. PM R. 2022;14(8):1018-1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12850 PMID:35596122