Reliability of passive wrist flexion and extension goniometric measurements: a multicenter study.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine whether passive wrist flexion and extension goniometric measurements using ulnar alignment, radial alignment, and volar/dorsal alignment were similar or dissimilar and (2) to examine which of these three techniques had the greatest intratester and intertester reliability. One hundred forty patients (141 wrists) were measured. The testers were 32 therapists from eight different hand/upper-extremity clinical sites around the United States. Randomly paired testers measured passive wrist flexion and extension. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used as an estimate of agreement for both intratherapist (model 3.1) and intertherapist (model 2.1) reliability. Six of the eight clinics showed significant differences among the various goniometric techniques. Flexion intratherapist mean ICCs for the radial, ulnar, and dorsal alignment techniques were .86, .87, and .92, respectively. Extension intratherapist mean ICCs were .80, .80, and .84 for the three techniques. Intertherapist flexion mean ICCs were .88, .89, and .93 for the radial, ulnar, and volar alignment techniques, respectively. Extension intertherapist mean ICCs were .80, .80, and .84 for the three techniques. The standard error of measurement was also used to quantify reliability, with the volar/dorsal alignment technique consistently producing less error than the ulnar and radial alignment techniques. The generalizability theory statistical model was utilized to identify the sources of error. The patient contributed to variance the most, although inherent error within the study, diagnostic category, therapeutic approach, and goniometric technique also contributed. The overall results indicated there were differences among the three goniometric techniques. The volar/dorsal alignment technique is the goniometric technique of choice, as it consistently had the greatest reliability.