The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting
Abstract
Reliability of goniometric measurements has been examined only under standardized conditions and usually with healthy subjects. The purpose of this study was to assess goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. The reliability of goniometric measurements of passive elbow and knee positions was assessed using patients as subjects. The effect of using the means of repeated measurements and the interdevice reliability of three common goniometers were also examined. Results showed that intratester reliability for flexion and extension of the knee and the elbow joints was high (r = .91 to .99). Intertester reliability was also high (r = .88 to .97) for these measurements except for measurements of knee extension (r = .63 to .70). Although previous investigators have suggested that using the means of multiple measurements improves reliability, our data indicate that this procedure never improves the correlation coefficient more than .12. The reliability was similar for all three devices. The results of this study indicate that for the knee and elbow joints, goniometric measurements performed in a clinical setting can be highly reliable. The method described in this study provides a simple protocol that can be used clinically to investigate goniometric reliability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Ebel, R. L. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288803 · Cited by 976
Cited by
Risk factors for lower extremity injury: a review of the literature
Murphy, D. F., Connolly, D. A. J., & Beynnon, B. D. (2003) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.37.1.13 · Cited by 758
Outcomes Before and After Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Healthy Adults
Bade, M. J., Kohrt, W. M., & Stevens-Lapsley, J. E. (2010) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3317 · Cited by 414
Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting
Elveru, R. A., Rothstein, J. M., & Lamb, R. L. (1988) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/68.5.672 · Cited by 379
Self-citationNormal Hip and Knee Active Range of Motion: The Relationship to Age
Roach, K. E., & Miles, T. P. (1991) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/71.9.656 · Cited by 357
Witvrouw, E., Bellemans, J., Lysens, R., Danneels, L., & Cambier, D. (2001) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465010290021201 · Cited by 302
Metadata
- Authors
- Rothstein, J. M., Miller, P. J., & Roettger, R. F.
- Venue
- Physical Therapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1983-10-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1611-1615
- ISSN
- 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-6724
- OpenAlex
- W2279162590
- Cited by
- 546
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ptj/63.10.1611
- The paper
- Rothstein, J. M., Miller, P. J., & Roettger, R. F. (1983). Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/63.10.1611
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
