The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting
Abstract
Measurements of the subtalar joint neutral (STJN) position and passive range of motion (PROM) of the ankle joint and the subtalar joint (STJ) are often part of a physical therapy evaluation. These measurements may be used in treatment planning, such as in the prescription of specialized shoes or orthoses. Therefore, reliability of these measurements, as they are obtained clinically, must be determined. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of measurements of the STJN position and of ankle and STJ PROM. To determine reliability, repeated measurements of the STJN position and of STJ PROM were taken on the involved feet of 43 patients with neurologic orthopedic disorders (including both feet of 7 patients), and measurements of ankle PROM (dorsiflexion and plantar flexion) were taken on 42 of these patients (including both feet of 7 patients). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intratester reliability ranged from .74 to .90 for ankle and STJ measurements. The ICCs for intertester reliability were .25 for measuring the STJN position, .32 for STJ inversion, and .17 for SJJ eversion. The ICCs for intertester reliability were .50 for ankle dorsiflexion and .72 for ankle plantar flexion. Goniometric measurements of the STJN position and of PROM of the ankle and STJ appear to be moderately reliable if taken by the same therapist over a short period of time. With the exception of ankle plantar flexion, these measurements cannot be considered to be reliable between therapists.
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
Reliability of Goniometric Measurements
Boone, D. C., Azen, S. P., Lin, C.-M., Spence, C., Baron, C., & Lee, L. (1978) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/58.11.1355 · Cited by 560
Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting
Rothstein, J. M., Miller, P. J., & Roettger, R. F. (1983) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/63.10.1611 · Cited by 546
Self-citation
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
Witvrouw, E., Lysens, R., Bellemans, J., Cambier, D., & Vanderstraeten, G. (2000) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465000280040701 · Cited by 598
Williams, D. S., & McClay, I. S. (2000) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/80.9.864 · Cited by 477
Martin, R. L., Davenport, T. E., Paulseth, S., Wukich, D. K., & Godges, J. J. (2013) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.0305 · Cited by 269
An evaluation of the rearfoot posture in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome.
(2004) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 174
Metadata
- Authors
- Elveru, R. A., Rothstein, J. M., & Lamb, R. L.
- Venue
- Physical Therapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-05-01
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 672-677
- ISSN
- 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-6724
- OpenAlex
- W2141810329
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.55
- 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/68.5.672
- The paper
- Elveru, R. A., Rothstein, J. M., & Lamb, R. L. (1988). Goniometric Reliability in a Clinical Setting. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/68.5.672
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.