Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reproducibility of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for individuals with sub-acute whiplash associated disorders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of the cervical range of motion device when measuring both active and passive range of motion in a group of individuals with sub-acute Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD).

Methods

Participants were recruited as part of a large multi-centre Randomised Controlled Trial from UK emergency departments. Experienced research physiotherapists measured active and passive cervical spine movements in all directions. Both intra- and inter-observer reliability and agreement were assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement and limits of agreement methods.

Results

Different groups of 39 and 19 subjects were included in the intra and inter-observer studies, respectively. The CROM device demonstrated substantial intra- and inter-observer reliability and agreement for all the active and passive half-cycle movements (ICC range 0.82–0.99) with the exception of one (passive right lateral flexion for inter-observer; ICC 0.77).

Conclusions

The CROM device has proven to be a reproducible measurement method for a symptomatic WAD population using the measurement protocol described and can be used with confidence to differentiate individuals according to a single measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Maitland GD (2001) Maitland’s vertebral manipulation. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E (1995) Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on whiplash-associated disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 20:1S–73S [erratum appears in Spine 1995 Nov 1;20(21):2372]

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dall’Alba PT, Sterling MM, Treleaven JM, Edwards SL, Jull GA (2001) Cervical range of motion discriminates between asymptomatic persons and those with whiplash. Spine 26:2090–2094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cagnie B, Cools A, De Loose V, Cambier D, Danneels L (2007) Reliability and normative database of the Zebris cervical range-of-motion system in healthy controls with preliminary validation in a group of patients with neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 30:450–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kasch H, Bach FW, Jensen TS (2001) Handicap after acute whiplash injury: a 1-year prospective study of risk factors. Neurology 56:1637–1643

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hartling L, Brison RJ, Ardern C, Pickett W (2001) Prognostic value of the quebec classification of whiplash-associated disorders. Spine 26:36–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: Normal kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 15:633–648

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jordan K (2000) Assessment of published reliability studies for cervical spine range-of-motion measurement tools. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 23:180–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. de Koning C, van den Heuvel S, Staal J, Smits-Engelsman B, Hendriks E (2008) Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 17:905–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Williams M, McCarthy C, Chorti A, Cooke M, Gates S (2010) A systematic review of reliability and validity studies of methods for measuring active and passive cervical range of motion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 33:138–155. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE (1995) Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Man ther 1:36–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tousignant M, de Bellefeuille L, O’Donoughue S, Grahovac S (2000) Criterion validity of the cervical range of motion (CROM) goniometer for cervical flexion and extension. Spine 25:324–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tousignant M, Duclos E, Lafleche S, Mayer A, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Brosseau L, O’Sullivan JP (2002) Validity study for the cervical range of motion device used for lateral flexion in patients with neck pain. Spine 27:812–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tousignant M, Smeesters C, Breton AM, Breton E, Corriveau H (2006) Criterion validity study of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for rotational range of motion on healthy adults. J Orthop Sports Physic Ther 36:242–248

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lamb SE, Gates S, Underwood MR, Cooke MW, Ashby D, Szczepura A, Williams MA, Williamson EM, Withers EJ, Mt Isa S, Gumber A, Team MS (2007) Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): design of a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash associated disorders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shrout PE (1998) Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res 7:301–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A (1998) Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 17:101–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen J, Solinger AB, Poncet JF, Lantz CA (1999) Meta-analysis of normative cervical motion. Spine 24:1571–1578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Assink N, Bergman GJ, Knoester B, Winters JC, Dijkstra PU, Postema K (2005) Interobserver reliability of neck-mobility measurement by means of the flock-of-birds electromagnetic tracking system. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 28:408–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Youdas JW, Carey JR, Garrett TR (1991) Reliability of measurements of cervical spine range of motion—comparison of three methods. Phys Ther 71:98–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Peolsson A, Hednlund R, Ertzgaard S, Oberg B (2000) Intra- and inter-tester reliability and range of motion of the neck. Physiother Can Summer 52:233–242

    Google Scholar 

  23. Love S, Gringmuth RH, Kazemi M, Cornacchia P, Schmolke M (1998) Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of cervical passive range of motion using the CROM and Cybex 320 EDI. J Can Chiropr Assoc 42:222–228

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J (1996) The interexaminer reliability of measuring passive cervical range of motion, revisited. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 19:302–305

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dvir Z, Gal-Eshel N, Shamir B, Prushansky T, Pevzner E, Peretz C (2006) Cervical motion in patients with chronic disorders of the cervical spine: a reproducibility study. Spine 31:E394–E399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gelalis I, DeFrate L, Stafilas K, Pakos E, Kang J, Gilbertson L (2009) Three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion: reliability of a computer assisted magnetic tracking device compared to inclinometer. Eur Spine J 18:276–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the participants of the study.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Mark A. Williams, Esther Williamson & Simon Gates

  2. Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Matthew W. Cooke

Authors
  1. Mark A. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esther Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Gates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew W. Cooke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark A. Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, M.A., Williamson, E., Gates, S. et al. Reproducibility of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for individuals with sub-acute whiplash associated disorders. Eur Spine J 21, 872–878 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2096-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2096-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation