Reliability of an Integrated Inertial Sensor for the Continuous Measurement of Active Cervical Range of Motion in a Group of Younger and Elderly Individuals

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the test–retest reliability of an integrated inertial sensor (IIS) for cervical range of motion assessment. An integrated inertial sensor was placed on the forehead center of thirty older adults (OA) and thirty younger adults (YA). Participants had to perform three continuous rotations, lateral bandings and flexion–extensions with their head. Test–retest reliability was assessed after 7 days. YA showed moderate to good agreement for rotation (0.54–0.82), lateral bending (0.74–0.8), and flexion–extension (0.74–0.81) movements and poor agreement for zero point (ZP). OA showed moderate to good agreement for rotation (0.65–0.86), good to excellent agreement in lateral bending (0.79–0.92), and poor to moderate agreement for flexion–extension (0.37–0.72). Zero point showed poor to moderate agreement. In conclusion, we can affirm that this IIS is a reliable device for cervical range of motion assessment in young and older adults; on the contrary, the ZP seems to be unreliable and the addition of an external reference point could help the subject to solve this shortcoming and reduce possible biases.

Reliability and Validity of A Novel Device for Evaluating the Cervical Proprioception

“…For the intra-rater reliability, several studies have analyzed it in assessing CROM with inertial sensors. In a study by Gobbo et al [ 27 ], the intra-rater reliability of an integrated inertial sensor (IIS) had moderate-to-good agreement in older adults (OA) and younger adults (YA), which is consistent with this study. It should be noted that our study aimed to measure cervical JPE rather than cervical ROM, because cervical JPE is directly related to cervical proprioception.…”

“…In relation to inter-rater reliability, prior studies have also analyzed it in using inertial sensors to assess cervical CROM and the results obtained was moderate to excellent (ICCs > 0.75) [ 27 , 29 ]. A study by Anoro et al [ 30 ] provided the value of MDC90 and SEM, which is beneficial to analyze the effect of measurement error on research results.…”

Inter, intra-examiner reliability and validity of inertial sensors to measure the active cervical range of motion in patients with primary headache

“…According to the current evidence, four studies have analyzed the reliability of inertial sensors to assess CROM (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]; Gobbo et al, 2020[ 14 ]). All of them assessed inter-rater reliability (Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]; Gobbo et al, 2020[ 14 ]), two of them intra-rater reliability, (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]), and two the validity of the inertial sensors (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]). In this context, the inter-rater reliability results presented by the Werium inertial sensor in the present study (ICC > 0.75) are very similar to those presented by the inertial sensors of the four previous studies (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]; Gobbo et al, 2020[ 14 ]).…”

“…All of them assessed inter-rater reliability (Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]; Gobbo et al, 2020[ 14 ]), two of them intra-rater reliability, (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]), and two the validity of the inertial sensors (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]). In this context, the inter-rater reliability results presented by the Werium inertial sensor in the present study (ICC > 0.75) are very similar to those presented by the inertial sensors of the four previous studies (Schiefer et al, 2015[ 27 ]; Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]; Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]; Gobbo et al, 2020[ 14 ]). However, only one of these analyzed the MDC 90 and SEM, contributing more data to clinical practice (Anoro-Hervera et al, 2019[ 3 ]).…”

“…These inertial sensors have proven to be a faster, easier, and valid examination device for various parts of the human body. Also, their relatively inexpensive price makes them ideal tools for use in the examination of AcROM in daily clinical practice (Raya et al, 2018[ 25 ]; Costa et al, 2020[ 9 ]; Gobbo et al, 2020[ 14 ]).…”