Reliability of Measuring Forward Head Posture in a Clinical Setting

Garrett, T. J.; Youdas, James W.; Madson, Timothy J.

doi:10.2519/jospt.1993.17.3.155

Cited by 93 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The CROM increments of measurement (0.5 cm) may not reflect subtle postural changes, a limitation of the instrument discussed by other authors. 24,25 Although the newer model of the CROM has 1u increments for ROM measurement, the FHP divisions have not been changed. The reference point for the CROM on the head should be considered a limitation for measurement of FHP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and validity of cervical position measurements in individuals with and without chronic neck pain

Dunleavy

Neil

Tallon

et al. 2014

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The cervical range of motion device (CROM) has been shown to provide reliable forward head position (FHP) measurement when the upper cervical angle (UCA) is controlled. However, measurement without UCA standardization is reflective of habitual patterns. Criterion validity has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to establish: (1) criterion validity of CROM FHP and UCA compared to Optotrak data, (2) relative reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC 95 ) in patients with and without cervical pain, and (3) to compare UCA and FHP in patients with and without pain in habitual postures. Methods: (1) Within-subjects single session concurrent criterion validity design. Simultaneous CROM and OP measurement was conducted in habitual sitting posture in 16 healthy young adults. (2) Reliability and MDC 95 of UCA and FHP were calculated from three trials. (3) Values for adults over 35 years with cervical pain and age-matched healthy controls were compared. Results: (1) Forward head position distances were moderately correlated and UCA angles were highly correlated. The mean (standard deviation) differences can be expected to vary between 1.48 cm (1.74) for FHP and 21.7 (2.46)u for UCA. (2) Reliability for CROM FHP measurements were good to excellent (no pain) and moderate (pain). Cervical range of motion FHP MDC 95 was moderately low (no pain), and moderate (pain). Reliability for CROM UCA measurements was excellent and MDC 95 low for both groups. There was no difference in FHP distances between the pain and no pain groups, UCA was significantly more extended in the pain group (P,0.05). Discussion: Cervical range of motion FHP measurements were only moderately correlated with Optotrak data, and limits of agreement (LOA) and MDC 95 were relatively large. There was also no difference in CROM FHP distance between older symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Cervical range of motion FHP measurement is therefore not recommended as a clinical outcome measure. Cervical range of motion UCA measurements showed good criterion validity, excellent test-retest reliability, and achievable MDC 95 in asymptomatic and symptomatic participants. Differences of more than 6u are required to exceed error. Cervical range of motion UCA shows promise as a useful reliable and valid measurement, particularly as patients with cervical pain exhibited significantly more extended angles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and validity of cervical position measurements in individuals with and without chronic neck pain

Dunleavy

Neil

Tallon

et al. 2014

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Hickey et al's study [61], the distance measurement technique showed higher level of reliability than the cervical range of motion device (CROM) for measuring sagittal resting head posture (ICCs 2,1 from 0.68 to 0.78). Garrett et al, [62], report higher intra and inter-rater level of reliability but they used less conservative ICCs (ICCs 1,1 :…”

Section: Direct Body Measurements By Other Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical methods for quantifying body segment posture: a literature review

Fortin

Feldman

Cheriet

et al. 2011

Disability and Rehabilitation

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Clinicians commonly assess posture in persons with musculoskeletal disorders and tend to do so subjectively. Evidence-based practice requires the use of valid, reliable and sensitive tools to monitor treatment effectiveness. The purpose of this article was to determine which methods were used to assess posture quantitatively in a clinical setting and to identify psychometric properties of posture indices measured from these methods or tools. Methods. We conducted a comprehensive literature review. Pertinent databases were used to search for articles on quantitative clinical assessment of posture. Searching keywords were related to posture and assessment, scoliosis, back pain, reliability, validity and different body segments. Results. We identified 65 articles with angle and distance posture indices that corresponded to our search criteria. Several studies showed good intra- and inter-rater reliability for measurements taken directly on the persons (e.g., goniometer, inclinometer, flexible curve and tape measurement) or from photographs, but the validity of these measurements was not always demonstrated. Conclusion. Taking measurements of all body angles directly on the person is a lengthy process and may affect the reliability of the measurements. Measurement of body angles from photographs may be the most accurate and rapid way to assess global posture quantitatively in a clinical setting.CIHR / IRS

show abstract

“…examination tests (Lous and Olesen 1982;Langemark and Olesen 1987;Bovim 1992;Hatch et al 1992;Garrett et al 1993;Jensen et al 1993;Kidd and Nelson 1993;Watson and Trott 1993;Jensen 1996;Lipchik et al 1996;Sand et al 1997;Zwart 1997;Ashina et al 1999;Jull et al 1999Jull et al , 2007Neufeld et al 2000;Dumas et al 2001;Mørk et al 2003;Giacomini et al 2004;Fernández-de-las-Peñas et al 2006;Fernández-de-Las-Peñas et al 2006a, 2006b, 2007Sandrini et al 2006;Zito et al 2006;Amiri et al 2007;Glaros et al 2007Glaros et al , 2007Ogince et al 2007;Hall et al 2008Hall et al , 2010Hall et al , 2010Bevilaqua-Grossi et al 2009;Peddireddy et al 2009;Uthaikhup et al 2009;Sohn et al 2010Sohn et al , 2013Stuginski-Barbosa et al 2010;Melo et al 2012;Watson and Drummond 2012;Marchand et al 2014;Tali et al 2014). …”

Section: A C C E P T E D Accepted Manuscriptunclassified