The reliability of shoulder range of motion measures in competitive swimmers

Abstract

Shoulder range of motion tests were reliable when applied by the same examiner. Inter-examiner reliability was acceptable for all tests except IR, which was affected by inconsistent manual scapula stabilisation between examiners.

Establishing the reliability of a novel battery of range of motion tests to enable evidence-based classification in Para Swimming

“…The good to excellent reliability values found for inter-examiner assessment are similar to previous studies that have also found good to excellent reliability values both in swimmers (Riemann, et al, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016) and non-swimmers (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, et al, 2015). The generally low levels of SEM in this study indicate consistency across testing sessions and between examiners for this test battery and compare favorably to previous reliability studies that have reported SEM values of 2-5° for active shoulder movements (Kolber, Vega Jr, Widmayer, & Cheng, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016).…”

“…The intra-examiner values in this study (>0.80) for both internal and external rotation were superior to some (Awan, Smith, & Boon, 2002;Walker, et al, 2016) but slightly lower than others that have reported ICC values of greater than 0.9 (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, et al, 2015) using an inclinometer. The good to excellent reliability values found for inter-examiner assessment are similar to previous studies that have also found good to excellent reliability values both in swimmers (Riemann, et al, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016) and non-swimmers (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, et al, 2015). The generally low levels of SEM in this study indicate consistency across testing sessions and between examiners for this test battery and compare favorably to previous reliability studies that have reported SEM values of 2-5° for active shoulder movements (Kolber, Vega Jr, Widmayer, & Cheng, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016).…”

“…When comparing our results to previous ROM reliability studies only a few measures can be accurately scrutinized, as although some of the tests within this battery are used routinely within swimming screenings and clinical assessments (Blanch, 2004), there is a paucity of literature examining their reliability. Shoulder internal rotation and external rotation are two exceptions as they are measures that have received repeated attention within the literature (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, Johnstone, Hing, Abbott, & Climstein, 2015;Riemann, Witt, & Davies, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016). The intra-examiner values in this study (>0.80) for both internal and external rotation were superior to some (Awan, Smith, & Boon, 2002;Walker, et al, 2016) but slightly lower than others that have reported ICC values of greater than 0.9 (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, et al, 2015) using an inclinometer.…”

“…Shoulder internal rotation and external rotation are two exceptions as they are measures that have received repeated attention within the literature (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, Johnstone, Hing, Abbott, & Climstein, 2015;Riemann, Witt, & Davies, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016). The intra-examiner values in this study (>0.80) for both internal and external rotation were superior to some (Awan, Smith, & Boon, 2002;Walker, et al, 2016) but slightly lower than others that have reported ICC values of greater than 0.9 (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, et al, 2015) using an inclinometer. The good to excellent reliability values found for inter-examiner assessment are similar to previous studies that have also found good to excellent reliability values both in swimmers (Riemann, et al, 2011;Walker, et al, 2016) and non-swimmers (Cools, et al, 2014;Furness, et al, 2015).…”

“…Additionally, as can be seen with the large ICC 95% confidence intervals for some measures (Tables 2 and 3), the sample size for the reliability measures is smaller than ideal to provide meaningful minimum detectable changes (Lexell & Downham, 2005) although the sample used for the respective reliability measures (intra-and inter-examiner) were very similar to those that have previously assessed the reliability of shoulder ROM (Bak & Magnusson, 1997;Furness, et al, 2015;Walker, et al, 2016…”