Elsevier

Physical Therapy in Sport

Volume 21, September 2016, Pages 26-30
Physical Therapy in Sport

Original research
The reliability of shoulder range of motion measures in competitive swimmers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.03.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Shoulder active range of motion measurement reliability was examined in swimmers.

  • Supine internal and external rotation range was tested with the scapula stabilised.

  • Abduction in internal rotation and combined elevation range were tested.

  • Intra and inter-examiner reliability of all but one test was good to excellent.

  • Internal rotation should be measured by the same examiner when examining swimmers.

Abstract

Objectives

Investigate reliability of shoulder internal and external rotation (IR, ER), abduction in internal rotation (ABIR) and combined elevation (CE) range of motion tests in competitive swimmers.

Design

Within participants, inter- and intra-examiner reliability.

Setting

Physiotherapy Department, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Participants

17 competitive swimmers (aged 12–24 years) who participate in at least 5 weekly swimming sessions and two physiotherapy examiners.

Main outcome measures

Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of IR, ER, ABIR and CE.

Results

Good to excellent intra-examiner reliability across tests (ICCs: 0.85–0.96) with standard error of measurement (SEM)and minimal detectable change at 90% confidence interval (MDC90) ranging from 2 to 5, and 5–12°, respectively. Good to excellent inter-examiner reliability for all tests (ICCs: 0.77–0.94) except left IR (ICC: 0.65). Inter-examiner SEM and MDC90 ranged from 2 to 5° and 5–12°, respectively.

Conclusion

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.

Introduction

Reliable measurement tools are essential for interpreting research investigating risk factors for sports injuries, or evaluating the effectiveness of treatment interventions (Bahr and Holme, 2003, Cools et al., 2014, Valentine and Lewis, 2006). Studies investigating shoulder range of motion (ROM) measurement reliability suggest that no single method affords superior measurement reproducibility (Cools et al., 2014, Hoving et al., 2002, Mullaney et al., 2010, Valentine and Lewis, 2006). Methodologies and results vary with the movement type (active or passive ROM), measurement device, test position, and study population (symptomatic or asymptomatic) investigated (Andrews and Bohannon, 1989, Boon and Smith, 2000, Cools et al., 2014, Croft et al., 1994, de Winter et al., 2004, Green et al., 1998, Hayes et al., 2001, Hoving et al., 2002, Muir et al., 2010 Kolber, Vega, Widmayer, & Cheng, 2011; Riddle et al., 1987, Sabari et al., 1998, Valentine and Lewis, 2006). Nonetheless, the measurement of shoulder ROM is an important component of the clinical examination of the shoulder joint, as alterations in ROM have been implicated in the aetiology of pathology (Cools et al., 2014, de Winter et al., 2004, Ellenbecker et al., 2002, Valentine and Lewis, 2006). In competitive swimmers, the incidence of reported shoulder pain is high, and some authors have suggested a correlation between shoulder ROM and injury (McMaster et al., 1998, Ozcaldiran, 2002, Walker et al., 2012). Competitive swimmers regularly undergo pre-participation screening to identify possible intrinsic risk factors for shoulder injury (Walker et al., 2012, Blanch, 2004). These tests include shoulder rotational measurements, as well as the sport-specific tests abduction in internal rotation (ABIR) and combined elevation (CE) (Blanch, 2004). The reliability of measurement of these tests in competitive swimmers has not been reported to date. This study sought to investigate the intra and inter-examiner reliability of tests of range of shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) at 90° abduction, ABIR and CE in competitive swimmers.

Section snippets

Setting and study design

A reliability study was conducted involving two physiotherapist examiners.

Participants

A convenient sample of 17 swimmers was recruited from five competitive swimming clubs in Melbourne, Australia. Swimmers participating in at least five swim sessions per week were eligible for this study. Exclusion criteria included a history of shoulder surgery or dislocation, shoulder pain on the day of testing or the presence of any other injury that would interfere with the test procedures. Examiners were two

Results

Swimmers ranged in age from 12 to 24 years and participated in six weekly swim sessions, on average, as summarized in Table 1. Means and standard deviations for the ROM tests are shown in Table 2. A priori examination of the raw ROM data revealed extreme outlying scores for right-sided IR recorded by Examiner B, for one participant. The entire ROM data set for this participant was deleted to prevent any undue influence of this data on results (Tabachnick & Fidel, 1989), leaving 16 participants

Discussion

This study quantified the reliability of several shoulder ROM tests using relative and absolute indices. Overall, the ROM tests demonstrated good to excellent intra- and inter-examiner reliability in competitive swimmers. To date, there is no research available for comparison of this study's results for ABIR measurement. Measurement reliability of CE has been previously investigated in cricketers with similarly excellent intra and inter-examiner reliability reported (ICCs: 0.87–0.97) although

Conclusions

The accuracy of measurement of the variables of interest is crucial to a study's ability to detect potential associations between risk factors and injury (Krosshaug, Andersen, Olsen, Myklebust, & Bahr, 2005). This study provides meaningful information regarding the reliability and standard errors of measurement for several shoulder ROM measurements, such that the results of future prospective cohort studies employing these tests can be assessed with confidence with respect to effect size and

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee and all participants or their parents/guardians provided written informed consent.

Funding

None declared.

Acknowledgements

Professor Kim Bennell is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship.

References (33)

  • H. Walker et al.

    Shoulder pain in swimmers: a 12-month prospective cohort study of the incidence and risk factors

    Physical Therapy in Sport

    (2012)
  • A.W. Andrews et al.

    Decreased shoulder range of motion on paretic side after stroke

    Physical Therapy

    (1989)
  • R. Bahr et al.

    Risk factors for sports injuries- a methodological approach

    British Journal of Sports Medicine

    (2003)
  • R.E. Carter et al.

    Rehabilitation principles: Research and applications

    (2011)
  • P. Croft et al.

    Observer variability in measuring elevation and external rotation of the shoulder

    British Journal of Rheumatology

    (1994)
  • T.S. Ellenbecker et al.

    Glenohumeral joint internal and external rotation range of motion in elite junior tennis players

    The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

    (1996)
  • Cited by (13)

    • Remplissage With Bankart Repair in Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Cadaveric Literature

      2019, Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most biomechanical studies showed a clear decrease in external rotation, whereas clinical studies only showed a small decrease. Furthermore, most of the reported differences in the clinical studies did not exceed the minimal detectable change in measuring ROM, which is 5° to 12°,33 and none of these differences reached statistical significance (Fig 4, Table 1). The inconsistency in ROM between clinical and biomechanical studies could be explained by the setup of the biomechanical studies, in which the shoulder joint is removed from the body, resulting in a nonanatomic situation.

    • Developing reliable measures of the passive torque-angle relationship for shoulder internal and external rotation: Implications for overhead athletics

      2018, Physical Therapy in Sport
      Citation Excerpt :

      The investigator must maintain the position of the torso and humerus, rotate the shoulder to the end point of the ROM, and complete the measurement. Reliability for ER and IR appears to be highly dependent on the skill of the investigator (Walker et al., 2016b). Several studies have reported good-excellent reliability with the majority of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values being ≥ 0.8 (Mullaney et al., 2010; Wilk et al., 2011), but poor-fair ICC scores are common.

    • Intra- and inter-reliability of fleximetry in individuals with chronic shoulder pain

      2018, Physical Therapy in Sport
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, an instrument frequently used for these purposes is the goniometer (Akyol et al., 2012; Guimarães et al., 2016; Pekyavas & Baltaci, 2016); and based on a study conducted by Hayes et al. (Hayes, Walton, Szomor, & Murrell, 2001), this instrument is a safe measure of shoulder ROM but presents a relative error inherent to its clinical use, with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values varying from 0.53 to 0.69 and standard error of measurement (SEM) varying from 14° to 25°. In addition, the inclinometer is another instrument regularly used to measure the ROM, with acceptable reliability identified by previous studies (Sharma, Bærheim, & Kvåle, 2015; Walker et al., 2016; Werner et al., 2014); however, the disadvantage of the inclinometer is that it is the most expensive equipment of its kind. Conversely, the fleximeter lacks scientific research addressing its reliability for the measurement of shoulder ROM.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +61 3 9479 5872.

    2

    Tel.: +61 7 3861 6112.

    3

    Tel.: +61 3 83444135.

    4

    Tel.: +61 3 990 30951.

    View full text