The Development, Validity, and Reliability of a Manual Muscle Testing Device With Integrated Limb Position Sensors Raymond C. Li, PhD, Jan M. Jasiewicz, PhD, James Middleton, PhD, Peter Condie, BEngTech, Andrew Barriskill, MBA, Heidi Hebnes, PT, Brendan Purcell, BEng Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Volume 87, Issue 3, Pages 411-417 (March 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011 Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 1 (A) Top and side views of the force transducer. (B) The sensors pack, with the sensor referenced axes of rotations indicated. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 411-417DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 2 Photograph showing how subjects were tested, including the attachment of the sensors, the personal digital assistant and how the clinician held the force transducer during each test. (A) Ankle dorsiflexion; (B) ankle plantarflexion; (C) knee extension; and (D) hip flexion. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 411-417DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 3 Average force measurements obtained by the 2 clinicians across all subjects. The error bars represent the SD. Abbreviations: DF, dorsiflexion; PF, plantarflexion. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 411-417DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 4 Pooled Pearson moment correlations (r=.97) for both clinicians. Data include results from all muscle groups and subjects. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 411-417DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 5 Comparison of averaged forced measurements from the KinCom and MMT device. Data were averaged from both clinicians and subjects. The error bar represents the SD. *A significant difference (hip flexion). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 411-417DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 6 Pearson moment correlation (r=.78) between the KinCom and MMT device. The individual values for clinicians 1 and 2 are identified. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 411-417DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.011) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions