1. 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 (March 2006)
DOI: /j.apmr
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

2. 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  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

3. 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  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

4. 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  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

5. 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  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

6. 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  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

7. 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  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions