Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity of Goniometric Elbow Measurements: Comparative Study with a Radiographic Method

  • Clinical Research
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

A universal goniometer is commonly used to measure the elbow’s ROM and carrying angle; however, some authors question its poor intertester reliability.

Questions/purposes

We (1) assessed the validity of goniometric measurements as compared with radiographic measurements in the evaluation of ROM of the elbow and (2) determined the reliability of both.

Methods

The ROM and carrying angle of 51 healthy subjects (102 elbows) were measured using two methods: with a universal goniometer by one observer three times and on radiographs by two independent examiners. Paired t-test and Pearson’s correlation were used to compare and detect the relationship between mean ROM. The maximal error was calculated according to the Bland and Altman method.

Results

The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.945 to 0.973 for the goniometric measurements and from 0.980 to 0.991 for the radiographic measurements. The two methods correlated when measuring the total ROM in flexion and extension. The maximal errors of the goniometric measurement were 10.3° for extension, 7.0° for flexion, and 6.5° for carrying angle 95% of the time. We observed differences for maximum flexion, maximal extension, and carrying angle between the methods.

Conclusion

Both measurement methods differ but they correlate. When measured with a goniometer, the elbow ROM shows a maximal error of approximately 10°.

Clinical Relevance

The goniometer is a reasonable and simple clinical tool, but for research protocols, we suggest using the radiographic method because of the higher level of precision required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–C
Fig. 2A–C
Fig. 3A–D

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armstrong AD, MacDermid JC, Chinchalkar S, Stevens RS, King GJ. Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7:573–580.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Awan R, Smith J, Boon AJ. Measuring shoulder internal rotation range of motion: a comparison of 3 techniques. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1229–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20:337–340.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:85–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Boone DC, Azen SP. Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:756–759.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Docherty MA, Schwab RA, Ma OJ. Can elbow extension be used as a test of clinically significant injury? South Med J. 2002;95:539–541.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fish DR, Wingate L. Sources of goniometric error at the elbow. Phys Ther. 1985;65:1666–1670.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Glasgow C, Wilton J, Tooth L. Optimal daily total end range time for contracture: resolution in hand splinting. J Hand Ther. 2003;16:207–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Golden DW, Wojcicki JM, Jhee JT, Gilpin SL, Sawyer JR, Heyman MB. Body mass index and elbow range of motion in a healthy pediatric population: a possible mechanism of overweight in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008;46:196–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodwin J, Clark C, Deakes J, Burdon D, Lawrence C. Clinical methods of goniometry: a comparative study. Disabil Rehabil. 1992;14:10–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Greene BL, Wolf SL. Upper extremity joint movement: comparison of two measurement devices. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:288–290.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gunal I, Kose N, Erdogan O, Gokturk E, Seber S. Normal range of motion of the joints of the upper extremity in male subjects, with special reference to side. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1401–1404.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayes K, Walton JR, Szomor ZR, Murrell GA. Reliability of five methods for assessing shoulder range of motion. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47:289–294.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaeger GH, Marcellin-Little DJ, Depuy V, Lascelles BD. Validity of goniometric joint measurements in cats. Am J Vet Res. 2007;68:822–826.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med. 1989;19:61–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lennon RI, Riyat MS, Hilliam R, Anathkrishnan G, Alderson G. Can a normal range of elbow movement predict a normal elbow x ray? Emerg Med J. 2007;24:86–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. London JT. Kinematics of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:529–535.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Macedo LG, Magee DJ. Differences in range of motion between dominant and nondominant sides of upper and lower extremities. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:577–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Macedo LG, Magee DJ. Effects of age on passive range of motion of selected peripheral joints in healthy adult females. Physiother Theory Pract. 2009;25:145–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayerson NH, Milano RA. Goniometric measurement reliability in physical medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984;65:92–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J. The Elbow and its Disorders. Ed 4. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Paraskevas G, Papadopoulos A, Papaziogas B, Spanidou S, Argiriadou H, Gigis J. Study of the carrying angle of the human elbow joint in full extension: a morphometric analysis. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:19–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Park W, Ramachandran J, Weisman P, Jung ES. Obesity effect on male active joint range of motion. Ergonomics. 2010;53:102–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Petherick M, Rheault W, Kimble S, Lechner C, Senear V. Concurrent validity and intertester reliability of universal and fluid-based goniometers for active elbow range of motion. Phys Ther. 1988;68:966–969.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pique-Vidal C, Maled-Garcia I, Arabi-Moreno J, Vila J. Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: differences between measurements made manually and with a computerized program. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:175–180.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Riddle DL, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting: shoulder measurements. Phys Ther. 1987;67:668–673.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rothstein JM, Miller PJ, Roettger RF. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting: elbow and knee measurements. Phys Ther. 1983;63:1611–1615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Shaaban H, Pereira C, Williams R, Lees VC. The effect of elbow position on the range of supination and pronation of the forearm. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2008;33:3–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Shiba R, Sorbie C, Siu DW, Bryant JT, Cooke TD, Wevers HW. Geometry of the humeroulnar joint. J Orthop Res. 1988;6:897–906.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Steindler A. Kinesiology of the Human Body Under Normal and Pathological Conditions. Ed 5. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Szulc P, Lewandowski J. Verification of selected anatomical landmarks used as reference points for universal goniometer positioning during elbow joint mobility range measurements. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2003;62:353–355.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Terwee CB, De Winter AF, Scholten RJ, Jans MP, Deville W, van Schaardenburg D, Bouter LM. Interobserver reproducibility of the visual estimation of range of motion of the shoulder. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1356–1361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van de Pol RJ, van Trijffel E, Lucas C. Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological range of motion of upper extremity joints is better if instruments are used: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2010;56:7–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zampagni ML, Casino D, Zaffagnini S, Visani AA, Marcacci M. Estimating the elbow carrying angle with an electrogoniometer: acquisition of data and reliability of measurements. Orthopedics. 2008;31:370.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Montreal, Montreal, Canada

    Julien Chapleau MD

  2. Orthopedic Research C2095, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, 5400 boul, Gouin oust, Montreal, QC, H4J 1C5, Canada

    Fanny Canet MScA, Yvan Petit PhD, G-Yves Laflamme MD, FRCSC & Dominique M. Rouleau MD, MSc, FRCSC

  3. École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, Canada

    Fanny Canet MScA & Yvan Petit PhD

Authors
  1. Julien Chapleau MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fanny Canet MScA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yvan Petit PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G-Yves Laflamme MD, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dominique M. Rouleau MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominique M. Rouleau MD, MSc, FRCSC.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

This work was performed at the Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

About this article

Cite this article

Chapleau, J., Canet, F., Petit, Y. et al. Validity of Goniometric Elbow Measurements: Comparative Study with a Radiographic Method . Clin Orthop Relat Res 469, 3134–3140 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1986-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1986-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation