Skip navigation View an alternate layout of this website with limited styles and no horizontal scrolling
Menu

Pelvic Mobility When Bending Forward in Standing Position: Validity and Reliability of Two Motion Analysis Devices

By Perret, Caroline; Poiraudeau, Serge; Fermanian, Jacques; Revel, Michel; Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 221-226
Publication Date: February 2001

Study examining the validity and reliability of two motion analysis devices, the CMS 50 and the Rachimetre. The CMS 50 is a three-dimensional ultrasound motion analyzer, and the Rachimetre is a spine motion analyzer. They are both used in assessing mobility in people while bending forward while in a standing position. There were 50 participants in the reliability study whose ages ranged from 18 to 49. There were 10 participants in the validity study, ages 33 to 51. The results of the study show that both evaluation devices have adequate metric properties to assess pelvic mobility during trunk flexion in a standing position.
Published by: W.B. Saunders Company, a division of Elsevier Health Sciences   (Website:http://us.elsevierhealth.com)
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation    (Web Site: http://www.aapmr.org/ )
American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine    (Web Site: http://www.acrm.org )
Link to text: http://www2.archives-pmr.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=home&id=apmr

AbleData, 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 930, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 1-800-227-0216.
Maintained for the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Dept. of Education
by ICF Macro under Contract No. ED-04-CO-0018/0007.

The records in AbleData are provided for information purposes only. Neither the U.S. Department of Education nor ICF Macro has examined, reviewed, or tested any product, device, or information contained in AbleData. The Department and ICF Macro make no endorsement, representation, or warranty express or implied as to any product, device, or information set forth in AbleData. The views expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Department of Education, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, or ICF Macro.