Reliability of Hip Rotation Range of Motion in Supine and Seated Positions

in Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD  $74.00

1 year subscription

USD  $99.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD  $141.00

2 year subscription

USD  $185.00

Context: Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable. Objective: To compare interrater and intrarater reliabilities between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: A total of 19 participants (11 females and 8 males; age = 23.5 [1.2] y; height = 173.2 [8.6] cm; and mass = 69.2 [13.4] kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited. Interventions: Three testers obtained measures during 2 testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (in degrees). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Minimal detectable change was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t tests (significance level was .05). Results: Supine hip IR and ER ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC = .75–.91). Seated hip IR ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (ICC = .64–.71). Seated hip ER ROM interrater reliability was good (ICC = .65), and intrarater reliabilities were good to excellent (ICC = .65–.82). Minimal detectable change values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1° to 8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs 44.5°; P < .01 and 53.0° vs 44.2°; P < .01, respectively). Conclusion: Supine hip rotation had higher interrater and intrarater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.

The authors are with the Department of Physical Therapy, Creighton University, Omaha, NE.

Bagwell (jennybagwell@creighton.edu) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    Martin HD, Kelly BT, Leunig M, et al. The pattern and technique in the clinical evaluation of the adult hip: the common physical examination tests of hip specialists. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(2):161–172. PubMed ID: 20141979 doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991;34(5):505–514. PubMed ID: 2025304 doi:10.1002/art.1780340502

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Nussbaumer S, Leunig M, Glatthorn JF, Stauffacher S, Gerber H, Maffiuletti NA. Validity and test-retest reliability of manual goniometers for measuring passive hip range of motion in femoroacetabular impingement patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:194. PubMed ID: 20807405 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-194

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Ellison JB, Rose SJ, Sahrmann SA. Patterns of hip rotation range of motion: a comparison between healthy subjects and patients with low back pain. Phys Ther. 1990;70(9):537–541. PubMed ID: 2144050 doi:10.1093/ptj/70.9.537

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Martin RL, Enseki KR, Draovitch P, Trapuzzano T, Philippon MJ. Acetabular labral tears of the hip: examination and diagnostic challenges. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(7):503–515. PubMed ID: 16881467 doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2135

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Poulsen E, Christensen HW, Penny JO, Overgaard S, Vach W, Hartvigsen J. Reproducibility of range of motion and muscle strength measurements in patients with hip osteoarthritis – an inter-rater study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:242. PubMed ID: 23217149 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-242

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Prather H, Harris-Hayes M, Hunt DM, Steger-May K, Mathew V, Clohisy JC. Reliability and agreement of hip range of motion and provocative physical examination tests in asymptomatic volunteers. PM R. 2010;2(10):888–895. PubMed ID: 20970757 doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.05.005

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Pua YH, Wrigley TV, Cowan SM, Bennell KL. Intrarater test-retest reliability of hip range of motion and hip muscle strength measurements in persons with hip osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(6):1146–1154. PubMed ID: 18503813 doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.028

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Han H, Kubo A, Kurosawa K, Maruichi S, Maruyama H. Hip rotation range of motion in sitting and prone positions in healthy Japanese adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(2):441–445. PubMed ID: 25729186 doi:10.1589/jpts.27.441

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Simoneau GG, Hoenig KJ, Lepley JE, Papanek PE. Influence of hip position and gender on active hip internal and external rotation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(3):158–164. PubMed ID: 9742472 doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.28.3.158

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Norkin CC, White J. Measurement of Joint Motion: A guide to goniometry. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company; 2009.

  • 12.

    Cicchetti D. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 345 345 56
Full Text Views 22 22 5
PDF Downloads 16 16 6