The purpose of this study was to estimate intertester reliability of active and passive ankle joint position sense measurements in uninjured subjects. Subjects were 10 males and 10 females. Active and passive ankle joint position sense was assessed by two testers. Each subject was positioned supine on a modified examination table with his or her ankle placed in 25° of plantar flexion. Joint position sense (IPS) measurements, on two separate occasions, were recorded in degrees of error from four predetermined test positions. Test order was counterbalanced according to mode (active/passive) and test position. Two trials were performed for each sequence and the average of the two was recorded for analysis. The results revealed that both the active and passive JPS protocols yielded poor to moderate intertester reliability. It was concluded that further research is needed to develop reliable protocols for testing joint position sense of the ankle joint.
Joseph E. Szczerba, Julie N. Bernier, David H. Perrin, and Bruce M. Gansneder
Thomas W. Kaminski, David H. Perrin, Carl G. Mattacola, Joseph E. Szczerba, and Julie N. Bernier
This study examined the test-retest reliability of a prototype device used to measure ankle inversion and eversion isokinetic average torque values. The purpose of this paper was to illustrate a situation where common isokinetic measures were reliable but not valid. Concentric and eccentric average torque was assessed at 90 deg/s on the Kin Com II dynamometer using 14 healthy subjects in two sessions; a manufactured prototype ankle inversion/eversion attachment device was used. Reliability was assessed by performing separate intraclass correlations (ICC 2,1) on the results. The data indicated that the average torque calculated from the clockwise direction was consistently higher than those values from the counterclockwise direction, regardless of ankle movement or side measured. The validity of this prototype device to accurately measure average torque for these two ankle motions is questionable. This finding demonstrates a situation where the measures appear to be reliable while the validity of the device used to obtain the measures is suspect.