Nigg B M, Nigg C R, Reinschmidt C
Human Performance Laboratory, University of Calgary.
Sportverletz Sportschaden. 1995 Jun;9(2):51-7. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-993422.
The purposes of this project were to determine (a) the reliability of ROM and POM assessment methods for tests where an ankle joint brace was used and (b) the relationship between active and passive ROM and POM inversion measurements. The range of motion of the ankle joint complex for inversion was quantified using a range of motion apparatus. The inversion path of motion for the foot and the shoe was quantified using a high speed video system. The results of this study indicated: (a) Comprehensive functional tests of ankle joint braces using ROM and POM measurements showed maximal group differences of less than 1 degree between days for ROM (rAROM = 0.96 and rPROM = 0.93) and less than 1.5 degrees for POM measurements (rPOM = 0.88). (b) PROM measurements showed a consistent "creep" effect of about 2 degrees with increasing trial number during the first ten trials which must be taken into consideration for the design of the appropriate test protocol. (c) The correlation coefficient between AROM and POM was 0.37 and 0.44 between PROM and POM, suggesting that AROM and PROM measurements do not predict inversion during actual movement.
（a）在使用踝关节支具的测试中，ROM和POM评估方法的可靠性；（b）主动和被动ROM与POM内翻测量值之间的关系。使用运动范围测量仪对踝关节复合体的内翻运动范围进行量化。使用高速视频系统对足部和鞋子的内翻运动路径进行量化。本研究结果表明：（a）使用ROM和POM测量对踝关节支具进行的综合功能测试显示，ROM测量时不同日期之间的最大组间差异小于1度（rAROM = 0.96，rPROM = 0.93），POM测量时小于1.5度（rPOM = 0.88）。（b）在前十次试验中，PROM测量显示随着试验次数增加，存在约2度的持续“蠕变”效应，在设计合适的测试方案时必须考虑这一点。（c）AROM与POM之间的相关系数为0.37，PROM与POM之间为0.44，这表明AROM和PROM测量不能预测实际运动中的内翻情况。
