Reliability and Validity of the Measurement of Scapular Position Using the Protractor Method

Aidan O'Shea; Rory Kelly; Sian Williams; Leanda McKenna

doi:10.2522/ptj.20150144

Figures

Figure 3.

Bland-Altman plots for (A) C7, illustrating the difference between photo 2-dimensional (2D) analysis and the protractor method for tester 1, and (B) T8, illustrating the difference between photo 2D analysis and the protractor method for tester 1.

Figure 2.

Photograph showing the alignment of the protractor for the T8 method. The white line indicates the vertical distance between the inferior angle of the scapula (upper crosshatch) and the inferior aspect of the spinous process of T8 (lower crosshatch).

Figure 1.

Photograph showing the alignment of the protractor for the C7 method. The dotted line indicates the vertical distance between the superior margin of the medial aspect of the root of the spine of the scapula (lower crosshatch) and the inferior aspect of the spinous process of C7 (upper crosshatch).

Tables

Table 2.

Intertester and Intratester Reliability Statistics for the C7 and T8 Protractor Method^{^a}

↵^a ICC=intraclass correlation coefficient, CI=confidence interval, SEM=standard error of measurement, MDC=minimal detectable change.

Table 3.

Validity Statistics for the Protractor Method Versus Photo 2D Analysis for Tester 1 and Tester 2 for Both C7 and T8^{^a}

↵^a Mean difference=mean difference between the protractor method (tester) and photo 2-dimensional (2D) analysis, LOA=limits of agreement, SEM=standard error of measurement.