Correlation between conventional clinical tests and a new movement assessment battery - Bachelor thesis (poster) Despite the complexity of movements performed in sports, physical examination is today done by conventional tests that evaluate joints and muscles individually (e.g. Smith press test, Figure1). Our study used a new movement assessment battery of 20 reach tests, which incorporates the complexity and diversity of natural human movements, taking into consideration that joints are interdependent in a movement and that the planes and sequences of a movement change during its performance. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not there is a correlation between conventional mobility tests and the new assessment battery.

1. Correlation between conventional clinical tests and
a new movement assessment battery
Stavros Litsos and Patrick Anderson
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences
Introduction
Despite the complexity of movements performed in sports,
physical examination is today done by conventional tests that
evaluate joints and muscles individually (e.g. Smith press test,
Figure1). Our study used a new movement assessment battery
of 20 reach tests, which incorporates the complexity and
diversity of natural human movements, taking into
consideration that joints are interdependent in a movement
and that the planes and sequences of a movement change
during its performance. The purpose of this study was to
determine whether or not there is a correlation between
conventional mobility tests and the new assessment battery.
Results
No correlation between mobility rotation tests and internal/
external hip rotation was found (Table 1). Although there was
a significant correlation between Overhead reach L135 and the
Thomas test on the right hip, there was no significant
correlation between the overhead reaches and the results from
the Thomas tests (Table 2). A correlation between floor
reaches and standing left ankle dorsiflexion was found, while
no significant correlation was found for the right ankle (Table
3). A higher correlation between overhead reaches and ankle
dorsiflexion compared to floor reach and ankle dorsiflexion
was registered (Table 4). In both cases, a significant
correlation for both right and left leg, with the left achieving
higher correlation values than the right was found.
Figure 1: Illustration of knee extension by glut. max. contraction in a
Smith press test. © Patrick Anderson
Table 2: Correlations between
overhead reaches and results
from the Thomas tests.
Table 1: Correlations between
mobility rotation tests and
internal/external hip rotation
Table 3: Correlations between
mobility floor reaches and
standing ankle dorsiflexion
Table 4: Correlations between
mobility overhead reaches and
standing ankle dorsiflexion
Conclusions
Dominant leg has an influence on the correlations, although
not known if positive or negative. Although leg dominance
was not registered, it is hypothesized that it may alter the
results. The variability of the results by applying
conventional tests in order to evaluate the range of motion
of the different joints reduces the validity. In order to be
able to capture and predict the quality of a highly
complicated movement pattern performed during a
competitive sport, we should first be able to apply a test
battery of which the results are reproducible. However,
further research is necessary to draw any major conclusions.
L
45
˚
R
45
˚R
13
5˚
L
13
5˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
0˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
180˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
L90˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
R90˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
10
10
0˚
90˚
90˚
180˚
10˚
50˚
100˚
80˚
130
˚
40˚
140
˚
170˚
20˚
60˚
110˚
70˚
120˚
30˚
150
˚
160˚
30˚
70˚
120˚
60˚
110˚
20˚
160˚
150
˚
40˚
80˚
130
˚
50˚
100˚
10˚
170˚
140
˚
0˚
90˚
90˚
180˚
10˚
50˚
100˚
80˚
130
˚
40˚
140
˚
170˚
20˚
60˚
110˚
70˚
120˚
30˚
150
˚
160˚
30˚
70˚
120˚
60˚
110˚
20˚
160˚
150
˚
40˚
80˚
130
˚
50˚
100˚
10˚
170˚
140
˚
L
45
˚
R
45
˚R
13
5˚
L
13
5˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
0˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
180˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
L90˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
R90˚
20
40
50
60
70
80
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
20
40
50
60
70
80
10
10
10
0˚
90˚
90˚
180˚
10˚
50˚
100˚
80˚
130
˚
40˚
140
˚
170˚
20˚
60˚
110˚
70˚
120˚
30˚
150
˚
160˚
30˚
70˚
120˚
60˚
110˚
20˚
160˚
150
˚
40˚
80˚
130
˚
50˚
100˚
10˚
170˚
140
˚
0˚
90˚
90˚
180˚
10˚
50˚
100˚
80˚
130
˚
40˚
140
˚
170˚
20˚
60˚
110˚
70˚
120˚
30˚
150
˚
160˚
30˚
70˚
120˚
60˚
110˚
20˚
160˚
150
˚
40˚
80˚
130
˚
50˚
100˚
10˚
170˚
140
˚
0/1 1/1-1/1
Figure 2: Illustration of the movement screen assessment mat.
Methods
Eight males (height, 182.7 ± 6.1 cm; body mass, 80.2 ± 9.3
kg) participated in this study. The mat (figur 2) is a horizontal
coordinate system with 45° vectors where horizontal distance
from the center of the mat is marked at 10 cm intervals with a
circle. Participants first executed 20 movements according to
the new mobility test screen and their joint mobility was then
examined using conventional tests. The subjects were
instructed to reach along these vectors with the right, left or
both hands. In addition rotation to left and right was
performed. All tests have clearly defined testing procedures.
10 tests were done on the right and left leg with toe touch of
the opposite leg, yielding a total of 20 tests. Distance in
centimetres along the 45° vectors and degrees of rotation were
obtained. Conventional tests of mobility were then performed
by two testers. These tests included; prone and seated hip
internal and external rotation, supine and standing ankle
dorsiflexion and Thomas test. Pearson correlation coefficient
was calculated between the conventional tests and the results
from the mobility test screen. With 8 participants a correlation
of ≥ 0.67 with a p value of 0.05 is considered significant.