SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

Goniometric Measurement of Wrist and Forearm Active Joint Position Sense: Test–Retest Reliability and Measurement Error

El Bileği ve Önkol Aktif Eklem Pozisyon Hissinin Gonyometrik Ölçümü: Test–Tekrar Test Güvenirliği ve Ölçüm Hatası

Barış Seven(İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2809-4761
Kaan Kaya0009-0006-1613-8962
Hüseyin Sargin0009-0009-3283-8450
Meryem Durmuş0009-0000-0440-7842
Fatma Nur Saygili(IZMIR KATIP CELEBI UNIVERSITY)0009-0003-1598-2414
Pages
462–475
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Movement-specific minimal detectable change values should guide determination of true change during individual follow-up.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and measurement error of goniometric assessment of wrist and forearm active joint position sense in healthy young adults.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Relative reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients; absolute error with standard errors of measurement, minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level, mean bias, and Bland–Altman 95% limits of agreement.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Movement-specific minimal detectable change values should guide determination of true change during individual follow-up.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Propriyosepsiyon · el bileği eklemi · önkol

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and measurement error of goniometric assessment of wrist and forearm active joint position sense in healthy young adults. Method: Twenty-eight healthy young adults participated. Wrist flexion, extension, radial deviation, and ulnar deviation were assessed bilaterally with a universal goniometer; forearm pronation and supination with a plumb-line goniometer. Participants reproduced each target angle three times without visual feedback; mean absolute angle errors were analyzed. The same assessor repeated measurements after one week. Relative reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients; absolute error with standard errors of measurement, minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level, mean bias, and Bland–Altman 95% limits of agreement. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.690 to 0.913. Point estimates indicated moderate-to-excellent reliability, but lower 95% confidence limits fell within the poor range for dominant radial deviation, nondominant pronation, and nondominant ulnar deviation. Standard errors of measurement ranged from 0.33° to 0.96°, and minimal detectable changes from 0.93° to 2.66°. Mean biases ranged from −0.02° to 0.06°; all 95% confidence intervals included zero. Limits of agreement differed in width by movement and side. Conclusion: Goniometric assessment appears generally reliable for repeated wrist and forearm active joint position sense measurement in healthy young adults. Variation across movements and sides, however, indicates measurements should not be interpreted using a single common threshold. Movement-specific minimal detectable change values should guide determination of true change during individual follow-up.

Özet

Amaç : Bu çalışmanın amacı sağlıklı genç yetişkinlerde el bileği ve önkol aktif eklem pozisyon hissinin gonyometrik değerlendirilmesine ilişkin test–tekrar test güvenirliği ve ölçüm hatasını incelemektir. Yöntem: Çalışmaya 28 sağlıklı genç yetişkin katıldı. El bileği fleksiyonu, ekstansiyonu, radyal deviasyonu ve ulnar deviasyonu evrensel gonyometreyle; önkol pronasyonu ve supinasyonu ise çekül hatlı gonyometreyle her iki tarafta değerlendirildi. Katılımcılar her hedef açıyı görsel geri bildirim olmadan üç kez yeniden oluşturdu; ortalama mutlak açı hataları analiz edildi. Ölçümler bir hafta sonra aynı değerlendirici tarafından tekrarlandı. Göreli güvenirlik sınıf içi korelasyon katsayılarıyla; mutlak hata ise standart ölçüm hataları, %95 güven düzeyindeki minimal saptanabilir değişimler, ortalama yanlılık ve Bland–Altman %95 uyum sınırlarıyla değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Sınıf içi korelasyon katsayıları 0,690–0,913 arasında değişti. Nokta tahminlerine göre güvenirlik üç ölçümde orta, sekiz ölçümde iyi ve bir ölçümde mükemmeldi; ancak dominant radyal deviasyon, nondominant pronasyon ve nondominant ulnar deviasyon için %95 güven aralıklarının alt sınırları zayıf güvenirlik düzeyindeydi. Standart ölçüm hataları 0,33°–0,96°, minimal saptanabilir değişimler ise 0,93°–2,66° arasında değişti. Ortalama yanlılıklar −0,02° ile 0,06° arasında değişti; %95 güven aralıklarının tümü sıfırı içerdi. Uyum sınırlarının genişliği hareket ve tarafa göre farklılık gösterdi. Sonuç: Gonyometrik değerlendirme, sağlıklı genç yetişkinlerde el bileği ve önkol aktif eklem pozisyon hissinin tekrarlı ölçümünde genel olarak güvenilir görünmektedir. Bununla birlikte, güvenirliğin hareket ve tarafa göre değişmesi, ölçümlerin tek bir ortak eşik kullanılarak yorumlanmaması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bireysel izlem sırasında gerçek değişimin belirlenmesinde harekete özgü minimal saptanabilir değişim değerleri dikkate alınmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Seven, B., Kaya, K., Sargin, H., Durmuş, M., Saygili, F. N. (2026). Goniometric Measurement of Wrist and Forearm Active Joint Position Sense: Test–Retest Reliability and Measurement Error. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 462–475. https://doi.org/10.46237/amusbfd.2017126

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The proprioceptive senses: Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiol Rev, 92(4), 1651–1697. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00048.2011
  2. Han, J., Waddington, G., Adams, R., Anson, J., & Liu, Y. (2016). Assessing proprioception: A critical review of methods. J Sport Health Sci, 5(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.10.004
  3. Röijezon, U., Clark, N. C., & Treleaven, J. (2015). Proprioception in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Part 1: Basic science and principles of assessment and clinical interventions. Man Ther, 20(3), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.01.008
  4. Hagert, E. (2010). Proprioception of the wrist joint: A review of current concepts and possible implications on the rehabilitation of the wrist. J Hand Ther, 23(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2009.09.008
  5. Hagert, E., & Rein, S. (2024). Wrist proprioception—An update on scientific insights and clinical implications in rehabilitation of the wrist. J Hand Ther, 37(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2023.09.010
  6. Karagiannopoulos, C., Sitler, M., Michlovitz, S., & Tierney, R. (2013). A descriptive study on wrist and hand sensori-motor impairment and function following distal radius fracture intervention. J Hand Ther, 26(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2013.03.004
  7. Park, J. H., Kim, D., Park, H., Jung, I., Youn, I., & Park, J. W. (2018). The effect of triangular fibrocartilage complex tear on wrist proprioception. J Hand Surg Am, 43(9), 866.e1–866.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.01.022
  8. Clark, N. C., Röijezon, U., & Treleaven, J. (2015). Proprioception in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Part 2: Clinical assessment and intervention. Man Ther, 20(3), 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.01.009
  9. Karagiannopoulos, C., Sitler, M., & Michlovitz, S. (2003). Reliability of 2 functional goniometric methods for measuring forearm pronation and supination active range of motion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 33(9), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2003.33.9.523
  10. Pilbeam, C., & Hood-Moore, V. (2018). Test–retest reliability of wrist joint position sense in healthy adults in a clinical setting. Hand Ther, 23(3), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758998318770227
  11. Tekin, F., Can-Akman, T., & Kitiş, A. (2022). Evaluation of the validity and reliability of the KFORCE Sens® electrogoniometer in evaluation of wrist proprioception. Hand Surg Rehabil, 41(2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2021.12.006
  12. Seven, B., Zorlular, A., & Oskay, D. (2024). Comparison of the validity and reliability of three different methods used for wrist proprioception measurement. J Bodyw Mov Ther, 37, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.11.018
  13. Shetty, S., Neelapala, Y. V. R., & Vishal, K. (2024). Normative values and the influence of sex, hand dominance, and direction of movement on active wrist joint position sense in young healthy adults. Musculoskelet Sci Pract, 73, 103140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103140
  14. Sontag, M., Röijezon, U., Brogårdh, C., & Ekstrand, E. (2025). New clinical measures of hand and wrist proprioception: A pilot study for evaluating discriminative validity and test–retest reliability in individuals with wrist disability. J Rehabil Med Clin Commun, 8, 43929. https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm-cc.v8.43929
  15. Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M., & Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med, 17(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1 3.0.CO;2-E
  16. Gibson, G. (2015). Goniometry. In J. C. MacDermid, G. Solomon, & K. Valdes (Eds.), Clinical assessment recommendations (3rd ed., pp. 77–116). American Society of Hand Therapists. https://asht.org/practice/clinical-assessment-recommendations
  17. Gates, D. H., Walters, L. S., Cowley, J., Wilken, J. M., & Resnik, L. (2016). Range of motion requirements for upper-limb activities of daily living. Am J Occup Ther, 70(1), 7001350010p1–7001350010p10. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.015487
  18. Şenol, D., Uçar, C., Toy, Ş., Kısaoğlu, A., Özbağ, D., Ersoy, Y. et al. (2021). Analysis of the effects of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity in menstrual cycle on ankle proprioception, dynamic balance scores and visual-auditory reaction times in healthy young women. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 21(1), 85–92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657758/
  19. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  20. Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res, 19(1), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1
  21. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 327(8476), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
  22. Kottner, J., Audigé, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A. et al. (2011). Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud, 48(6), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016
  23. Karagiannopoulos, C. (2024). Active wrist joint position sense (AWJPS) test offers variable reliability levels and scores among multiple wrist angles and tester-experience levels. J Hand Ther, 37(2), 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2022.09.005
  24. Karagiannopoulos, C., Sitler, M., Michlovitz, S., Tucker, C., & Tierney, R. (2016). Responsiveness of the active wrist joint position sense test after distal radius fracture intervention. J Hand Ther, 29(4), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2016.06.009
  25. Li, L., & Li, S. (2023). Grip force makes wrist joint position sense worse. Front Hum Neurosci, 17, 1193937. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1193937
  26. Menek, B., & Dansuk, E. (2025). Investigating the effects of closed kinetic chain exercises on joint position sense, functionality, range of motion, and pain in individuals with distal radius fracture: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 17(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-025-01195-2
  27. Albanese, G. A., Holmes, M. W. R., Marini, F., Morasso, P., & Zenzeri, J. (2021). Wrist position sense in two dimensions: Between-hand symmetry and anisotropic accuracy across the space. Front Hum Neurosci, 15, 662768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.662768
  28. Mokkink, L. B., Boers, M., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2020). COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: A Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 20(1), 293. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5
  29. Şenol, D., Uçar, C., Toy, Ş., Kısaoğlu, A., Özbağ, D., Ersoy, Y. et al. (2021). Analysis of the effects of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity in menstrual cycle on ankle proprioception, dynamic balance scores and visual-auditory reaction times in healthy young women. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 21(1), 85–92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657758/
  30. Kottner, J., Audigé, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A. et al. (2011). Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud, 48(6), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016
  31. Mokkink, L. B., Boers, M., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2020). COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: A Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 20(1), 293. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5