Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Subject
Name of Tutor
Title of Report
Due Date
Introduction
According to Arus (2013, p. 465), joint flexibility is defined as the ability of a
joint to move through full range of motion and or greater. Arus (2013, p. 479)
also stated range of motion (ROM) is referred to the angle of displacement of
the movement between two joined segments.
There are two types of joint flexibility, active flexibility and passive flexibility.
Active flexibility refers to the maximum ROM that is produced and controlled
by active muscular contraction up to a particular degree of segmented
motion of a joint in a particular direction, whereas passive flexibility refers to
the maximum ROM that is passively moved by an external force acting on
the limb attached to a joint without causing injury (Zatsiorsky 2000).
When measuring the range ROM of a joint, a goniometer will be used. A
goniometer is basically a protractor with two arms. It also either measures
angles or allows an object to be rotated to a precise angular position
There are a few factors which determines and affects joint flexibility and
range of motion.
1. The first factor is the limitation of the structural or architectural of the
relevant joint (Zatsiorsky 2000). According to Alter (2004, p. 18), some
joints are closely packed where joint position where articulating bone is
at maximum contact with each other. Whereas, there are also some
joints are also loosely packed which is when articulating surface in not
congruent with each other, articulating capsules are lax and are not in
maximum contact with each other (Alter 2004). For these joints, for
example, the elbow joint which is closely packed will have a more
limited ROM when compare to the shoulder joint which is loosely
packed. This is because the when the hinge joint of the elbow is in
hyperextension, the olecranon fossa of the humerus is in maximum
contact with the olecranon of the ulna, thus restricting the motion of
the elbow in that direction. Whereas, the humerus attached to the
glenohumeral joint is a ball and socket joint and it can rotate in all
direction, thus have a larger ROM because both articulating surface are
not in maximum contact with each other.
2. The second factor is the mechanical properties of muscles and other
soft tissues surrounding the joint (Zatsiorsky 2000). Big muscles and
excess fatty tissues surrounding a joint tends to inhibit a joint's normal
range of motion by blocking its path of movement physically. For
example, a protruding abdomen can limit how high you can flex your
hip and pull your knee to your ribs (Ng 2013)
Objective
To evaluate range of motion of different joints in active and passive
movement.
Equipment
1. Goniometer
2. Marker Pen
Results
*Dominant Limb
Part 1: The Shoulder
a) Glenohumeral Extension
Active ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Left
25
26
32
*Right
25
30
27
27.6666
667
27.3333
333
Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Avera
ge
80
97
93
90
70
79
75
74.66
667
199
204
200
*Right
183
184
199
201
188.666
667
Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Avera
ge
209
215
219
214.3
333
213
203
213
209.6
667
158
143
158
150
152
152
156
148.333
333
Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Avera
ge
168
168
180
172
175
170
170
171.6
667
115
123
120
119.333
Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Averag
e
153
158
158
156.3
*Right
105
103
105
333
104.333
333
142
135
142
333
139.6
667
Discussion
1. Based on the results obtained from the measurement of active and
passive motion at the shoulder, elbow and knee joint, the average
range of motion (ROM) of all the dominant limbs are less than that of
the non-dominant limb.
2. Based on a study conducted by Macedo & Magee (2005) about the
differences in the range of motion between dominant and nondominant
sides of upper and lower extremities, the results showed a statistically
significant difference between dominant and nondominant sides of the
limbs , dominant limb showing less ROM than the non-dominant limb.
3. Another study conducted by Crandall, Carlin and Flynn (2015), the
results of this pilot study confirm others research that found nondominant shoulder ROM was significantly greater compared to the
dominant shoulder in four of the eight measurements.
4. The reason why the dominant limb shows less ROM than that of the
non-dominant limb in all of the research is because, according to
Downar and Sauers (2005), they stated that in baseball, the
reoccurring strain of overhand pitching on the dominant shoulder
causes the shoulder muscles to become increasingly inflexible, thus
reducing ROM. From this statement, we can relate this to the fact that
most of the time, we are constantly relying on our dominant limb which
is our strongest limb to produce torque on a mechanical load with less
contribution from the non-dominant limb. This causes the dominant
limb to be under more accumulative stress from daily activities or
sports. Thus, more strain is accumulated overtime on the dominant
limb compared to the non-dominant limb. The result of this is less ROM
in the dominant limb.
5. According to Anderson and Parr (2012, p. 101), when an individuals
limb is injured, Active Range of Motion (AROM) determines the possible
Reference
1
Ng, Nick 2013, Factors That Can Affect Joint Range of Motion, viewed 2
December 2016, http://www.livestrong.com/article/90805-factors-can-affectjoint-range/
Czuppon, S, Prather, H, Hunt, DM, Steger, May, K, Bloom, NJ, Clohisy, JC,
Larsen, R, Harris-Hayes, M 2016, Gender-Dependent Differences in Hip Range
of Motion and Impingement Testing in Asymptomatic College Freshman
Athletes, PM R, 2016 Nov 10. pii: S1934-1482(16)31121-2. doi:
10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.10.022.