Browsing by Author "D’Souza, Sonia"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Reference measures of lower-limb joint range of motion, muscle strength, and selective voluntary motor control of typically developing children aged 5-17 years
    (2024) Scherff, Emily; Schnell, Sabrina Elisabeth; Siebert, Tobias; D’Souza, Sonia
    Background: Joint range of motion based on the neutral null method, muscle strength based on manual muscle testing, and selective voluntary motor control based on selective control assessment of the lower extremity are standard parameters of a pediatric three-dimensional clinical gait analysis. Lower-limb reference data of children are necessary to identify and quantify abnormalities, but these are limited and when present restricted to specific joints or muscles. Methods: This is the first study that encompasses the aforementioned parameters from a single group of 34 typically developing children aged 5–17 years. Left and right values were averaged for each participant, and then the mean and standard deviation calculated for the entire sample. The data set was tested for statistical significance ( p  < 0.05). Results: Joint angle reference values are mostly consistent with previously published standards, although there is a large variability in the existing literature. All muscle strength distributions, except for M. quadriceps femoris, differ significantly from the maximum value of 5. The mean number of repetitions of heel-rise test is 12 ± 5. Selective voluntary motor control shows that all distributions, except for M. quadriceps femoris, differ significantly from the maximum value of 2. Conclusion: Since typically developing children do not match expectations and reference values from the available literature and clinical use, this study emphasizes the importance of normative data. Excessively high expectations lead to typically developing children being falsely underestimated and affected children being rated too low. This is of great relevance for therapists and clinicians. Level of evidence: 3.