As advancements are made in technology, practitioners are searching for more innovative techniques and methods to do their job. The purpose of this study is to establish the validity of goniometer apps and determine the clinical usability of the applications when compared to the traditional goniometer. As technology advances and new devices are being developed for rehabilitation professions, each device should be examined for its reliability and clinical usability before it is implemented in the clinical setting (Tousignant-Laflamme, Boutin, Dion, & Vallée, 2013). At present, the standard goniometer continues to be the tool of choice to obtain range of motion (ROM) measurements.

To identify the most reliable and current applications for obtaining goniometric measurements, a comparative study was performed. Goniometer applications may aid in recording measurements by taking a photograph of the individual’s extremity at beginning and end ROM, utilizing the device’s inclinometers to determine the measurement or utilizing the device’s motion sensors to measure degrees of motion (Rhon, 2013).

The following goniometer applications were evaluated: Goniometer Records, Goniometer Pro, and DrGoniometer. This study had 29 participants (15 men and 14 women). Active ROM of shoulder flexion and abduction were tested using the apps and the standard goniometer (gold standard). Measurements were taken with the tools in this order: traditional goniometer, Goniometer Records app, Goniometer Pro app, DrGoniometer app, and then the traditional goniometer again. Shoulder flexion was tested in this sequence followed by shoulder abduction. Between each measurement, the patient was provided a 2-min rest period.

A paired t test was utilized to test significant differences between each app and the traditional goniometer for shoulder flexion and shoulder abduction. Data analysis revealed that of the three apps tested, both the Goniometer Records (p = .002) and Goniometer Pro (p = .000) apps yielded statistically significant differences from the traditional goniometer and would not produce valid results. Only the DrGoniometer yielded no statistically significant difference from the traditional goniometer (p = .465) and would be considered analogous to this gold standard.

When compared with the gold standard, DrGoniometer showed good validity for accurately measuring shoulder ROM in flexion and abduction. The DrGoniometer app was also ranked highest in overall usability.

Rhon, D. (2013). Smartphone as a clinical tool—Systematic review of goniometer apps. Retrieved from http://medicalappjournal.com/medicalblog/2013/09/18/using-your-smartphone-as-a-clinical-tool-the-goniometer/#.U8XZlUBhsTB

Tousignant-Laflamme, Y., Boutin, N., Dion, A. M., & Vallée, C. (2013). Reliability and criterion validity of two applications of the iPhone to measure cervical range of motion in healthy participants. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 10, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-10-69