Efficacy of Shoulder Mobilization Training Using Computerized Simulation Models Vs Healthy Male Subject’s Shoulders With the Motion Monitor Manual Therapy System®
Location
Presentation 1 (Learning Commons- Studio M)
Session Format
Oral Presentation
Your Campus
Armstrong Campus- Learning Commons, April 19th
Academic Unit
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences
Research Area Topic:
Exercise Science & Human Performance - Biomechanics
Co-Presenters and Faculty Mentors or Advisors
Parth Patel, SPT
Kelsey Lewis, MS, SPT
Bryan L. Riemann, PhD, ATC, FNATA
George Davies, PT, DPT, MEd, SCS, FAPTA
Abstract
The purpose was to compare peak force accuracy (PFA) of grade II posterior shoulder mobilization training using End Range of Motion (ERMI) computerized shoulder vs. Motion Monitor Manual Therapy System (MTS) fixed to a healthy male subject’s shoulder. We hypothesized (1) students' performance of graded mobilizations would have significant improvement in control (C) and experimental (E) groups, (2) and no significant differences between groups. Thirty-one first-year Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students were randomly assigned and trained 6 weeks biweekly with thirty seconds of data collected before and after training. Paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and effect sizes analyzed results. Significant differences in PFA before training among both groups (t(23) = 2.247, p=0.035), with large effect (d=0.95). The E (M=0.809, SD=0.429) performed mobilizations closer to the gold standard when compared to the C (M=1.67, SD=1.21) before intervention. Significant differences were observed in the C post-training (t(13)=3.156, p=0.008), with a large effect (d=1.14). No significant difference was observed in the E post-training (t(11) = -.541, p=0.600), with a small effect (d=0.25). No significant difference was observed in PFA post-training among C and E (t(23)=-1.473, p=0.154), with a medium effect (d=0.68). The first hypothesis was not supported, with only a significant improvement in the C; however, the second hypothesis was supported. This may have resulted due to the test-training specificity effect.
Program Description
The purpose was to compare peak force accuracy (PFA) of grade II posterior shoulder mobilization training using End Range of Motion (ERMI) computerized shoulder vs. Motion Monitor Manual Therapy System (MTS) fixed to a healthy male subject’s shoulder.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Presentation Type and Release Option
Presentation (Open Access)
Start Date
4-19-2022 10:30 AM
End Date
4-19-2022 11:30 AM
Recommended Citation
Smith, Corey J. SPT and Patel, Parth SPT, "Efficacy of Shoulder Mobilization Training Using Computerized Simulation Models Vs Healthy Male Subject’s Shoulders With the Motion Monitor Manual Therapy System®" (2022). GS4 Georgia Southern Student Scholars Symposium. 8.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/research_symposium/2022A/2022A/8
Efficacy of Shoulder Mobilization Training Using Computerized Simulation Models Vs Healthy Male Subject’s Shoulders With the Motion Monitor Manual Therapy System®
Presentation 1 (Learning Commons- Studio M)
The purpose was to compare peak force accuracy (PFA) of grade II posterior shoulder mobilization training using End Range of Motion (ERMI) computerized shoulder vs. Motion Monitor Manual Therapy System (MTS) fixed to a healthy male subject’s shoulder. We hypothesized (1) students' performance of graded mobilizations would have significant improvement in control (C) and experimental (E) groups, (2) and no significant differences between groups. Thirty-one first-year Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students were randomly assigned and trained 6 weeks biweekly with thirty seconds of data collected before and after training. Paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and effect sizes analyzed results. Significant differences in PFA before training among both groups (t(23) = 2.247, p=0.035), with large effect (d=0.95). The E (M=0.809, SD=0.429) performed mobilizations closer to the gold standard when compared to the C (M=1.67, SD=1.21) before intervention. Significant differences were observed in the C post-training (t(13)=3.156, p=0.008), with a large effect (d=1.14). No significant difference was observed in the E post-training (t(11) = -.541, p=0.600), with a small effect (d=0.25). No significant difference was observed in PFA post-training among C and E (t(23)=-1.473, p=0.154), with a medium effect (d=0.68). The first hypothesis was not supported, with only a significant improvement in the C; however, the second hypothesis was supported. This may have resulted due to the test-training specificity effect.
