Range of Motion and Walking Status in Adults with Long-Term Disabilities Attending a Disability Welfare Facility: A Cross-Sectional Study

Aim: To describe routinely measured joint range of motion (ROM) in adults with long-term disabilities attending a disability welfare facility, evaluate measurement completion, and explore associations between ROM and physical therapist-defined walking status. Evidence from heterogeneous populations receiving long-term disability support remains limited. Methods: This exploratory retrospective cross-sectional observational study included 47 facility users. Passive ROM was assessed bilaterally for shoulder flexion, elbow flexion and extension, knee flexion and extension, and ankle dorsiflexion in routine care. Participants were classified as walking-capable or walking-difficulty based on clinical observation independently of ROM. Completion rates were calculated for each movement. Between-group differences were examined using Mann–Whitney U tests, and age associations using Spearman correlations. Twelve group comparisons were assessed using a Bonferroni sensitivity threshold of p < 0.0042. Results: Measurement completion varied between movements and was lowest for knee flexion. The walking-capable group showed less bilateral knee extension limitation at nominal significance (left: p = 0.005, r = 0.43; right: p = 0.009, r = 0.40), but neither comparison met the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold. No other joint movement showed a nominally significant between-group difference. No statistically significant association between age and ROM was detected. Conclusion: Bilateral knee extension ROM differed between clinical walking-status groups at nominal significance but not after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Routinely collected knee extension ROM may complement mobility-related physical impairment assessment in disability welfare settings. The small, heterogeneous sample, missing measurements, and unadjusted cross-sectional analyses require cautious interpretation; these findings are exploratory rather than confirmatory.