{"title":"Comparison of Shoulder Rotation Strength and Test-Retest Reliability in 3 Test Positions With Swimmers.","authors":"Trey D W Job, Matthew R Cross, John B Cronin","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Advancements in portable load-cell technology have enabled high-quality assessment of shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) peak force (Fmax) and rate of force development (RFD). This study's purpose was to explore the reliability and differences between IR and ER Fmax and RFD in different testing positions using a novel load-cell device.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A within-subjects repeated-measures design was employed to compare the intersession values and reliability of Fmax and RFD for both shoulder IR and ER across 3 positions: seated-0°, supine-0° and supine-90°.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>National-level swimmers (n = 19; age = 16.8 [1.0] y) completed 3 testing occasions of each condition (combination of arm, rotation, and test position) separated by 7 to 14 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IR superseded ER in all testing positions. The association between these positions across IR and ER was typically strong for both Fmax and RFD (r > .85, P < .001) except for IR RFD (r = .56-.73, P < .05). For sessions 2 to 3, Fmax intraclass correlation coefficient and CV (intraclass correlation coefficient = .89-.96, CV = 5.2%-8.8%) were typically within acceptable ranges, whereas RFD (intraclass correlation coefficient = .74-.90, CV = 11.5%-18.1%) often exhibited inflated error.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The supine (90°) position was the most consistent position across both measures. Load-cell technology can be confidently used to assess shoulder rotation Fmax in 3 different positions, whereas RFD should be used with caution without protocol refinement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0150","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: Advancements in portable load-cell technology have enabled high-quality assessment of shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) peak force (Fmax) and rate of force development (RFD). This study's purpose was to explore the reliability and differences between IR and ER Fmax and RFD in different testing positions using a novel load-cell device.
Design: A within-subjects repeated-measures design was employed to compare the intersession values and reliability of Fmax and RFD for both shoulder IR and ER across 3 positions: seated-0°, supine-0° and supine-90°.
Methods: National-level swimmers (n = 19; age = 16.8 [1.0] y) completed 3 testing occasions of each condition (combination of arm, rotation, and test position) separated by 7 to 14 days.
Results: IR superseded ER in all testing positions. The association between these positions across IR and ER was typically strong for both Fmax and RFD (r > .85, P < .001) except for IR RFD (r = .56-.73, P < .05). For sessions 2 to 3, Fmax intraclass correlation coefficient and CV (intraclass correlation coefficient = .89-.96, CV = 5.2%-8.8%) were typically within acceptable ranges, whereas RFD (intraclass correlation coefficient = .74-.90, CV = 11.5%-18.1%) often exhibited inflated error.
Conclusion: The supine (90°) position was the most consistent position across both measures. Load-cell technology can be confidently used to assess shoulder rotation Fmax in 3 different positions, whereas RFD should be used with caution without protocol refinement.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant.
JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.