Comparison of Shoulder Rotation Strength and Test-Retest Reliability in 3 Test Positions With Swimmers.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Trey D W Job, Matthew R Cross, John B Cronin
{"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IR superseded ER in all testing positions.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.

游泳运动员3种测试体位肩旋力量及重测信度比较。
背景:便携式称重传感器技术的进步使得高质量的肩部内部(IR)和外部旋转(ER)峰值力(Fmax)和力发展率(RFD)的评估成为可能。本研究的目的是利用一种新型的测力元件装置,探讨IR、ER Fmax和RFD在不同测试位置的可靠性和差异。设计:采用受试者内重复测量设计,比较3种体位(坐姿-0°、仰卧-0°和仰卧-90°)时肩部IR和ER的Fmax和RFD的间歇值和可靠性。方法:国家级游泳运动员(n = 19;年龄= 16.8 [1.0]y),每个工况(手臂组合、旋转、测试体位)完成3次测试,间隔7 ~ 14天。结果:IR在所有检测部位均优于ER。除了IR RFD (r = 0.56 -)外,这些位置在IR和ER之间的相关性通常很强(r = 0.85, P < 0.001)。73, p < 0.05)。对于第2 ~ 3阶段,Fmax类内相关系数和CV(类内相关系数= 0.89 -)。(96, CV = 5.2% ~ 8.8%),而RFD(类内相关系数= 0.74 ~ 8.8%)在可接受范围内。90, CV = 11.5% ~ 18.1%)常出现虚高误差。结论:仰卧位(90°)是两种测量中最一致的体位。称重传感器技术可以自信地用于评估3个不同位置的肩关节旋转Fmax,而RFD应谨慎使用,无需改进方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
143
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信