Handheld Dynamometer for Hamstring Strength Test Using Two Different Hand Placements/Methods: An Interrater Reliability Study.

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION
Rehabilitation Research and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-10 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2024/9233802
Thomas A Koc, Jenna Tucker, Jennifer Gentile, Carla Enriquez, John Lee, Seide Jeanty, Natalia Krasowski
{"title":"Handheld Dynamometer for Hamstring Strength Test Using Two Different Hand Placements/Methods: An Interrater Reliability Study.","authors":"Thomas A Koc, Jenna Tucker, Jennifer Gentile, Carla Enriquez, John Lee, Seide Jeanty, Natalia Krasowski","doi":"10.1155/2024/9233802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Handheld dynamometers provide an accurate measurement of muscle strength and have been shown to have good interrater reliability. The proximal stabilization and fulcrum are two methods of manual muscle testing; however, there is uncertainty about which method may be better for obtaining muscle strength measures. <b>Objective:</b> The purposes were to determine if there was a difference in hamstring strength and to determine the interrater reliability of DPT students using a handheld dynamometer when comparing the proximal stabilization and the fulcrum methods. <b>Methods:</b> A descriptive-comparative research study that examined two methods of manual muscle testing with the use of a Microfet 2 MMT-Wireless digital handheld dynamometer. In prone, each participant was instructed to bend their knee to 90° of knee flexion, where the handheld dynamometer was placed on the lower leg for 5 s. Each technique was performed three times, and an average of the series was calculated. <b>Results:</b> Twenty-nine participants volunteered for this study. The mean scores for Raters 1 and 2 between hamstring testing using the proximal stabilization and fulcrum methods were, respectively, <i>t</i>(28) = -2.041, <i>p</i> = 0.051, and <i>t</i>(28) = -1.990, <i>p</i> = 0.056. The interrater reliability showed good reliability between Rater 1 and Rater 2 for hamstring testing for the proximal stabilization method and fulcrum methods, respectively, ICC = 0.742 (95% CI: 0.452, 0.879), <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001, and ICC = 0.752 (95% CI: 0.472, 0.884), <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001. <b>Conclusion:</b> There are no statistically significant differences between the uses of these two methods in healthy adults; however, there is good interrater reliability of DPT students.</p>","PeriodicalId":45585,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","volume":"2024 ","pages":"9233802"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11651756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9233802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Handheld dynamometers provide an accurate measurement of muscle strength and have been shown to have good interrater reliability. The proximal stabilization and fulcrum are two methods of manual muscle testing; however, there is uncertainty about which method may be better for obtaining muscle strength measures. Objective: The purposes were to determine if there was a difference in hamstring strength and to determine the interrater reliability of DPT students using a handheld dynamometer when comparing the proximal stabilization and the fulcrum methods. Methods: A descriptive-comparative research study that examined two methods of manual muscle testing with the use of a Microfet 2 MMT-Wireless digital handheld dynamometer. In prone, each participant was instructed to bend their knee to 90° of knee flexion, where the handheld dynamometer was placed on the lower leg for 5 s. Each technique was performed three times, and an average of the series was calculated. Results: Twenty-nine participants volunteered for this study. The mean scores for Raters 1 and 2 between hamstring testing using the proximal stabilization and fulcrum methods were, respectively, t(28) = -2.041, p = 0.051, and t(28) = -1.990, p = 0.056. The interrater reliability showed good reliability between Rater 1 and Rater 2 for hamstring testing for the proximal stabilization method and fulcrum methods, respectively, ICC = 0.742 (95% CI: 0.452, 0.879), p ≤ 0.001, and ICC = 0.752 (95% CI: 0.472, 0.884), p ≤ 0.001. Conclusion: There are no statistically significant differences between the uses of these two methods in healthy adults; however, there is good interrater reliability of DPT students.

手持式测力仪用于腿筋强度测试,使用两种不同的手放置/方法:一个相互可靠性研究。
背景:手持式测功机提供了肌肉力量的精确测量,并已被证明具有良好的相互可靠性。近端稳定和支点是两种手动肌肉测试方法;然而,对于哪一种方法更适合获得肌肉力量测量,还存在不确定性。目的:在比较近端稳定和支点方法时,目的是确定是否存在腿筋力量的差异,并确定DPT学生使用手持式测功机的相互可靠性。方法:一项描述性比较研究研究了使用Microfet 2mmt -无线手持式数字测功机进行手动肌肉测试的两种方法。俯卧时,每位参与者被指示将膝盖弯曲至膝盖弯曲90°,手持式测力计放置在小腿上5秒。每种技术执行三次,并计算该系列的平均值。结果:29名参与者自愿参加了这项研究。采用近端稳定法和支点法进行腿筋测试的Raters 1和Raters 2的平均得分分别为t(28) = -2.041, p = 0.051和t(28) = -1.990, p = 0.056。Rater 1和Rater 2对近端稳定法和支点法的腘绳肌检测具有良好的信度,分别为ICC = 0.742 (95% CI: 0.452, 0.879), p≤0.001,ICC = 0.752 (95% CI: 0.472, 0.884), p≤0.001。结论:两种方法在健康成人中的使用差异无统计学意义;然而,DPT学生有良好的互译信度。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Rehabilitation Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of physical medicine and rehabilitation. The journal focuses on improving and restoring functional ability and quality of life to those with physical impairments or disabilities. In addition, articles looking at techniques to assess and study disabling conditions will be considered.
×
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