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.
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.