Reliability and validity of the K-force grip dynamometer in healthy subjects: do we need to assess it three times?

IF 0.9 Q4 REHABILITATION Hand Therapy Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-20 DOI:10.1177/17589983231152958
Nico Magni, Margie Olds, Sally McLaine
{"title":"Reliability and validity of the K-force grip dynamometer in healthy subjects: do we need to assess it three times?","authors":"Nico Magni,&nbsp;Margie Olds,&nbsp;Sally McLaine","doi":"10.1177/17589983231152958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Digital dynamometers to assess grip strength are becoming more common in research and clinical settings. The aim of the study was to assess validity and reliability of the K-force dynamometer compared to the Jamar dynamometer. We also aimed to assess differences over the course of three measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven healthy participants were included. Three trials with the K-force and Jamar dynamometers were completed. Testing order was randomised. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with absolute agreement assessed reliability and validity. Standard error of the measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>95</sub>) were calculated. Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlations and ICCs. Differences between the three repetitions were assessed using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the K-force and the Jamar presented excellent intra-rater reliability with ICCs ranging from 0.96 to 0.97. The SEM ranged from 1.7 to 2 kg and the MDC from 4.7 to 5.7 kg for both dynamometers. The concurrent validity of the K-force was high (<i>r</i> ≥ 0.89). However, the K-force underestimated the grip strength by 4.5-8.5 kg. There was no change in grip strength with either dynamometer over the course of three trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The K-force is reliable, but it underestimates grip strength by 4.5-8.5 kg compared to the Jamar dynamometer. K-force can be used to monitor progress over time but cannot be used to compare results against normative data. The use of a single measurement when assessing grip strength is sufficient when assessing healthy subjects.</p>","PeriodicalId":43971,"journal":{"name":"Hand Therapy","volume":"28 1","pages":"33-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10584072/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17589983231152958","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Digital dynamometers to assess grip strength are becoming more common in research and clinical settings. The aim of the study was to assess validity and reliability of the K-force dynamometer compared to the Jamar dynamometer. We also aimed to assess differences over the course of three measurements.

Methods: Twenty-seven healthy participants were included. Three trials with the K-force and Jamar dynamometers were completed. Testing order was randomised. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with absolute agreement assessed reliability and validity. Standard error of the measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) were calculated. Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlations and ICCs. Differences between the three repetitions were assessed using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.

Results: Both the K-force and the Jamar presented excellent intra-rater reliability with ICCs ranging from 0.96 to 0.97. The SEM ranged from 1.7 to 2 kg and the MDC from 4.7 to 5.7 kg for both dynamometers. The concurrent validity of the K-force was high (r ≥ 0.89). However, the K-force underestimated the grip strength by 4.5-8.5 kg. There was no change in grip strength with either dynamometer over the course of three trials.

Conclusions: The K-force is reliable, but it underestimates grip strength by 4.5-8.5 kg compared to the Jamar dynamometer. K-force can be used to monitor progress over time but cannot be used to compare results against normative data. The use of a single measurement when assessing grip strength is sufficient when assessing healthy subjects.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
K-force握力计在健康受试者中的可靠性和有效性:我们需要评估三次吗?
引言:评估握力的数字测功仪在研究和临床环境中越来越普遍。本研究的目的是评估K力测功机与Jamar测功机相比的有效性和可靠性。我们还旨在评估三次测量过程中的差异。方法:包括27名健康参与者。使用K-force和Jamar测功机完成了三次试验。测试顺序是随机的。具有绝对一致性的组内相关系数(ICCs)评估了信度和有效性。计算了测量的标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(MDC95)。使用Pearson相关性和ICCs评估并发有效性。使用单向重复测量方差分析来评估三次重复之间的差异。结果:K-force和Jamar都表现出优异的评分者内可靠性,ICCs在0.96至0.97之间。两个测功机的SEM范围为1.7至2kg,MDC范围为4.7至5.7kg。K-force的同时有效性很高(r≥0.89)。然而,K-force低估了握力4.5-8.5 kg。在三次试验过程中,两种测功机的握力都没有变化。结论:K-force是可靠的,但与Jamar测功机相比,它低估了4.5-8.5kg的握力。K-force可用于监测一段时间内的进展,但不能用于将结果与标准数据进行比较。在评估健康受试者时,评估握力时使用单一测量就足够了。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Hand Therapy
Hand Therapy REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
A survey of practice on the use of condition-specific patient reported outcome measures with patients who have distal radius fractures. The effect of preoperative interventions on postoperative outcomes following elective hand surgery: A systematic review. Exploring patient perception of decision-making in carpal tunnel release surgery: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Rehabilitation of stage-one scapholunate instability (ReSOS): An online survey of UK practice. Production time and practicability of 3D-Printed wrist orthoses versus low temperature thermoplastic wrist orthoses.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1