Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine · 2022
Reliability and validity of common hip adduction strength measures: The ForceFrame strength testing system versus the sphygmomanometer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O' Connor Ciaran, McIntyre Martin, Delahunt Eamonn, Thorborg Kristian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The criterion validity of the sphygmomanometer was evaluated, relative to the Force Frame strength testing system. Test-retest reliability was assessed for both hip adduction and abduction strength.
DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study and criterion validity study.
PARTICIPANTS: 50 asymptomatic, field-sport athletes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximal isometric hip adduction and abduction strength were measured. Interclass correlation coefficient(ICC2,1) with confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate reliability of peak strength values. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient(r) was calculated to examine criterion validity of the sphygmomanometer as a measure of force when compared to the ForceFrame.
RESULTS: Intra-rater reliability for bilateral adduction testing using both ForceFrame and sphygmomanometer values revealed good-excellent reliability for both the 0° (ICC2.1 = 0.87-0.90) and 45° (ICC2.1 = 0.81-0.91) positions. ForceFrame values revealed good-excellent reliability for 0° abduction position and 45° abduction position. A good-moderate relationship (Pearson's r = 0.63) for 0° adduction position, and poor relationship (Pearson's r = 0.40) for 45° adduction position, were found between adduction squeeze values on ForceFrame and sphygmomanometer.
CONCLUSION: Excellent reliability in hip adduction squeeze strength testing for both modes. However, there exists a 'good to moderate'-'fair' relationship between the Force Frame and sphygmomanometer.
DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study and criterion validity study.
PARTICIPANTS: 50 asymptomatic, field-sport athletes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximal isometric hip adduction and abduction strength were measured. Interclass correlation coefficient(ICC2,1) with confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate reliability of peak strength values. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient(r) was calculated to examine criterion validity of the sphygmomanometer as a measure of force when compared to the ForceFrame.
RESULTS: Intra-rater reliability for bilateral adduction testing using both ForceFrame and sphygmomanometer values revealed good-excellent reliability for both the 0° (ICC2.1 = 0.87-0.90) and 45° (ICC2.1 = 0.81-0.91) positions. ForceFrame values revealed good-excellent reliability for 0° abduction position and 45° abduction position. A good-moderate relationship (Pearson's r = 0.63) for 0° adduction position, and poor relationship (Pearson's r = 0.40) for 45° adduction position, were found between adduction squeeze values on ForceFrame and sphygmomanometer.
CONCLUSION: Excellent reliability in hip adduction squeeze strength testing for both modes. However, there exists a 'good to moderate'-'fair' relationship between the Force Frame and sphygmomanometer.