Reliability of Lower-Extremity Isokinetic Dynamometry Testing in Young and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isokinetic dynamometry (ID) systems are commonly used to acquire clinical measures of peak muscle torque; however, there is limited data available regarding the test-retest reliability of ID torque measures for the ankle, knee and hip. This information is important for better understanding movement disorders in older adults, but few studies have assessed reliability in this population. PURPOSE: To measure test-retest reliability of peak isokinetic strength for all of the lower extremity joints, the ankle (dorsi/plantarflexion), knee (flexion/extension), and hip (flexion/extension & ab/adduction), in healthy young adults and older adults using a protocol developed for CYBEX Norm. METHODS: Ten healthy young adults (mean age: 23± 2yrs, 6 female) and 5 older adults (mean age: 66 ±3yrs, 4female) were recruited. Participants performed 5 isokinetic trials at 60 °/s for the knee and hip joint and 30°/sec for the ankle. Each subject completed a retest session 1 week later. Test re-test reliability was assessed using the Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, model 3). RESULTS: The trials that had excellent (ICC>0.75) reliability for the young population were hip flexion (ICC = .86 dominant, .83 non dominant), extension (81, .92), adduction (.95, .97), knee extension (92, .93) and ankle dorsiflexion (.96, .96) and plantarflexion (.94, .77). Knee flexion strength had excellent reliability on the dominant side but lower reliability for the non-dominant side (.88, .58), while hip abductor strength had fair reliability (.68, .70) for both sides. For the elderly population trials with excellent reliability on both sides were hip abductors (.76, .90), knee flexion (.98, .98), knee extension (.93,.88), and ankle dorsiflexion (.94, .80). Trials with excellent reliability on the non dominant side were hip flexion (.68, .92), extension (.70, .90) and adduction (.72, .98). The ankle plantarflexors had fair reliability (.54, .66) CONCLUSION: Isokinetic dynamometry is reliable for acquiring isokinetic measures of muscle strength in healthy adults. The lower reliability of peak torque measurement for hip abductors in the young population and the plantarflexors in the elderly population warrants further investigation as they were found to have excellent reliability in the other population. Supported by NSERC, CIHR & NBIF
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".