Hip Abduction-Adduction Strength and One-Leg Hop Tests: Test-Retest Reliability and Relationship to Function in Elite Ice Hockey Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Single group, test-retest. OBJECTIVES: To determine: (1) hip abduction and adduction torques during concentric and eccentric muscle actions, (2) medial and lateral one-leg hop distances, (3) the test-retest reliability of these measurements, and (4) the relationship between isokinetic measures of hip muscle strength and hop distances in elite ice hockey players. BACKGROUND: The skating motion used in ice hockey requires strong contractions of the hip and knee musculature. However, baseline scores for hip strength and hop distances, their test-retest reliability, and measures of the extent to which these tests are related for this population are not available. METHODS AND MEASURES: The dominant leg of 27 men (mean age 20 +/- 3 yrs) was tested on 2 occasions. Hip abduction and adduction movements were completed at 60 degrees.s(-1) angular velocity, with the subject lying on the non-test side and the test leg moving vertically in the subject's coronal plane. One-leg hops requiring jumping from and landing on the same leg without losing balance were completed in the medial and lateral directions. RESULTS: Hip adduction torques were significantly greater than abduction torques during both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, while no significant difference was observed between medial and lateral hop distances. Although hop test scores produced excellent ICCs (> 0.75) when determined using scores on 1 occasion, torques needed to be averaged over 2 test occasions to reach this level. Correlations between the strength and hop tests ranged from slight to low (r = -0.26 to 0.27) and were characterized by wide 95% confidence intervals (-0.54 to 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Isokinetic tests of hip abduction and adduction did not provide a strong indication of performance during sideways hop tests. Although isokinetic tests can provide a measure of muscular strength under specific test conditions, they should not be relied upon as a primary indicator of functional abilities or readiness to return to activity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".