Reliability of Measurement of Maximal Isometric Lateral Trunk-Flexion Strength in Athletes Using Handheld Dynamometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Lateral trunk-flexion strength is an important determinant of overall trunk stability and function, but the reliability in measuring this outcome clinically in athletic individuals is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine the interrater and intrarater reliability of lateral trunk-flexion strength measurement in athletic individuals using handheld dynamometry. DESIGN: Reliability study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 12 healthy, athletic individuals. INTERVENTION: Lateral trunk-flexion strength was measured using handheld dynamometry across 2 different trunk placements (lateral aspect of the axilla and laterally at the level of the midtrunk) and 2 testing occasions by 2 therapists. Three maximum-effort trials during a "make test" at each placement were completed for each therapist on both occasions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum force output was identified and converted to a torque. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) were calculated for each dynamometer placement, therapist, and test occasion to determine intrarater and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability was moderate to good (ICC2,1= .53-.77), while interrater reliability was good to very good (ICC2,1 =.79-.81) at the axilla position. For the midtrunk position, intrarater reliability was good to very good (ICC2,1 = .80-.86), while interrater reliability was very good on both days (ICC2,1 = .87-.88). Finally, the standard errors of measurement were low for the axilla position (0.20 Nm/kg; 95% CI .15, .28) and midtrunk position (0.09 Nm/kg; 95% CI .07, .12). CONCLUSIONS: Maximum lateral trunk-flexion strength can be reliably measured in athletic individuals with greater overall strength. Based on the 2 positions used in this study, measurement with a dynamometer placement at the midtrunk may be more reliable than that obtained at the axilla.
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 | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".