Reliability of a Single-Session Isokinetic and Isometric Strength Measurement Protocol in Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purposes of the current study were (a) to determine the test-retest reliability of a single-session isokinetic and isometric strength testing protocol in older healthy men, and (b) to compare the outcomes of the reliability measures derived from averaged torque scores with those derived from a single peak torque score. METHODS: In 19 men (mean age, 72 +/- 5 years), both lower limbs were assessed independently on 2 separate test days using the Biodex System 3 dynamometer. After completing a 5-minute warm-up, each man performed three submaximal knee extensions followed by five maximal contractions at 90 degrees /s (CON), 0 degrees /s (ISO), and -90 degrees /s (ECC). Average (best 3 of 5) and peak CON, ISO, and ECC torque, and CON work and CON power were determined. Peak CON work and CON power were recorded from the highest peak torque concentric contraction (HPTCC). RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.84 to 0.94 were found to have good reliability. The typical error as a coefficient of variation ranged from 8% to 10% for averaged measures and from 8% to 17% for peak torque and HPTCC. The ratio limits of agreement for average and peak CON, ISO, and ECC torque ranged from 23% to 33% and from 40% to 54% for average CON and HPTCC work and power. CONCLUSIONS: The test-retest reliability of a single-session isokinetic and isometric strength testing protocol in this group of older healthy men displayed good relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.84); however, because the typical error as a coefficient of variation and ratio limits of agreement (absolute reliability) were large, single-session testing is not recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".