Reliability of Ankle Isometric, Isotonic, and Isokinetic Strength and Power Testing in Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankle strength (force-generating capacity) and power (work produced per unit of time or product of strength and speed) capabilities influence physical function (eg, walking, balance) in older adults. Although strength and power parameters frequently are measured with dynamometers, few studies have examined the reliability of measurements of different types of contractions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine relative and absolute intrarater reliability of isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic ankle measures in older women. DESIGN: This was a prospective, descriptive methodological study. METHODS: The following dorsiflexion (DF) and plantar-flexion (PF) measures were assessed twice (7 days apart) by the same examiner in 30 older women (mean age=73.3 years, SD=4.7): isometric peak torque and rate of torque development (RTD), isotonic peak velocity, average acceleration and peak power, and isokinetic peak torque and peak power (30 degrees/s and 90 degrees/s). Several statistical methods were used to examine relative and absolute reliability. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the DF tests (ICC=.76-.97) were generally higher than ICCs for matched PF tests (ICC=.58-.93). Measures of absolute reliability (eg, coefficient of variation of the typical error [CV(TE)]) also demonstrated more reliable values for DF tests (5%-18%) compared with PF tests (7%-37%). Isotonic peak velocity tests at minimal loads were associated with the lowest CV(TE) and ratio limits of agreement values for both DF (5% and 14%, respectively) and PF (7% and 18%, respectively). Isometric RTD variables were the least reliable (CV(TE)=16%-37%). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to a relatively homogeneous sample of older women. CONCLUSIONS: Test-retest reliability was adequate for determining changes at the group level for all strength and power variables except isometric RTD. Minimal detectable change scores were determined to assist clinicians in assessing meaningful change over time in ankle strength and power measurements within individuals.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".