Test-Retest Reliability of Glenohumeral Internal and External Rotator Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish test-retest reliability for a strength testing protocol of the glenohumeral internal and external rotator muscles using a KinCom (Chattanooga Group, Hixson, TN) isokinetic dynamometer. DESIGN: Prospective test-retest reliability study. SETTING: Rehabilitation research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen volunteers between the ages of 27 and 35 years participated in the study. Subjects had no history of traumatic shoulder injury and no overuse-based shoulder pain interfering with activity within the last 6 months. Nine of the 14 subjects were not participating in more than 6 hours weekly of arm-based sporting activities, while the remaining five subjects were involved in swim training at workout volumes of no greater than 3000 m per week. INTERVENTION: Subjects performed three test sessions of four maximal repetitions each of concentric and eccentric shoulder internal and external rotation bilaterally in a standardized sitting position. An average of 5.9 days occurred between consecutive test sessions (range, 2-21 days). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average torque data were collected for concentric and eccentric internal and external rotation tests bilaterally. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the data across sessions. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated to assess reliability between sessions. RESULTS: High test-retest reliability, ranging from 0.82 to 0.97, was demonstrated for all tests. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that a reliable test protocol has been determined for shoulder internal and external rotation strength testing on the KinCom isokinetic dynamometer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".