The reliability and validity of novel clinical strength measures of the upper body in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research investigating psychometric properties of multi-joint upper body strength assessment tools for older adults is limited. This study aimed to assess the test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of novel clinical strength measures assessing functional concentric and eccentric pushing activities compared to other more traditional upper limb strength measures. Methods Seventeen participants (6 males and 11 females; 71 ± 10 years) were tested two days apart, performing three maximal repetitions of the novel measurements: vertical push-off test and dynamometer-controlled concentric and eccentric single-arm press. Three maximal repetitions of hand-grip dynamometry and isometric hand-held dynamometry for shoulder flexion, shoulder abduction and elbow extension were also collected. Results For all measures, strong test–retest reliability was shown (all ICC > 0.90, p < 0.001), root-mean-squared coefficient of variation percentage: 5–13.6%; standard error of mean: 0.17–1.15 Kg; and minimal detectable change (90%): 2.1–9.9. There were good to high significant correlations between the novel and traditional strength measures (all r > 0.8, p < 0.001). Discussion The push-off test and dynamometer-controlled concentric and eccentric single-arm press are reliable and valid strength measures feasible for testing multi-joint functional upper limb strength assessment in older adults. Higher precision error compared to traditional uni-planar measures warrants caution when completing comparative clinical assessments over time.
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 | 0.000 | 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".