Psychometric properties of a standardized protocol of muscle strength assessment by hand-held dynamometry in healthy adults: a reliability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maximal isometric muscle strength (MIMS) assessment is a key component of physiotherapists' work. Hand-held dynamometry (HHD) is a simple and quick method to obtain quantified MIMS values that have been shown to be valid, reliable, and more responsive than manual muscle testing. However, the lack of MIMS reference values for several muscle groups in healthy adults with well-known psychometric properties limits the use and the interpretation of these measures obtained with HHD in clinic. OBJECTIVE: To determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of MIMS torque values obtained with HHD. METHODS: Intra and Inter-rater Reliability Study. The MIMS torque of 17 muscle groups was assessed by two independent raters at three different times in 30 healthy adults using a standardized HHD protocol using the MEDup™ (Atlas Medic, Québec, Canada). Participants were excluded if they presented any of the following criteria: 1) participation in sport at a competitive level; 2) degenerative or neuromusculoskeletal disease that could affect torque measurements; 3) traumatic experience or disease in the previous years that could affect their muscle function; and 4) use of medication that could impact muscle strength (e.g., muscle relaxants, analgesics, opioids) at the time of the evaluation. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were determined using two-way mixed (intra) and random effects (inter) absolute agreement intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC: 95% confidence interval) models. SEM and MDC were calculated from these data. RESULTS: Intra- and inter-rater reliability were excellent with ICC (95% confidence interval) varying from 0.90 to 0.99 (0.85-0.99) and 0.89 to 0.99 (0.55-0.995), respectively. Absolute SEM and MDC for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.14 to 3.20 Nm and 0.38 to 8.87 Nm, respectively, and from 0.17 to 5.80 Nm and 0.47 to 16.06 Nm for inter-rater reliability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent reliability obtained in this study suggest that the use of such a standardized HHD protocol is a method of choice for MIMS torque measurements in both clinical and research settings. And the identification of the now known metrological qualities of such a protocol should encourage and promote the optimal use of manual dynamometry.
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 | 0.035 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".