We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Validity, agreement and reliability of the ForceFrame dynamometer in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries.
- Authors
Arp, Kamilla; Frydeldal, Thomas; Kjeldsen, Troels; Dalgas, Ulrik; Viberg, Bjarke; Gordon, Kim; Varnum, Claus
- Abstract
Introduction: Restoring maximal muscle strength of knee extension and knee flexion following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and reconstruction is of great importance. It is therefore essential for clinicians and healthcare providers to have dynamometers that are easy-to-use, valid and reliable. The ForceFrame is a novel dynamometer that may be a reliable option compared to the gold-standard isokinetic dynamometer. Objective: To assess the reproducibility of the ForceFrame dynamometer and concurrent validity against an isokinetic dynamometer in maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) during knee extension and flexion. Study Design: Reproducibility study Methods: Twenty-seven participants with ACL injury or reconstruction participated in this study. ForceFrame MVIC were tested on two separate days; Day one including gold-standard isokinetic dynamometer and day two inter-tester assessment by a new assessor. Main outcome measures were concurrent validity and agreement (ForceFrame vs. isokinetic dynamometer), day-to-day test-retest reliability and agreement and inter-tester reliability of ForceFrame. Results: ForceFrame showed a fair concurrent validity compared to the isokinetic dynamometer for extension (r=0.56), poor concurrent validity for flexion (r=0.24), Bland & Altman plots between ForceFrame and the isokinetic dynamometer showed a mean difference of -0.51 Nm/kg for extension and -0.32Nm/kg for flexion. There was a good day-to-day testretest reliability for MVIC of extension (ICC=0.77, CI95:0.48-0.90) and flexion (ICC=0.83, CI95:0.61-0.92), while there were excellent inter-tester reliability for MVIC of extension (ICC=0.97, CI95:0.94-0.98) and flexion (ICC=0.93, 95CI:0.85-0.97). Standard error of measurement (SEM) was 8% and 9% while the smallest detectable change (SDC) was 22% and 27% for extension and flexion, respectively. Conclusions: ForceFrame can be used to obtain valid and reliable results to assess MVIC of knee extension and flexion, but abso- lute results may be considered an underestimation of actual MVIC. The chosen test position to assess knee flexion in ForceFrame does not appear to be optimal, and different test-positions may be considered.
- Subjects
NORWAY; ANTERIOR cruciate ligament injuries; RESEARCH evaluation; RESEARCH methodology evaluation; CONFERENCES &; conventions; KNEE joint; EXERCISE tests; MUSCLE contraction; ISOKINETIC exercise; RANGE of motion of joints
- Publication
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2024, Vol 19, Issue 6, p775
- ISSN
2159-2896
- Publication type
Article