Validity, reliability, minimal detectable change, and methodological considerations for HHD and portable fixed frame isometric hip and groin strength testing: A comparison of unilateral and bilateral testing methods
Authors: Dunne, C., Callaway, A.J., Thurston, J. and Williams, J.M.
Journal: Physical Therapy in Sport
Volume: 57
Pages: 46-52
eISSN: 1873-1600
ISSN: 1466-853X
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.002
Abstract:Objectives: Comparative assessment of bilateral (KangaTech) and unilateral (HHD) testing modalities through concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Methodological considerations explored include minimum repetitions and comparison of average and maximum values. Design: Experimental, observational. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory. Participants: Thirty-three participants. Main outcome measures: Concurrent validity using peak force. Test-retest reliability used Abduction and Adduction using 2 trials, randomised between devices. Maximum peak force and average of both trials were used. Results: HHD and KT360 are concurrently valid (r = 0.996); with no significant difference (z = −0.681). Excellent HHD reliability (ICC:0.92–0.96) and KT360 (ICC:0.89–0.97). Significant difference between max peak force and average peak force but within the calculated MDC(%). No significant differences between max peak force between trials. Spearman-Brown prophecy predicted excellent reliability for one trial (ICC:0.81–0.95). Bilateral facilitation was demonstrated using the KT360 with 94.6–101.2% increase in force compared to HHD. Conclusions: With no significant difference between first and second max effort, and excellent prophesised reliability, one rep max effort should be acceptable to use. Body positioning within the KT360 seems to elicit bilateral facilitation rather than deficit, therefore unilateral and bilateral force values are not interchangeable.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37296/
Source: Scopus
Validity, reliability, minimal detectable change, and methodological considerations for HHD and portable fixed frame isometric hip and groin strength testing: A comparison of unilateral and bilateral testing methods.
Authors: Dunne, C., Callaway, A.J., Thurston, J. and Williams, J.M.
Journal: Phys Ther Sport
Volume: 57
Pages: 46-52
eISSN: 1873-1600
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.002
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Comparative assessment of bilateral (KangaTech) and unilateral (HHD) testing modalities through concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Methodological considerations explored include minimum repetitions and comparison of average and maximum values. DESIGN: Experimental, observational. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concurrent validity using peak force. Test-retest reliability used Abduction and Adduction using 2 trials, randomised between devices. Maximum peak force and average of both trials were used. RESULTS: HHD and KT360 are concurrently valid (r = 0.996); with no significant difference (z = -0.681). Excellent HHD reliability (ICC:0.92-0.96) and KT360 (ICC:0.89-0.97). Significant difference between max peak force and average peak force but within the calculated MDC(%). No significant differences between max peak force between trials. Spearman-Brown prophecy predicted excellent reliability for one trial (ICC:0.81-0.95). Bilateral facilitation was demonstrated using the KT360 with 94.6-101.2% increase in force compared to HHD. CONCLUSIONS: With no significant difference between first and second max effort, and excellent prophesised reliability, one rep max effort should be acceptable to use. Body positioning within the KT360 seems to elicit bilateral facilitation rather than deficit, therefore unilateral and bilateral force values are not interchangeable.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37296/
Source: PubMed
Validity, reliability, minimal detectable change, and methodological considerations for HHD and portable fixed frame isometric hip and groin strength testing: A comparison of unilateral and bilateral testing methods
Authors: Dunne, C., Callaway, A.J., Thurston, J. and Williams, J.M.
Journal: PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
Volume: 57
Pages: 46-52
ISSN: 1466-853X
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.002
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37296/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Validity, reliability, minimal detectable change, and methodological considerations for HHD and portable fixed frame isometric hip and groin strength testing: A comparison of unilateral and bilateral testing methods.
Authors: Dunne, C., Callaway, A., Thurston, J. and Williams, J.
Journal: Physical Therapy in Sport
Volume: 57
Pages: 46-52
Publisher: Elsevier
ISSN: 1466-853X
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.002
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37296/
Source: Manual
Validity, reliability, minimal detectable change, and methodological considerations for HHD and portable fixed frame isometric hip and groin strength testing: A comparison of unilateral and bilateral testing methods.
Authors: Dunne, C., Callaway, A.J., Thurston, J. and Williams, J.M.
Journal: Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine
Volume: 57
Pages: 46-52
eISSN: 1873-1600
ISSN: 1466-853X
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.002
Abstract:Objectives
Comparative assessment of bilateral (KangaTech) and unilateral (HHD) testing modalities through concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Methodological considerations explored include minimum repetitions and comparison of average and maximum values.Design
Experimental, observational.Setting
Biomechanics laboratory.Participants
Thirty-three participants.Main outcome measures
Concurrent validity using peak force. Test-retest reliability used Abduction and Adduction using 2 trials, randomised between devices. Maximum peak force and average of both trials were used.Results
HHD and KT360 are concurrently valid (r = 0.996); with no significant difference (z = -0.681). Excellent HHD reliability (ICC:0.92-0.96) and KT360 (ICC:0.89-0.97). Significant difference between max peak force and average peak force but within the calculated MDC(%). No significant differences between max peak force between trials. Spearman-Brown prophecy predicted excellent reliability for one trial (ICC:0.81-0.95). Bilateral facilitation was demonstrated using the KT360 with 94.6-101.2% increase in force compared to HHD.Conclusions
With no significant difference between first and second max effort, and excellent prophesised reliability, one rep max effort should be acceptable to use. Body positioning within the KT360 seems to elicit bilateral facilitation rather than deficit, therefore unilateral and bilateral force values are not interchangeable.https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37296/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Validity, reliability, minimal detectable change, and methodological considerations for HHD and portable fixed frame isometric hip and groin strength testing: A comparison of unilateral and bilateral testing methods.
Authors: Dunne, C., Callaway, A., Thurston, J. and Williams, J.M.
Journal: Physical Therapy in Sport
Volume: 57
Issue: September
Pages: 46-52
Publisher: Elsevier
ISSN: 1466-853X
Abstract:Objectives Comparative assessment of bilateral (KangaTech) and unilateral (HHD) testing modalities through concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Methodological considerations explored include minimum repetitions and comparison of average and maximum values.
Design Experimental, observational.
Setting Biomechanics laboratory.
Participants Thirty-three participants.
Main outcome measures Concurrent validity using peak force. Test-retest reliability used Abduction and Adduction using 2 trials, randomised between devices. Maximum peak force and average of both trials were used.
Results HHD and KT360 are concurrently valid (r = 0.996); with no significant difference (z = −0.681). Excellent HHD reliability (ICC:0.92–0.96) and KT360 (ICC:0.89–0.97). Significant difference between max peak force and average peak force but within the calculated MDC(%). No significant differences between max peak force between trials. Spearman-Brown prophecy predicted excellent reliability for one trial (ICC:0.81–0.95). Bilateral facilitation was demonstrated using the KT360 with 94.6–101.2% increase in force compared to HHD.
Conclusions With no significant difference between first and second max effort, and excellent prophesised reliability, one rep max effort should be acceptable to use. Body positioning within the KT360 seems to elicit bilateral facilitation rather than deficit, therefore unilateral and bilateral force values are not interchangeable.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37296/
Source: BURO EPrints