背景:测量髋部肌肉性能的扭矩发展速率(RTD)和峰值扭矩(PT)在临床实践中提出了挑战。这项研究调查了手持式测功机(HHD)与等速测功机(IKD)的构造有效性,RTD和PT的评分者重复可靠性及其在髋关节运动中的关系。
方法:30名健康个体(平均年龄=30±8岁,13名男性)在一天内进行了两次测试。RTD(0-50,0-100,0-150,0-200ms)和PT归一化为最大自愿性等距收缩中的体重,使用HHD和IKD测量髋关节屈曲,扩展,绑架,内收,内部和外部旋转。
结果:对于设备之间的有效性,RTD0-50在所有髋关节运动中表现出最大的系统偏差(3.41-11.99Nm·s-1kg-1)和最广泛的一致性界限,而RTD0-200的偏倚最低(-1.33-3.99Nm·s-1kg-1),一致性极限最窄。对于PT,髋关节屈曲测力计之间的一致性(0.08Nm·kg-1),外展(-0.09Nm·kg-1),内部(-0.01Nm·kg-1),和外部旋转(0.05Nm·kg-1)。为了可靠性,在RTD0-50和RTD0-100(0.5-0.88)中,评分者组内相关系数(ICC2,1)从中等到良好,在所有运动中,RTD0-150和RTD0-200(0.87-0.95)都很好。HHD显示了出色的内部评分器,所有运动中的相对可靠性值(ICC2,1)(0.85-0.95)。皮尔逊相关性显示,在所有运动中,PT与RTD0-150和RTD0-200之间具有良好的线性相关性(r=.7至.87,p=<.001)。
结论:有效性分析显示HHD和IKD之间的RTD测量存在显著的系统偏差和缺乏一致性。然而,HHD显示优秀到中等的评分者,髋关节运动中RTD和PT测量的相对可靠性。临床医生可能会使用HHD进行髋关节肌肉PT评估,但请注意,后期RTD措施更可靠,有效,与早期RTD相比,与PT有关。此外,为了更好地理解这些指标之间的关系,我们研究了不同时间段的RTD和PT之间的相关性.
BACKGROUND: Measuring rate of torque development (RTD) and peak torque (PT) for hip muscle performance presents challenges in clinical practice. This study investigated the construct validity of a handheld dynamometer (HHD) versus an isokinetic dynamometer (IKD), and intra-rater repeated reliability for RTD and PT and their relationship in hip joint movements.
METHODS: Thirty healthy individuals (mean age = 30 ± 8 years, 13 males) underwent two test sessions in a single day. RTD (0-50, 0-100, 0-150, 0-200ms) and PT normalised to body mass in maximal voluntary isometric contractions were measured using a HHD and an IKD in hip flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, internal and external rotation.
RESULTS: For validity between the devices, RTD0-50 exhibited the largest significant systematic bias in all hip movements (3.41-11.99 Nm·s-1 kg-1) and widest limits-of-agreement, while RTD0-200 had the lowest bias (-1.33-3.99 Nm·s-1 kg-1) and narrowest limits-of-agreement. For PT, agreement between dynamometers was observed for hip flexion (0.08 Nm·kg-1), abduction (-0.09 Nm·kg-1), internal (-0.01 Nm·kg-1), and external rotation (0.05 Nm·kg-1). For reliability, intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) ranged from moderate to good in RTD0-50 and RTD0-100 (0.5-0.88), and good to excellent in RTD0-150 and RTD0-200 (0.87-0.95) in all movements. The HHD displayed excellent intra-rater, relative reliability values (ICC2,1) in all movements (0.85-0.95). Pearson\'s correlation revealed good linear correlation between PT and RTD0-150 and RTD0-200 in all movements (r = .7 to .87, p = < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Validity analysis demonstrated significant systematic bias and lack of agreement in RTD measures between the HHD and IKD. However, the HHD displays excellent to moderate intra-rater, relative reliability for RTD and PT measures in hip movements. Clinicians may use the HHD for hip muscle PT assessment but note, late phase RTD measures are more reliable, valid, and relate to PT than early phase RTD. Additionally, the correlation between RTD and PT at various time epochs was examined to better understand the relationship between these measures.