Cargando…

The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Researchers and practitioners working in sports medicine and science require valid tests to determine the effectiveness of interventions and enhance understanding of mechanisms underpinning adaptation. Such decision making is influenced by the supportive evidence describing the validity...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Drake, David, Kennedy, Rodney, Wallace, Eric
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5476535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28631257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-017-0091-2
_version_ 1783244608099057664
author Drake, David
Kennedy, Rodney
Wallace, Eric
author_facet Drake, David
Kennedy, Rodney
Wallace, Eric
author_sort Drake, David
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Researchers and practitioners working in sports medicine and science require valid tests to determine the effectiveness of interventions and enhance understanding of mechanisms underpinning adaptation. Such decision making is influenced by the supportive evidence describing the validity of tests within current research. The objective of this study is to review the validity of lower body isometric multi-joint tests ability to assess muscular strength and determine the current level of supporting evidence. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in a systematic fashion to search, assess and synthesize existing literature on this topic. Electronic databases such as Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed were searched up to 18 March 2015. Potential inclusions were screened against eligibility criteria relating to types of test, measurement instrument, properties of validity assessed and population group and were required to be published in English. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality and measurement property rating of included studies. Studies rated as fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria for quality appraisal. The ten studies that rated fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. The most frequently investigated lower body isometric multi-joint tests for validity were the isometric mid-thigh pull and isometric squat. The validity of each of these tests was strong in terms of reliability and construct validity. The evidence for responsiveness of tests was found to be moderate for the isometric squat test and unknown for the isometric mid-thigh pull. No tests using the isometric leg press met the criteria for inclusion in the best evidence synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and practitioners can use the isometric squat and isometric mid-thigh pull with confidence in terms of reliability and construct validity. Further work to investigate other validity components such as criterion validity, smallest detectable change and responsiveness to resistance exercise interventions may be beneficial to the current level of evidence. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40798-017-0091-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5476535
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54765352017-07-06 The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review Drake, David Kennedy, Rodney Wallace, Eric Sports Med Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Researchers and practitioners working in sports medicine and science require valid tests to determine the effectiveness of interventions and enhance understanding of mechanisms underpinning adaptation. Such decision making is influenced by the supportive evidence describing the validity of tests within current research. The objective of this study is to review the validity of lower body isometric multi-joint tests ability to assess muscular strength and determine the current level of supporting evidence. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in a systematic fashion to search, assess and synthesize existing literature on this topic. Electronic databases such as Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed were searched up to 18 March 2015. Potential inclusions were screened against eligibility criteria relating to types of test, measurement instrument, properties of validity assessed and population group and were required to be published in English. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality and measurement property rating of included studies. Studies rated as fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria for quality appraisal. The ten studies that rated fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. The most frequently investigated lower body isometric multi-joint tests for validity were the isometric mid-thigh pull and isometric squat. The validity of each of these tests was strong in terms of reliability and construct validity. The evidence for responsiveness of tests was found to be moderate for the isometric squat test and unknown for the isometric mid-thigh pull. No tests using the isometric leg press met the criteria for inclusion in the best evidence synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and practitioners can use the isometric squat and isometric mid-thigh pull with confidence in terms of reliability and construct validity. Further work to investigate other validity components such as criterion validity, smallest detectable change and responsiveness to resistance exercise interventions may be beneficial to the current level of evidence. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40798-017-0091-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2017-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5476535/ /pubmed/28631257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-017-0091-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Drake, David
Kennedy, Rodney
Wallace, Eric
The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review
title The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review
title_full The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review
title_fullStr The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review
title_short The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review
title_sort validity and responsiveness of isometric lower body multi-joint tests of muscular strength: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5476535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28631257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-017-0091-2
work_keys_str_mv AT drakedavid thevalidityandresponsivenessofisometriclowerbodymultijointtestsofmuscularstrengthasystematicreview
AT kennedyrodney thevalidityandresponsivenessofisometriclowerbodymultijointtestsofmuscularstrengthasystematicreview
AT wallaceeric thevalidityandresponsivenessofisometriclowerbodymultijointtestsofmuscularstrengthasystematicreview
AT drakedavid validityandresponsivenessofisometriclowerbodymultijointtestsofmuscularstrengthasystematicreview
AT kennedyrodney validityandresponsivenessofisometriclowerbodymultijointtestsofmuscularstrengthasystematicreview
AT wallaceeric validityandresponsivenessofisometriclowerbodymultijointtestsofmuscularstrengthasystematicreview