Cargando…
The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment
Objective: Handheld dynamometers are common tools for assessing/monitoring muscular strength and endurance. Health/fitness Bluetooth load sensors may provide a cost-effective alternative; however, research is needed to evaluate the validity and reliability of such devices. This study assessed the va...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8703969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34960492 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21248399 |
_version_ | 1784621594008616960 |
---|---|
author | Merry, Kohle Napier, Christopher Chung, Vivian Hannigan, Brett C. MacPherson, Megan Menon, Carlo Scott, Alex |
author_facet | Merry, Kohle Napier, Christopher Chung, Vivian Hannigan, Brett C. MacPherson, Megan Menon, Carlo Scott, Alex |
author_sort | Merry, Kohle |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: Handheld dynamometers are common tools for assessing/monitoring muscular strength and endurance. Health/fitness Bluetooth load sensors may provide a cost-effective alternative; however, research is needed to evaluate the validity and reliability of such devices. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two commercially available Bluetooth load sensors (Activ5 by Activbody and Progressor by Tindeq). Methods: Four tests were conducted on each device: stepped loading, stress relaxation, simulated exercise, and hysteresis. Each test type was repeated three times using the Instron ElectroPuls mechanical testing device (a gold-standard system). Test–retest reliability was assessed through intraclass correlations. Agreement with the gold standard was assessed with Pearson’s correlation, interclass correlation, and Lin’s concordance correlation. Results: The Activ5 and Progressor had excellent test–retest reliability across all four tests (ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.999, all p ≤ 0.001). Agreement with the gold standard was excellent for both the Activ5 (ρ ≥ 0.998, ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.971, ρ(c) ≥ 0.971, all p’s ≤ 0.001) and Progressor (ρ ≥ 0.999, ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.999, ρ(c) ≥ 0.999, all p’s ≤ 0.001). Measurement error increased for both devices as applied load increased. Conclusion: Excellent test–retest reliability was found, suggesting that both devices can be used in a clinical setting to measure patient progress over time; however, the Activ5 consistently had poorer agreement with the gold standard (particularly at higher loads). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8703969 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87039692021-12-25 The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment Merry, Kohle Napier, Christopher Chung, Vivian Hannigan, Brett C. MacPherson, Megan Menon, Carlo Scott, Alex Sensors (Basel) Article Objective: Handheld dynamometers are common tools for assessing/monitoring muscular strength and endurance. Health/fitness Bluetooth load sensors may provide a cost-effective alternative; however, research is needed to evaluate the validity and reliability of such devices. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two commercially available Bluetooth load sensors (Activ5 by Activbody and Progressor by Tindeq). Methods: Four tests were conducted on each device: stepped loading, stress relaxation, simulated exercise, and hysteresis. Each test type was repeated three times using the Instron ElectroPuls mechanical testing device (a gold-standard system). Test–retest reliability was assessed through intraclass correlations. Agreement with the gold standard was assessed with Pearson’s correlation, interclass correlation, and Lin’s concordance correlation. Results: The Activ5 and Progressor had excellent test–retest reliability across all four tests (ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.999, all p ≤ 0.001). Agreement with the gold standard was excellent for both the Activ5 (ρ ≥ 0.998, ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.971, ρ(c) ≥ 0.971, all p’s ≤ 0.001) and Progressor (ρ ≥ 0.999, ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.999, ρ(c) ≥ 0.999, all p’s ≤ 0.001). Measurement error increased for both devices as applied load increased. Conclusion: Excellent test–retest reliability was found, suggesting that both devices can be used in a clinical setting to measure patient progress over time; however, the Activ5 consistently had poorer agreement with the gold standard (particularly at higher loads). MDPI 2021-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8703969/ /pubmed/34960492 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21248399 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Merry, Kohle Napier, Christopher Chung, Vivian Hannigan, Brett C. MacPherson, Megan Menon, Carlo Scott, Alex The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment |
title | The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment |
title_full | The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment |
title_fullStr | The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment |
title_full_unstemmed | The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment |
title_short | The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment |
title_sort | validity and reliability of two commercially available load sensors for clinical strength assessment |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8703969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34960492 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21248399 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT merrykohle thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT napierchristopher thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT chungvivian thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT hanniganbrettc thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT macphersonmegan thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT menoncarlo thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT scottalex thevalidityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT merrykohle validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT napierchristopher validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT chungvivian validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT hanniganbrettc validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT macphersonmegan validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT menoncarlo validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment AT scottalex validityandreliabilityoftwocommerciallyavailableloadsensorsforclinicalstrengthassessment |