Comparison of two electronic dynamometers for measuring handgrip strength
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Comparison of two electronic dynamometers for measuring handgrip strength. / Rolsted, Sebastian Keller; Andersen, Kasper Dyrmose; Dandanell, Gustav; Dall, Christian Have; Zilmer, Camilla Kampp; Bülow, Kasper; Kristensen, Morten Tange.
I: Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation, Bind 43, Nr. 3, 101692, 2024.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of two electronic dynamometers for measuring handgrip strength
AU - Rolsted, Sebastian Keller
AU - Andersen, Kasper Dyrmose
AU - Dandanell, Gustav
AU - Dall, Christian Have
AU - Zilmer, Camilla Kampp
AU - Bülow, Kasper
AU - Kristensen, Morten Tange
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 SFCM
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Introduction: Handgrip strength (HGS) is a strong predictor and easily applicable assessment, indicating a person's physical condition and health. However, many dynamometers are available; therefore, it is essential to ensure that the results of HGS testing using different dynamometers can be used interchangeably. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the inter-instrument agreement and criterion validity of the Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer in comparison with the Jamar electronic dynamometer (Jamar+). Methods: Seventy participants, aged between 23–88 (five men and five women in each decade from 20 to 80+), performed three attempts with each dynamometer (30-sec break between attempts) in a randomized order and separated with a 5-minute break between dynamometers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (3.1), standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change were used for comparison of the strongest and average strength measured with dynamometers. Jamar+ and Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer were new dynamometers and considered calibrated by the manufacturer. Results: The overall Intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent (0.98). An average (SD) difference of 0.68 (2.2) kg (p = 0.04) was seen for the comparison of the strongest attempt for Baseline BIMS minus Jamar+, Correspondingly, for the average of three attempts, it was 0.37 (2.29, p = 0.2) kg. The standard error of measurement (%) and minimal detectable change (%) of the strongest attempt was 1.64 kg (4.2%) and 3.55 kg (9.0%), respectively. Conclusions: Findings indicate low measurement error with high agreement and criterion validity for the comparison of Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer and Jamar+ and that results of the two dynamometers can be used interchangeably.
AB - Introduction: Handgrip strength (HGS) is a strong predictor and easily applicable assessment, indicating a person's physical condition and health. However, many dynamometers are available; therefore, it is essential to ensure that the results of HGS testing using different dynamometers can be used interchangeably. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the inter-instrument agreement and criterion validity of the Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer in comparison with the Jamar electronic dynamometer (Jamar+). Methods: Seventy participants, aged between 23–88 (five men and five women in each decade from 20 to 80+), performed three attempts with each dynamometer (30-sec break between attempts) in a randomized order and separated with a 5-minute break between dynamometers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (3.1), standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change were used for comparison of the strongest and average strength measured with dynamometers. Jamar+ and Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer were new dynamometers and considered calibrated by the manufacturer. Results: The overall Intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent (0.98). An average (SD) difference of 0.68 (2.2) kg (p = 0.04) was seen for the comparison of the strongest attempt for Baseline BIMS minus Jamar+, Correspondingly, for the average of three attempts, it was 0.37 (2.29, p = 0.2) kg. The standard error of measurement (%) and minimal detectable change (%) of the strongest attempt was 1.64 kg (4.2%) and 3.55 kg (9.0%), respectively. Conclusions: Findings indicate low measurement error with high agreement and criterion validity for the comparison of Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer and Jamar+ and that results of the two dynamometers can be used interchangeably.
KW - Agreement: Strength
KW - Handgrip
KW - Measurements
KW - Reliability
KW - Validity
U2 - 10.1016/j.hansur.2024.101692
DO - 10.1016/j.hansur.2024.101692
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 38705572
AN - SCOPUS:85193569387
VL - 43
JO - Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation
JF - Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation
SN - 2468-1229
IS - 3
M1 - 101692
ER -
ID: 393051255