LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Intersession Variability of Knee Extension Kinetics Using a Strain Gauge Device With Differing Clinically Practical Physical Constraints.

Photo by nate_dumlao from unsplash

CONTEXT Intrasession reliabilities of isometric knee extension kinetics via portable strain gauge have been reported across several knee joint angles and constraints. However, intersession variabilities, which are more valuable, have… Click to show full abstract

CONTEXT Intrasession reliabilities of isometric knee extension kinetics via portable strain gauge have been reported across several knee joint angles and constraints. However, intersession variabilities, which are more valuable, have yet to be determined. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the intersession variability of knee extension kinetics over 3 testing sessions using an affordable and portable strain gauge. DESIGN Participants performed maximum voluntary isometric contractions of the knee extensors over 3 sessions. METHODS Eleven (6 men and 5 women; 31 [6.4] y) volunteers performed maximum voluntary isometric contractions in constrained (isokinetic setup with thigh and chest straps) and unconstrained (treatment plinth) conditions. Peak force (PF), peak rate of force development, rate of force development (RFD), and impulse (IMP) from 20% to 80% of PF were assessed. Means, SDs, percentage changes, minimal detectable changes, coefficients of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated and reported. RESULTS PF had the lowest intersession variability regardless of condition (CV = 5.5%-13.8%, ICC = .67-.93). However, variability of peak rate of force development (CV [range] = 12.2%-24.7%, ICC = .50-.78), RFD (CV = 10.0%-26.8%, ICC = .48-.84), and IMP (CV = 15.2%-35.4%, ICC = .44-.88) was moderate at best. The constrained condition (CV [SD] = 14.1% [4.8%], ICC = .74 [.08]) had lower variability compared with the plinth (CV = 19.8% [7.9%], ICC = .68 [.15]). Variability improved from sessions 1 to 2 (CV = 20.4% [7.7%], ICC = .64 [.14]) and to sessions 2 to 3 (CV = 15.3% [6.4%], ICC = .76 [.10]). CONCLUSIONS PF can be assessed regardless of setup. However, RFD and IMP changes across sessions should be approached with caution. Backrests and thigh straps improve RFD and IMP variability, and at least 1 familiarization session should be provided before relying on knee-extensor kinetics while utilizing a portable strain gauge.

Keywords: extension kinetics; knee extension; variability; icc; strain gauge; intersession

Journal Title: Journal of sport rehabilitation
Year Published: 2022

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.