G K Lee1, C C Chan, C W Hui-Chan. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the degree of consistency in a subject's performance in physical strength and endurance. DESIGN: Thirty healthy men, aged 19 to 26 yr, were recruited to participate in protocols to assess static strength and dynamic endurance tests on their upper limbs with the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment Primus. Retests were conducted 7 days after the initial test. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.71 to 0.97 and 0.32 to 0.90 for static and dynamic endurance strengths, respectively. These results indicated that the consistency of the subjects' performance across occasions was high for testing static strength, although it was more varied for testing endurance strength. CONCLUSIONS: Higher consistency was observed among subjects in the assessment of static strength than dynamic endurance strength. The range of motion traveled by the limb, speed of performance, and ergonomic design of attachments seemed to confound the subjects' performance on the instrument. Stringent assessment protocols, ergonomically designed hardware, and clear instructions and practice trials before the formal testing were essential to maximize the subjects' consistency of performance. The results of this study were applicable and generalized to other performance-based instruments for physical and functional capacity evaluation and work simulators.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the degree of consistency in a subject's performance in physical strength and endurance. DESIGN: Thirty healthy men, aged 19 to 26 yr, were recruited to participate in protocols to assess static strength and dynamic endurance tests on their upper limbs with the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment Primus. Retests were conducted 7 days after the initial test. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.71 to 0.97 and 0.32 to 0.90 for static and dynamic endurance strengths, respectively. These results indicated that the consistency of the subjects' performance across occasions was high for testing static strength, although it was more varied for testing endurance strength. CONCLUSIONS: Higher consistency was observed among subjects in the assessment of static strength than dynamic endurance strength. The range of motion traveled by the limb, speed of performance, and ergonomic design of attachments seemed to confound the subjects' performance on the instrument. Stringent assessment protocols, ergonomically designed hardware, and clear instructions and practice trials before the formal testing were essential to maximize the subjects' consistency of performance. The results of this study were applicable and generalized to other performance-based instruments for physical and functional capacity evaluation and work simulators.