OBJECTIVES: To compare the reliability of muscle strength and physical function measures in younger and older men. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Academic research center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty younger men, 31 older men, and 39 older men with mobility limitations. MEASUREMENTS: Test-retest measures of one repetition maximum (1 RM), unloaded and loaded 50-m walk and stair climb, and a lift-and-lower task. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis and the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Leg and chest press 1 RM measures identified significant differences between the groups, exhibited excellent test-retest reliability in younger men, older men, and older men with mobility limitations (ICCs=0.946-0.994) and minimal bias between Trials 1 and 2 (Bland-Altman=improvement of 21.1 and 1.1 N for leg and chest press, respectively). Test-retest measures of the time to walk 50 m and climb 12 steps also demonstrated excellent agreement (ICCs=0.980-0.988 and 0.942-992, respectively) and minimal bias (Bland-Altman=0.755-1.007 and 0.141-0.361 seconds faster, respectively). When a subject repeated these measures carrying a modest load, ICCs remained greater than 0.940, bias was similar, and the tests better discriminated between the groups. The lift-and-lower measure demonstrated excellent agreement (ICCs=0.925-0.947) and minimal bias (1.4-2.9 more shelves) and revealed significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Measures of muscle strength and physical function can be performed in younger men, older men, and older men with mobility limitations with high reliability. In future clinical trials, more-challenging measures of performance may better discriminate between higher-functioning study participants.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the reliability of muscle strength and physical function measures in younger and older men. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Academic research center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty younger men, 31 older men, and 39 older men with mobility limitations. MEASUREMENTS: Test-retest measures of one repetition maximum (1 RM), unloaded and loaded 50-m walk and stair climb, and a lift-and-lower task. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis and the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS:Leg and chest press 1 RM measures identified significant differences between the groups, exhibited excellent test-retest reliability in younger men, older men, and older men with mobility limitations (ICCs=0.946-0.994) and minimal bias between Trials 1 and 2 (Bland-Altman=improvement of 21.1 and 1.1 N for leg and chest press, respectively). Test-retest measures of the time to walk 50 m and climb 12 steps also demonstrated excellent agreement (ICCs=0.980-0.988 and 0.942-992, respectively) and minimal bias (Bland-Altman=0.755-1.007 and 0.141-0.361 seconds faster, respectively). When a subject repeated these measures carrying a modest load, ICCs remained greater than 0.940, bias was similar, and the tests better discriminated between the groups. The lift-and-lower measure demonstrated excellent agreement (ICCs=0.925-0.947) and minimal bias (1.4-2.9 more shelves) and revealed significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Measures of muscle strength and physical function can be performed in younger men, older men, and older men with mobility limitations with high reliability. In future clinical trials, more-challenging measures of performance may better discriminate between higher-functioning study participants.
Authors: Marco Pahor; Steven N Blair; Mark Espeland; Roger Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Jack M Guralnik; Evan C Hadley; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Cinzia Maraldi; Michael E Miller; Anne B Newman; Walter J Rejeski; Sergei Romashkan; Stephanie Studenski Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Dennis Wallace; Julie M Chandler; Pamela W Duncan; Earl Rooney; Michael Fox; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Stephen P Sayers; Jack M Guralnik; Anne B Newman; Jennifer S Brach; Roger A Fielding Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Milan Chang; Jiska Cohen-Mansfield; Luigi Ferrucci; Suzanne Leveille; Stefano Volpato; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Michael J Bade; Dana L Judd; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Michael J Bade; Roger J Paxton; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Shehzad Basaria; Andrea D Coviello; Thomas G Travison; Thomas W Storer; Wildon R Farwell; Alan M Jette; Richard Eder; Sharon Tennstedt; Jagadish Ulloor; Anqi Zhang; Karen Choong; Kishore M Lakshman; Norman A Mazer; Renee Miciek; Joanne Krasnoff; Ayan Elmi; Philip E Knapp; Brad Brooks; Erica Appleman; Sheetal Aggarwal; Geeta Bhasin; Leif Hede-Brierley; Ashmeet Bhatia; Lauren Collins; Nathan LeBrasseur; Louis D Fiore; Shalender Bhasin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Grace Huang; Shehzad Basaria; Thomas G Travison; Matthew H Ho; Maithili Davda; Norman A Mazer; Renee Miciek; Philip E Knapp; Anqi Zhang; Lauren Collins; Monica Ursino; Erica Appleman; Connie Dzekov; Helene Stroh; Miranda Ouellette; Tyler Rundell; Merilyn Baby; Narender N Bhatia; Omid Khorram; Theodore Friedman; Thomas W Storer; Shalender Bhasin Journal: Menopause Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Adrian S Dobs; Ralph V Boccia; Christopher C Croot; Nashat Y Gabrail; James T Dalton; Michael L Hancock; Mary A Johnston; Mitchell S Steiner Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 41.316