Joachim Van Cant, Gregory Dumont1, Laurent Pitance2, Christophe Demoulin3, Véronique Feipel4. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Institut Parnasse-ISEI, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Institute of Neuroscience, Faculty of Motor Sciences, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium. 4. Laboratory of Functional Anatomy, Faculty of Motor Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substantial deficits in performance of hip abductor in patients with common lower extremity injuries are reported in literature. Therefore, assessing hip abductor endurance might be of major importance for clinicians and researchers. PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of two hip abductor endurance tests in healthy females. Learning effect, systematic difference in the rate of perceived exertion and relationship between endurance performance and some clinical characteristics of participants were also investigated. DESIGN: Observational study, with a test-retest design. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy females, aged 18-30 years, were recruited. In two identical assessment sessions, the participants performed an isometric hip abductor strength test and two different hip abductor endurance tests. RESULTS: Isometric and dynamic endurance tests demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.73 and 0.78, respectively). The standard errors of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable changes (MDC) were, respectively, 19.8 and 54.9 seconds for isometric endurance test and 21.2 and 58.7 repetitions for dynamic endurance test. Moderate correlation between both endurance tests (r = 0.60, p = 0.0001) and weak correlation between dynamic endurance test and strength (r = 0.44, p = 0.008) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate good test-retest reliability of two non-instrumented clinical tests of hip abductor endurance in healthy females. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
BACKGROUND: Substantial deficits in performance of hip abductor in patients with common lower extremity injuries are reported in literature. Therefore, assessing hip abductor endurance might be of major importance for clinicians and researchers. PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of two hip abductor endurance tests in healthy females. Learning effect, systematic difference in the rate of perceived exertion and relationship between endurance performance and some clinical characteristics of participants were also investigated. DESIGN: Observational study, with a test-retest design. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy females, aged 18-30 years, were recruited. In two identical assessment sessions, the participants performed an isometric hip abductor strength test and two different hip abductor endurance tests. RESULTS: Isometric and dynamic endurance tests demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.73 and 0.78, respectively). The standard errors of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable changes (MDC) were, respectively, 19.8 and 54.9 seconds for isometric endurance test and 21.2 and 58.7 repetitions for dynamic endurance test. Moderate correlation between both endurance tests (r = 0.60, p = 0.0001) and weak correlation between dynamic endurance test and strength (r = 0.44, p = 0.008) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate good test-retest reliability of two non-instrumented clinical tests of hip abductor endurance in healthy females. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
Authors: John D Childs; Joshua A Cleland; James M Elliott; Deydre S Teyhen; Robert S Wainner; Julie M Whitman; Bernard J Sopky; Joseph J Godges; Timothy W Flynn Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Naoko Aminaka; Brian G Pietrosimone; Charles W Armstrong; Andrew Meszaros; Phillip A Gribble Journal: J Electromyogr Kinesiol Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 2.368
Authors: Gisela Sole; Jonas Hamrén; Stephan Milosavljevic; Helen Nicholson; S John Sullivan Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Beatriz Rodríguez-Romero; Michelle D Smith; Sonia Pértega-Díaz; Alejandro Quintela-Del-Rio; Venerina Johnston Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Beatriz Rodríguez-Romero; Michelle D Smith; Alejandro Quintela-Del-Rio; Venerina Johnston Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.390