Adam Ashall1, Nick Dobbin2, Cari Thorpe3. 1. Ealing Trailfinders Rugby Club, London, UK; Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. 2. Ealing Trailfinders Rugby Club, London, UK. 3. Ealing Trailfinders Rugby Club, London, UK. Electronic address: M.Thorpe@mmu.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to determine the concurrent validity between a hand-held (HHD) and mounted hand-held dynamometer (MHHD) for assessing isometric neck strength. DESIGN: Observational design. SETTING: Semiprofessional rugby club. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen semi-professional rugby players (age = 26 ± 5 years, stature = 186.5 ± 6.5 cm, body mass = 98.7 ± 12.8 kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concurrent validity (limits of agreement, correlation) between HHD and MHHD, the intrarater reliability (intra-class correlation, ICC) and comparison between playing positions. RESULTS: Absolute peak and mean peak force were systematically lower when using the HHD compared to MHHD, with the mean bias ranging from -1.8 to -3.8 kgf (P < 0.05). Differences were not evident for flexion when applying the correction equations (-0.5 to 2.1 kgf, P > 0.05) but remained for extension. Correlations between methods were large-to-very large; the ICCs for both methods were good (ICC = 0.72-0.89), with no difference between positions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The concurrent validity of HHD was considered acceptable when compared to the MHHD and the correction equation applied. Both methods are reliable and useful for assessing neck strength in rugby players, though, caution is needed when determining strength during neck extension.
OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to determine the concurrent validity between a hand-held (HHD) and mounted hand-held dynamometer (MHHD) for assessing isometric neck strength. DESIGN: Observational design. SETTING:Semiprofessional rugby club. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen semi-professional rugby players (age = 26 ± 5 years, stature = 186.5 ± 6.5 cm, body mass = 98.7 ± 12.8 kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concurrent validity (limits of agreement, correlation) between HHD and MHHD, the intrarater reliability (intra-class correlation, ICC) and comparison between playing positions. RESULTS: Absolute peak and mean peak force were systematically lower when using the HHD compared to MHHD, with the mean bias ranging from -1.8 to -3.8 kgf (P < 0.05). Differences were not evident for flexion when applying the correction equations (-0.5 to 2.1 kgf, P > 0.05) but remained for extension. Correlations between methods were large-to-very large; the ICCs for both methods were good (ICC = 0.72-0.89), with no difference between positions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The concurrent validity of HHD was considered acceptable when compared to the MHHD and the correction equation applied. Both methods are reliable and useful for assessing neck strength in rugby players, though, caution is needed when determining strength during neck extension.