Predicting 1 Repetition Maximum Using Handheld Dynamometry.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Tan, Alicia En Ling
dc.contributor.author Grisbrook, Tiffany L
dc.contributor.author Minaee, Novia
dc.contributor.author Williams, Sîan A
dc.coverage.spatial United States
dc.date.accessioned 2022-06-27T01:52:06Z
dc.date.available 2022-06-27T01:52:06Z
dc.date.issued 2018-09
dc.identifier.citation (2018). Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 10(9), 934-941.
dc.identifier.issn 1934-1482
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/2292/60157
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND:Isometric assessment of muscular function using a handheld dynamometer (HHD) is frequently used in clinic environments. However, there is controversy in terms of the validity of isometric assessment to monitor changes in dynamic performance. One repetition maximum (1RM) is considered the gold standard for evaluating dynamic strength, though clinicians do not often use 1RM testing, preferring to be cautious with clients who have preexisting impairments. If strength testing using an HHD could be used to predict 1RM, this may have significant implications for the use of isometric testing to prescribe exercise in clinical environments. OBJECTIVE:To establish the relationship and agreement between 1RM and isometric strength scores measured using HHD for the biceps and quadriceps muscle groups and to determine if HHD measurements can be used to predict 1RM. DESIGN:Criterion standard comparison. SETTING:Tertiary institution gymnasium. PARTICIPANTS:Convenience sample of 50 healthy adults (26 women) aged 19-33 years (mean 23.38 ± 3.11 years). METHODS:Muscle strength of the biceps and quadriceps muscle groups measured by 1RM and isometric maximal voluntary contraction measured using an HHD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Statistical analysis of the relation between the measures of strength was established using Pearson correlation and a Bland-Altman plot. A linear regression analysis with included covariates (gender, age, resistance training history, and body mass index) was used to derive the prediction equations. RESULTS:A significant correlation was found between 1RM and HHD scores for the biceps (r = .83, P < .001) and quadriceps muscle groups (r = .82, P < .001). However, strength scores were not in agreement. Linear regression analysis found significance in predicting 1RM from all HHD scores (P < .001). Gender as a covariate significantly influenced the prediction of 1RM for the biceps (P = .005) and quadriceps (P = .003) muscle groups. CONCLUSIONS:There is a significant relationship between 1RM and HHD measures of strength, and measures taken using an HHD can be used to predict 1RM in the biceps and quadriceps muscle groups. The use of an HHD may therefore provide a more accessible alternative to 1RM for muscle strength assessments. Further research is warranted to determine if results are applicable in clinical populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:NA.
dc.format.medium Print-Electronic
dc.language eng
dc.publisher Wiley
dc.relation.ispartofseries PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm
dc.subject Humans
dc.subject Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject Predictive Value of Tests
dc.subject Isometric Contraction
dc.subject Adolescent
dc.subject Adult
dc.subject Female
dc.subject Male
dc.subject Quadriceps Muscle
dc.subject Muscle Strength
dc.subject Muscle Strength Dynamometer
dc.subject Resistance Training
dc.subject Young Adult
dc.subject Healthy Volunteers
dc.subject Science & Technology
dc.subject Life Sciences & Biomedicine
dc.subject Rehabilitation
dc.subject Sport Sciences
dc.subject ISOMETRIC TESTS
dc.subject RELIABILITY
dc.subject PERFORMANCE
dc.subject VALIDITY
dc.subject SCALE
dc.subject 1103 Clinical Sciences
dc.subject Clinical
dc.subject Clinical Medicine and Science
dc.title Predicting 1 Repetition Maximum Using Handheld Dynamometry.
dc.type Journal Article
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.02.017
pubs.issue 9
pubs.begin-page 934
pubs.volume 10
dc.date.updated 2022-05-29T21:25:17Z
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en
dc.identifier.pmid 29518590 (pubmed)
pubs.author-url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29518590
pubs.end-page 941
pubs.publication-status Published
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Journal Article
pubs.elements-id 817707
pubs.org-id Liggins Institute
dc.identifier.eissn 1934-1563
dc.identifier.pii S1934-1482(18)30119-9
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2022-05-30
pubs.online-publication-date 2018-03-06


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics