Optimizing Between-Session Reliability for Quadriceps Peak Torque and Rate of Torque Development Measures.

Grindstaff, TL, Palimenio, MR, Franco, M, Anderson, D, Bagwell, JJ, and Katsavelis, D. Optimizing between-session reliability for quadriceps peak torque and rate of torque development measures. J Strength Cond Res 33(7): 1840-1847, 2019-Quadriceps peak torque and rate of torque development (RTD) have relevance for athletic performance and recovery after knee injury. The number of repetitions performed to determine RTD varies between studies, and the associated measurement error has not been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the number of repetitions necessary to optimize the between-session reliability for isometric quadriceps peak torque and RTD measures and to quantify estimates of measurement error. Twenty participants (age = 21.7 ± 1.7 years, height = 172.5 ± 16.0 cm, body mass = 76.0 ± 15.5 kg, and Tegner = 7.1 ± 1.2) volunteered for this study. Quadriceps isometric peak torque and RTD (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms, and maximum torque) were obtained during 2 testing sessions. Between-session reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,k), using the minimal detectable change (MDC) and coefficient of variation (CoV) to quantify measurement error. Between-session reliability was best maximized by using the average of the 3 repetitions with the highest peak torque. Reliability was good for quadriceps peak torque (ICC2,3 = 0.98; MDC = 51.1 N·m; CoV = 38.0%) and ranged from moderate to good for quadriceps RTD measures (ICC2,3 = 0.61 to 0.91; MDC = 264.8 to 738.3 N·m·s; CoV = 38.1-57.9%). Measures of late RTD were less variable and more reliable than early RTD and average RTD measures. These results provide confidence when measuring between-session changes for late RTD measures, but changes in early RTD may be more difficult to distinguish from measurement error. Methods should be used to minimize variability between repetitions and sessions.

Hand-held Dynamometer Positioning Impacts Discomfort During Quadriceps Strength Testing: A Validity and Reliability Study.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: A belt-stabilized hand-held dynamometer (HHD) offers the ability to quantify quadriceps muscle strength in a clinical environment, but a limitation is participant discomfort at the interface between the HHD and the tibia. The purpose of this study was to quantify the level of discomfort associated with a modified belt-stabilized HHD configuration compared to a standard belt-stabilized configuration and an isokinetic dynamometer. The secondary purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of a modified configuration used to measure quadriceps strength compared to the "gold-standard" isokinetic dynamometer. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants (5 males, 15 females; age=24.7±2.2 years, height=171.1±8.8 cm, mass=72.0±18.7 kg) performed maximal knee extension isometric contractions during each of three testing conditions: isokinetic dynamometer, standard configuration with HHD placement on the tibia, and an alternative configuration with the HHD interfaced with the leg of a table. Discomfort was quantified using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Differences in discomfort and torque (N•m) associated with the testing positions were determined using Friedman test or repeated measures analysis of variance. Validity was quantified using Pearson correlations and within-session intrarater reliability was determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and associated confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The isokinetic dynamometer configuration resulted in the least discomfort (p< .01) and the modified configuration was more comfortable than the standard configuration (p= .003). There was a significant correlation between measures from the isokinetic dynamometer and the standard configuration (r=.87) and modified configuration (r=.93). Within-session intrarater reliability was good for both the standard configuration (ICC2,1=0.93) and modified configuration (ICC2,1=0.93) conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the modified belt-stabilized HHD configuration, where the HHD was interfaced with the leg of a table, offers a more comfortable alternative compared to the standard belt-stabilized configuration to obtain isometric quadriceps strength measures in a clinical environment. This configuration is also a valid and reliable alternative to the "gold standard" isokinetic dynamometer when testing isometric quadriceps strength at 90° of knee flexion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, Level 3.