Handheld dynamometry: validity and reliability of measuring hip joint rate of torque development and peak torque

McNabb, Katherine, Sánchez, María B, Reeves, Neil ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9213-4580 and Callaghan, Michael ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-2838 (2024) Handheld dynamometry: validity and reliability of measuring hip joint rate of torque development and peak torque. [Dataset] (Unpublished)

	Full Archive Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (96kB)
Preview	README file Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (101kB) | Preview

Abstract

Introduction Measuring rate of torque development (RTD) and peak torque (PT) for hip muscle performance presents challenges in clinical practice. This study investigated the construct validity of a handheld dynamometer (HHD) versus an isokinetic dynamometer (IKD), and intra-rater repeated reliability for RTD and PT and their relationship in hip joint movements. Methods Thirty healthy individuals (mean age = 30 ± 8 years, 13 males) underwent two test sessions in a single day. RTD (0-50, 0-100, 0-150, 0-200ms) and PT normalised to body mass in maximal voluntary isometric contractions were measured using a HHD and an IKD in hip flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, internal and external rotation. Results For validity between the devices, RTD0-50 exhibited the largest significant systematic bias in all hip movements (3.41-11.99 Nm·s-1 kg-1) and widest limits-of-agreement, while RTD0-200 had the lowest bias (-1.33-3.99 Nm·s-1 kg-1) and narrowest limits-of-agreement. For PT, agreement between dynamometers was observed for hip flexion (0.08 Nm·kg-1), abduction (-0.09 Nm·kg-1), internal (-0.01 Nm·kg-1), and external rotation (0.05 Nm·kg-1). For reliability, intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) ranged from moderate to good in RTD0-50 and RTD0-100 (0.5-0.88), and good to excellent in RTD0-150 and RTD0-200 (0.87-0.95) in all movements. The HHD displayed excellent intra-rater, relative reliability values (ICC2,1) in all movements (0.85-0.95). Pearson’s correlation revealed good linear correlation between PT and RTD0-150 and RTD0-200 in all movements (r = .7 to .87, p = <.001). Conclusion Validity analysis demonstrated significant systematic bias and lack of agreement in RTD measures between the HHD and IKD. However, the HHD displays excellent to moderate intra-rater, relative reliability for RTD and PT measures in hip movements. Clinicians may use the HHD for hip muscle PT assessment but note, late phase RTD measures are more reliable, valid, and relate to PT than early phase RTD. Additionally, the correlation between RTD and PT at various time epochs was examined to better understand the relationship between these measures.