ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
Reliability and Agreement of Hand-Held Dynamometry Using Three Standard Rater Test Positions.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of three hamstring programmes on strength and sprinting performance in female footballers: A randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Intra-Rater Reliability and Construct Validity of Hand-Held Dynamometry to Evaluate the Hip Adductor Squeeze Test in Elite Youth Football Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Test-Retest Reliability of Cervical Strength Testing Protocols with Handheld Dynamometer in Prepubertal and Pubertal Untrained Boys.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Intra-tester and inter-tester reliability of maximum isokinetic hip and knee strength measurements with the exoskeleton in healthy young adults.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of portable hand-held dynamometers is increasing in popularity due to their ease of use in different clinical settings, convenient size, portability, and overall affordability. Reported reliability for external fixation and rater-stabilized hand-held dynamometry (HHD) strength measurements have been found to be 'good' to 'excellent'. Inconsistent agreement has been found between the two stabilization methods and isokinetic HHD testing. Purpose / Hypothesis: Determine the reliability and agreement of HHD measurements in three different rater test positions against three different mechanically produced force magnitudes. The study compared measurements obtained by rater-stabilization to external fixation methods. Study Design: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability study. Methods: Ten raters took measurements in three different rater test positions against three different force magnitudes created by an external force. Raters were blinded to the randomized force magnitudes. The rater's measurements were compared to measurements taken against an external fixation stabilization device. To establish reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) were used. To establish agreement, error rates between the rater-stabilized and external fixation stabilization measurements were calculated. Results: ICC's were found to be 'excellent' at .97 and above. The relative SEM ranged from 0.2% to 0.9 % and the relative MDC ranged from 0.7% to 2.8%. The overall error rate was 15.5% and was influenced by force magnitude. Conclusion: The use of standardized rater test positions resulted in 'excellent' intra-rater, inter-rater reliability, low SEM, and low MDC for rater-stabilized HHD measurements. A systematic error was observed, with rater-stabilized measurements resulting in higher values compared with values obtained with the external fixation method. Level of Evidence: 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.