Assessment of the reproducibility of strength and endurance handgrip parameters using a digital analyser

SummaryA group of 40 healthy individuals (27 women and 13 men) participated in a handgrip test and were retested 1–2 months later. A strain-gauge sensor with a digitised signal and computerized printout was used. A 5-s maximal squeeze test was first made three times, followed by one endurance test with 45%–55% power of the maximal value. The best maximal value was most often (42%) achieved in the third (initial test) or second (retest) attempt. The reproducibility of maximal value was very good; the Pearson correlation coefficient between initial test and retest (r=0.98) was even slightly higher than in studies with older analogue instruments. The difference of maximal values [361 (SD 109) N, initial test and 368 (SD 110) N, retest] was insignificant. A moderate 12% long-term change in maximal value was statistically significant. Reproducibility of the power factor (integrated area of power with time) was also very good in this short test, correlating closely (r=0.98−0.99) with the maximal value. Other indexes (grip rate, fatigue percentage and relaxation rate) were not stable enough to be practical. Endurance results were somewhat variable (r=0.73), which implied in the main variable motivation. Only marked changes of over 50% in endurance were statistically significant. Endurance power increased significantly in the retest, which, in spite of an r-value of 0.82, would make its use in a follow-up study difficult. We found the computer-based handgrip test both precise and practical in assessing maximal voluntary strength; endurance was more difficult to reproduce.

[1]  D. Ewing,et al.  Cardiovascular responses to sustained handgrip in normal subjects and in patients with diabetes mellitus: a test of autonomic function. , 1974, Clinical science and molecular medicine.

[2]  Musculoskeletal capacity of middle-aged women and men in physical, mental and mixed occupations , 1988, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[3]  F J Clement,et al.  Longitudinal and cross-sectional assessments of age changes in physical strength as related to sex, social class, and mental ability. , 1974, Journal of gerontology.

[4]  E R McFadden,et al.  Alveolar-arterial PCO 2 differences during rebreathing in chronic airways obstruction. , 1971, Journal of applied physiology.

[5]  C. Nygård,et al.  Musculoskeletal capacity of employees aged 44 to 58 years in physical, mental and mixed types of work , 2004, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[6]  D. Jones,et al.  Human skeletal muscle function: description of tests and normal values. , 1977, Clinical science and molecular medicine.

[7]  A. R. Lind,et al.  Aging, isometric strength and endurance, and cardiovascular responses to static effort. , 1975, Journal of applied physiology.

[8]  P. Odenrick,et al.  Isometric muscle force and anthropometric values in normal children aged between 3.5 and 15 years. , 2020, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[9]  J. T. Viitasalo,et al.  Muscular strength profiles and anthropometry in random samples of men aged 31–35, 51–55 and 71–75 years , 1985 .

[10]  J. Birren,et al.  Age and strength. , 1947, The Journal of applied psychology.