• Login
    View Item 
    •   The Repository@TWU Home
    • Faculty & Staff
    • Colleges & Departments
    • College of Health Sciences
    • School of Physical Therapy - Faculty & Staff
    • View Item
    •   The Repository@TWU Home
    • Faculty & Staff
    • Colleges & Departments
    • College of Health Sciences
    • School of Physical Therapy - Faculty & Staff
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Interdevice Reliability and Validity Assessment of the Nicholas Hand-Held Dynamometer

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Interdevice Reliability and Validity Assessment of the Nicholas Hand-Held Dynamometer.pdf (557.1Kb)
    Date
    1994-12-01
    Author
    Trudelle-Jackson, Elaine
    Jackson, Allen
    Frankowski, Carolyn
    Long, Kara
    Meske, Neil
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The Nicholas Hand-Held Dynamometer (HHD) has been shown to have excellent interday and intraday reliability when using the same HHD. Since clinics may haw more than one HHD with which to evaluate patients, it would be of value to know if two identical HHDs measure the same variable consistently. The purpose of this investigation was to assess interdevice reliability of the Nicholas HHD as well as to determine its validity. Thirty healthy female subjects between the ages of 20 and 56 years () were tested for hamstring strength. Three measurements of maximum hamstring contractions were obtained using the first HHD (Device A). The average of these three measurements was compared with the average of three measurements obtained after a brief rest using a second HHD (Device B). Measurements from the two HHDs were also compared with measurements obtained from a Kin-Com isokinetic dynamometer. The Kin-Com measurements were used as criteria to determine validity of the HHD. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) calculated to determine reliability between the two HHDs was low (ICC = .58). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the Kin-Com and each of the two HHDs. These values were .85 and .83 for Device A and B, respectively. Analysis of variance showed no significant difference between the Kin-Com and Device A but a significant difference between the Kin-Com and Device B(p < .001). Measurements obtained from two identical HHDs may be significantly different and should not be compared.
    URI
    https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1994.20.6.302
    https://hdl.handle.net/11274/13540
    Collections
    • School of Physical Therapy - Faculty & Staff
    

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    TDL
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    TDL
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV