Affiliations: [a] Program in Physical Therapy, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA | [b] Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School
of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
Note: [] Address for correspondence: Richard W. Bohannon, Department of
Kinesiology, U-2101, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2101, USA.
Tel.: +1 860 486 0048; Fax: +1 860 486 1588; E-mail: Richard.bohannon@uconn.edu
Abstract: If measures of muscle strength are to be broadly applied, they
should be objective, portable, quick, and reliable. Through this component of
the NIH Toolbox study we sought to compare the test-retest reliability of 3
tests of muscle strength that are objective, portable, and quick: the
five-repetition sit-to-stand test (FRSTST), hand-grip dynamometry (HGD), and
belt-stabilized hand-held dynamometry (BSHHD) of knee extension. Three sets of
each test were performed- 1 warm-up and 2 maximal. Measures from the maximal
tests obtained 4 to 10 days apart were compared. Reliability was described
using descriptive statistics, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 4
measures of response stability: standard error of measurement (SEM), method
error (ME), coefficient of variation of SEM (SEM_{CV}), and
coefficient of variation of variation of ME (ME_{CV}). The
ICCs of all tests were good (⩾ 0.853). Measures of
response stability showed less variability between test and retest for FRSTST
and HGD than for BSHHD. In conclusions all 3 tests demonstrated good
test-retest reliability. However, greater differences would need to be observed
between tests sessions to conclude that a real change had occurred in measures obtained by BSHHD.
