Next Article in Journal
Knowledge and Associated Factors about Rare Diseases among Dentists in Israel: A Cross Sectional Survey
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental Footprint of Wastewater Treatment: A Step Forward in the Use of Toxicological Tools
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 13
10.3390/ijerph18136829
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Test–Retest Reliability of Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer on Five Sit-to-Stand Measures in Healthy Young Adults

by
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga
1,
Álvaro Huerta-Ojeda
2,
Luis Javier Chirosa-Ríos
3,*,
Francisco Guede-Rojas
4,
Iris Paola Guzmán-Guzmán
5,
Leonardo Intelangelo
6,
Claudia Miranda-Fuentes
1 and
Pedro Delgado-Floody
7
1
Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 7591538, Chile
2
Grupo de Investigación en Salud, Actividad Física y Deporte ISAFYD, Universidad de Las Américas, Sede Viña del Mar 2531098, Chile
3
Department Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
4
Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Concepción 4030000, Chile
5
Faculty of Chemical-Biological Sciences, Universidad Autόnoma de Guerrero, Chilpancingo 39087, Mexico
6
Musculoskeletal Research Group, University Center for Assistance, Teaching and Research, University of Gran Rosario, Rosario 2000, Argentina
7
Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(13), 6829; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136829
Submission received: 28 April 2021 / Revised: 21 June 2021 / Accepted: 22 June 2021 / Published: 25 June 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability for the strength and movement velocity of the concentric phase from the five Sit-to-Stand (5STS), using three incremental loads measured by a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) in healthy young adults. Methods: The average and peak strength and velocity values of sixteen healthy adults (mean ± standard deviation (SD): age = 22.81 ± 2.13 years) were recorded at 5, 10 and 15 kg. To evaluate the reliability of FEMD, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were obtained. Results: Reliability was high for the 10 kg (CV range: 3.70–4.18%, ICC range: 0.95–0.98) and 15 kg conditions (CV range: 1.64–3.02%, ICC: 0.99) at average and peak strength, and reliability was high for the 5 kg (CV range: 1.71–2.84%, ICC range: 0.96–0.99), 10 kg (CV range: 0.74–1.84%, ICC range: 0.99–1.00) and 15 kg conditions (CV range: 0.79–3.11%, ICC range: 0.99–1.00) at average and peak velocity. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrate that FEMD is a reliable instrument to measure the average and peak strength and velocity values during the five STS in healthy young adults.

1. Introduction

The Sit-to-Stand (STS) is one of the most frequent motor gestures in daily life [1] and its effective realization depends on multiple determinants of both the environment and the physical capacity and strategies of the subjects [2]. Thus, the STS performance is considered a key factor in maintaining functional independence [3,4]. STS considers the vertical displacement of the center of mass from a low and stable position [5,6] to an elevated and less stable one, as well as being able also to consider different phases and events during its execution [7]. The STS transition is regarded as one of the most demanding daily physical activities [8], associated with a high level of energy expenditure [9] and joint stress [10]. The STS performance can be adversely affected by multiple clinical conditions [11,12], such as aging [13,14,15]. It has been reported that people who have difficulty in reaching the bipedal position are more likely to fall [16]. In this regard, although STS has been widely used in older adults with disabling conditions, it is important to consider that it has also been considered to assess the functional capacity of young adults [17,18] and children [19].
The muscular performance of the lower limb is fundamental for the functional capacity of the human being in different contexts [20,21], and STS has been proposed as a strategy for its assessment [22]. On the other hand, electromyography studies have described the synergic role of the lower limb muscle chain, highlighting the contribution of the quadriceps and hamstrings as executors of this movement [23]. In addition, the erector spinae and gluteal muscles are important when changing from the sitting to standing position in elderly persons [1]. Thus, STS-based exercise is considered one of the most effective resistance training modalities for improving lower extremity strength [24], especially for quadriceps, which, from the age of 50 years onwards, decreases by approximately 2–4% per year [25].
The STS evaluated through field tests corresponds to a valid and reliable alternative, which due to its simplicity, short administration time and minimal instrumentalization, is widely used in clinical studies [22,26,27]. However, it is important to keep in mind that the traditional expression of its raw result (time in seconds or number of repetitions) does not allow for other relevant indicators of muscular performance such as strength and velocity of execution, among other variables, to be obtained Therefore, instrumental methods that offer muscular performance assessment can contribute to a much more exhaustive functional evaluation.
Currently, the development of the functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) (as opposed to the angular isokinetic devices) [28] allows systematizing and controlling multiple components of the load during the performance of natural movements, such as the range and velocity of movement, magnitude of resistance, control of strength exercised and type of muscle contraction (isometric, concentric and eccentric). In this regard, studies have assessed the reliability and validity [29,30,31,32] and used the FEMD [33,34,35,36,37,38] under different experimental modalities and muscle groups. However, studies that propose to assess the reliability of the STS test using this type of technology have not been previously developed.
According to the proposed background, the purpose of this study was to determine the reliability for the strength and movement velocity of the concentric phase from the five STS, using three incremental loads measured by a FEMD in healthy young adults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Subjects

Sixteen subjects (eight women and eight men) volunteered to participate in this study (mean ± standard deviation (SD): age = 22.81 ± 2.13 years, body mass = 64.75 ± 10.60 kg, body height = 166 ± 16 cm, body mass index = 23.15 ± 2.48 kg/m2, body fat percentage = 25.81 ± 9.0%, skeletal muscle mass = 26.71 ± 6.01 kg). The inclusion criteria were (i) adult subjects (>18 years), (ii) both sexes, without distinction of race, and (iii) subjects free of physical limitations, health problems or musculoskeletal injuries that could compromise the evaluated performance. All subjects were informed of the procedures to be used and signed an informed consent form before initiating their participation in the study. The study protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the University of Granada Institutional Review Board (IRB approval: 619/CEIH/2018).

2.2. Study Design

A repeated measures design was used to evaluate STS strength and velocity using three incremental loads (5, 10 and 15 kg, respectively). Subjects attended two familiarization sessions, 48–72 h apart, and one week before the first experimental session took place. After two familiarization sessions, participants attended the laboratory on two separate days (at least 48 h apart) for two weeks. The same evaluator conducted all evaluations as they had experience of using the FEMD device. All sessions were performed at the same time of the day for each participant (±1 h) and under similar environmental conditions (~22 °C and ~60% humidity). The order of the loads were randomly established. This order was carried out in the two testing sessions.

2.3. Testing Procedures

All measurements were conducted at the faculty research laboratory, using a FEMD (Dynasystem, Model Research, Granada, Spain). The FEMD corresponds to a new technology that allows the evaluation and training of strength in humans, generating linear isokinetic velocities, dynamic modes (tonic, kinetic, elastic, inertial, conical) and static (isometric, vibratory), and allows for the evaluation and training through resistance/constant velocity and/or variables [39,40,41]. For each experimental session, the participants were invited to the laboratory after a four-hour fast, having rested and without having consumed caffeine 24 h before the experimental session. In addition, the participants wore sports clothing and footwear.
All participants performed a standard warm-up on a low-load ergometer at a speed of 60 rpm for 10 min, 5 min of lower limb joint mobility and three to five submaximal (exercises that did not exceed a subjective intensity according to the modified Borg scale, <2–3 = light to moderate) repetitions of the STS protocol with the FEMD with a load of 5 kg. After this, the participants rested 2–3 min and were then evaluated through the FEMD by executing the five STS through three incremental loads of 5, 10 and 15 kg, respectively, performing five repetitions for each load with a 3 min rest interval between loads. In the five STS protocols, the subjects were seated in a rigid chair (height = 40 cm), with their arms across the chest and hip, knee and ankle joints at about 90°. From this position and at the command of the 3 2 1 countdown, participants stand and sit as fast as possible for five repetitions [42]. The linear displacement was measured by the FEMD rope attached to a harness on a vest used by each participant at the time of standing (Figure 1). The average strength (kg), peak strength (kg), average velocity (cm/s) and peak velocity (cm/s) of each stand was recorded during the concentric phase using the FEMD software.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The normal distribution of the data was confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test (p > 0.05). Paired sample t-test and standardized mean differences (Cohen’s d figure effect size (ES)) were used to compare the magnitude of the load between both testing sessions. The criteria to interpret the magnitude of the ES were as follows: null (<0.20), small (0.2–0.59), moderate (0.60–1.19), large (1.20–2.00) and very large (>2.00) [43]. Absolute reliability was assessed using the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV), while relative reliability was assessed using the ICC, model 3.1 [44]. The following criteria were used to determine acceptable (CV ≤ 10%, ICC ≥ 0.80) and high (CV ≤ 5%, ICC ≥ 0.90) reliability [45]. Systematic bias was examined through Bland–Altman plots [46]. Finally, the Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) was used to quantify the correlation of strength and velocity between both testing sessions. The criteria to interpret the magnitude of the r were null (0.00–0.09), small (0.10–0.29), moderate (0.30–0.49), large (0.50–0.69), very large (0.70–0.89), nearly perfect (0.90–0.99) and perfect (1.00) [43]. For all statistical calculations, a 95% confidence interval was used in the analysis. Statistical significance was accepted at p < 0.05. All reliability assessments were performed by means of a customized spreadsheet [47], while other statistical analyses were performed using the JASP software (version 0.14.1 http://www.jasp-stats.org accessed on 1 March 2021).

3. Results

No significant differences were found for average and peak strength during the different experimental conditions between both testing sessions, except for the average strength condition of 5 kg (p = 0.008; ES = 0.42) with a “small” ES magnitude. Absolute reliability provided stable repeatability for the average strength and peak strength condition, with a CV of less than 10% in almost all cases, except for the 5 kg condition in the average strength where the CV was 10.67%. Reliability was high for 10 kg (CV range: 3.70–4.18%, ICC range: 0.95–0.98) and 15 kg conditions (CV range: 1.64–3.02%, ICC: 0.99) at average and peak strength (Table 1).
No significant differences were found in the assessment of average and peak velocity between the test and retest using the STS (p > 0.05) for all conditions. Absolute reliability provided stable repeatability for the average and peak velocity condition, with a CV of less than 5% in all cases. Reliability was high for 5 kg (CV range: 1.71–2.84%, ICC range: 0.96–0.99), 10 kg (CV range: 0.74–1.84%, ICC range: 0.99–1.00) and 15 kg conditions (CV range: 0.79–3.11%, ICC range: 0.99–1.00) at average and peak velocity (Table 2).
Bland–Altman plots reveal a low systematic bias for average and peak strength (<0.80 kg) and velocity (<1.65 cm/s) during the 5, 10 and 15 kg conditions (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Finally, the r magnitude for average and peak strength was from very large to nearly perfect during the different experimental conditions (r range = 0.854–0.993) and nearly perfect for average and peak velocity (r range = 0.916–0.996) (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to determine the reliability for the strength and movement velocity of the concentric phase from the five STS, using three incremental loads controlled by a FEMD in healthy young adults. The main findings of this research show that there is “high” reliability for all conditions evaluated through the FEMD. These results show a stable repeatability for the protocols used (CV < 10%) [44].
Although this is the first study to evaluate the reliability of the STS using a FEMD, the reliability of other FEMD on the market has also been evaluated in recent years [29,30,31,32,48]. An example of this was the study by Campos et al. [48]. This study analyzed the validity and reliability at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.0 m·s−1, using a FEMD (Haefni Health System 1.0®, Granada, Spain) and comparing it with a linear velocity transducer (LVT) (T-Force System®, Murcia, Spain). At the end of the study, an ICC of 0.99 was reported for both the concentric and eccentric phases, while the CV was higher for the velocity of execution (1.0 m·s−1 = CV 4.38%) [48]. In parallel, Chamorro et al. (2018) and Cerda et al. (2019) determined the reliability of a FEMD at the shoulder and hip joints, respectively [30,32]. The study by Chamorro et al. (2018) reported ICC values of 0.96 for 90° shoulder internal rotation and 0.94 for external shoulder rotation, and an ICC of 0.89 and 0.97 for shoulder internal and external rotation at 40°, respectively [32]. Likewise, to determine the validity and reliability of a FEMD in the hip joint, Cerda et al. (2019) used three isometric strength protocols on the hip abductor muscles. At the end of the study, the researchers reported a CV of 9.80, 6.60, and 5.64 for the side-lying, standing and supine positions, respectively [30]. Recently, Rodriguez-Perea et al. (2021) determined the validity and reliability of the FEMD (Dynasystem, Model Research, Granada, Spain) for assessing the velocity of movement, and the results indicated that the mean velocity values collected with FEMD and LVT were practically perfect correlations (r > 0.99) with low random errors (<0.06 m·s−1) [41]. In addition, the FEMD is reliable for assessing isometric and concentric strength of trunk flexors (CV range = 6.82–7.72) [29] and the effect of velocity on internal and external shoulder rotators (ICC: 0.81–0.98, CV: 5.12–8.27% SEM: 4.06–15.04 N) [39]. The previously referenced results are interesting since they allow us to compare the degree of reliability of the FEMD in different exercises, joint ranges, and muscle contraction types, showing that the FEMD is not only reliable for STS (CV < 10%), but also for other functional assessments.
The reliability of the tests used to assess physical fitness is influenced by the biological differences of the participants [49] and by of the variations that may occur in the instrument used to obtain the data [44]. In this sense, statistical analyses reported in some studies indicate that the reliability of the instruments is assured with an ICC value above 90% between two or more evaluations [44], while differences between participants can be reduced by including a familiarization period before data collection [29,36]. Therefore, the reliability achieved in the present study after multiple repetitions is due to two fundamental reasons: the accuracy of the FEMD used [30,32], and, on the other hand, the familiarization process that the participants had before data collection. Thus, it is important that when replicating this protocol, participants should start from a seated position, back straight, elbows bent and forearms close to the chest, while hips and knees should be bent at 90° (Figure 1). Any modification to this starting point could alter the reliability of the STS. In parallel and to maintain the reliability of the STS, it is important to consider the grip point, as it has been shown that distal and multi-joint grips have a lower ICC compared to proximal grips (ICC = 0.33) using a FEMD [50]. In the present study, the grip point was at the xiphoid process level; at this point, with the help of Velcro, it was anchored to the FEMD tension cable (Figure 1); this allowed fluid and natural execution of the movement, maintaining stable repeatability in all the repetitions.
The scientific literature has described the STS as a reliable test for assessing lower extremity muscle strength in young, healthy elderly and stroke patients [51]. A significant correlation has also been demonstrated with other functional mobility tests in patients with total knee replacement [52]. This test has also been used to observe the effect of oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), showing that it is an excellent alternative to evaluate the functional capacity in this type of patient without the need for large implements [53]. In turn, the STS has been used as a standard functional balance test in children with cerebral palsy, proving to be a reliable test to assess this physical disability [54]. As it has become evident, the STS has functional applications in both healthy populations [51] and patients with various pathologies [52,53,54,55], proving to be a good indicator of strength, balance and functional capacity. Independently of this and increasing the reliability of the STS, influenced by the biological differences of the participants [49] or by the variations in the instruments used [44], We recommend including a familiarization session before data acquisition.
This study was not without limitations. The evaluation of strength and velocity during the concentric phase of the STS was only able to be evaluated in an initial condition of 5 kg because it was the minimum possible load to modulate in the FEMD. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the behavior of the average and peak velocity during an STS without load. On the other hand, the study was performed in a healthy population; future studies should study the behavior of strength and velocity in older adults where the STS has proven to be a valid tool to assess lower extremity muscle power [26] and the differences that may exist in the biomechanics of STS according to gender.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study demonstrate that FEMD is a reliable instrument to measure the average and peak strength and velocity during the five STS in healthy young adults. Consequently, the trainer could have an additional alternative to record STS parameters and their progression in training programs, resulting in a useful tool for assessing the individual’s physical performance and physical capabilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M.-F. and D.J.-M.; methodology, C.M.-F. and D.J.-M.; formal analysis, C.M.-F., D.J.-M., L.J.C.-R. and P.D.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.-F., D.J.-M., L.J.C.-R. and P.D.-F.; writing—review and editing, C.M.-F., D.J.-M., L.J.C.-R., P.D.-F., F.G.-R., I.P.G.-G., L.I. and Á.H.-O.; visualization, C.M.-F., D.J.-M., L.J.C.-R., P.D.-F., F.G.-R., I.P.G.-G., L.I. and Á.H.-O.; supervision, C.M.-F., L.J.C.-R. and D.J.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has been partially supported by FEDER/Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities—State Research Agency (Dossier number: RTI2018-099723-B-I00).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of University of Granada (IRB approval: 619/CEIH/2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the participants who selflessly participated in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dall, P.M.; Kerr, A. Frequency of the sit to stand task: An observational study of free-living adults. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Janssen, W.G.M.; Bussmann, H.B.J.; Stam, H.J. Determinants of the sit-to-stand movement: A review. Phys. Ther. 2002, 82, 866–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pickford, C.G.; Findlow, A.H.; Kerr, A.; Banger, M.; Clarke-Cornwell, A.M.; Hollands, K.L.; Quinn, T.; Granat, M.H. Quantifying sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions in free-living environments using the activPAL thigh-worn activity monitor. Gait Posture 2019, 73, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Eriksrud, O.; Bohannon, R.W. Relationship of knee extension force to independence in sit-to-stand performance in patients receiving acute rehabilitation. Phys. Ther. 2003, 83, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Roebroeck, M.E.; Doorenbosch, C.A.; Harlaar, J.; Jacobs, R.; Lankhorst, G.J. Biomechanics and muscular activity during sit-to-stand transfer. Clin. Biomech. 1994, 9, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Caruthers, E.J.; Thompson, J.A.; Chaudhari, A.M.W.; Schmitt, L.C.; Best, T.M.; Saul, K.R.; Siston, R.A. Muscle Forces and Their Contributions to Vertical and Horizontal Acceleration of the Center of Mass During Sit-to-Stand Transfer in Young, Healthy Adults. J. Appl. Biomech. 2016, 32, 487–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schenkman, M.; Berger, R.A.; Riley, P.O.; Mann, R.W.; Hodge, W.A. Whole-body movements during rising to standing from sitting. Phys. Ther. 1990, 70, 638–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Riley, P.O.; Schenkman, M.L.; Mann, R.W.; Hodge, W.A. Mechanics of a constrained chair-rise. J. Biomech. 1991, 24, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hatamoto, Y.; Yamada, Y.; Higaki, Y.; Tanaka, H. A novel approach for measuring energy expenditure of a single sit-to-stand movement. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2016, 116, 997–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Inai, T.; Takabayashi, T.; Edama, M.; Kubo, M. Effect of hip joint angle at seat-off on hip joint contact force during sit-to-stand movement: A computer simulation study. Biomed. Eng. Online 2018, 17, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Mao, Y.R.; Wu, X.Q.; Li Zhao, J.; Lo, W.L.A.; Chen, L.; Ding, M.H.; Xu, Z.Q.; Bian, R.H.; Huang, D.F.; Li, L. The crucial changes of sit-to-stand phases in subacute stroke survivors identified by movement decomposition analysis. Front. Neurol. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shojaei, I.; Salt, E.G.; Hooker, Q.; Bazrgari, B. Mechanical demands on the lower back in patients with non-chronic low back pain during a symmetric lowering and lifting task. J. Biomech. 2018, 70, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Van Lummel, R.C.; Walgaard, S.; Maier, A.B.; Ainsworth, E.; Beek, P.J.; van Dieën, J.H. The Instrumented Sit-to-Stand Test (iSTS) Has Greater Clinical Relevance than the Manually Recorded Sit-to-Stand Test in Older Adults. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Mateos-Angulo, A.; Galán-Mercant, A.; Cuesta-Vargas, A.I. Muscle thickness contribution to sit-to-stand ability in institutionalized older adults. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bohannon, R.W. Measurement of sit-to-stand among older adults. Top. Geriatr. Rehabil. 2012, 28, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chorin, F.; Cornu, C.; Beaune, B.; Frère, J.; Rahmani, A. Sit to stand in elderly fallers vs non-fallers: New insights from force platform and electromyography data. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2016, 28, 871–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Regterschot, G.R.H.; Zhang, W.; Baldus, H.; Stevens, M.; Zijlstra, W. Test-retest reliability of sensor-based sit-to-stand measures in young and older adults. Gait Posture 2014, 40, 220–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gurses, H.N.; Zeren, M.; Denizoglu Kulli, H.; Durgut, E. The relationship of sit-to-stand tests with 6-minute walk test in healthy young adults. Medicine 2018, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guarrera-Bowlby, P.L.; Gentile, A.M. Form and variability during sit-to-stand transitions: Children versus adults. J. Mot. Behav. 2004, 36, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Mertz, K.H.; Reitelseder, S.; Jensen, M.; Lindberg, J.; Hjulmand, M.; Schucany, A.; Binder Andersen, S.; Bechshoeft, R.L.; Jakobsen, M.D.; Bieler, T.; et al. Influence of between-limb asymmetry in muscle mass, strength, and power on functional capacity in healthy older adults. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 1901–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hammami, M.; Negra, Y.; Billaut, F.; Hermassi, S.; Shephard, R.J.; Chelly, M.S. Effects of Lower-Limb Strength Training on Agility, Repeated Sprinting With Changes of Direction, Leg Peak Power, and Neuromuscular Adaptations of Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bohannon, R.W. Sit-to-stand test for measuring performance of lower extremity muscles. Percept. Mot. Skills 1995, 80, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rodrigues-De-Paula Goulart, F.; Valls-Solé, J. Patterned electromyographic activity in the sit-to-stand movement. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1999, 110, 1634–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Macaluso, A.; De Vito, G. Muscle strength, power and adaptations to resistance training in older people. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 91, 450–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Goodpaster, B.H.; Park, S.W.; Harris, T.B.; Kritchevsky, S.B.; Nevitt, M.; Schwartz, A.V.; Simonsick, E.M.; Tylavsky, F.A.; Visser, M.; Newman, A.B. The loss of skeletal muscle strength, mass, and quality in older adults: The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. J. Gerontol. Ser. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2006, 61, 1059–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Alcazar, J.; Losa-Reyna, J.; Rodriguez-Lopez, C.; Alfaro-Acha, A.; Rodriguez-Mañas, L.; Ara, I.; García-García, F.J.; Alegre, L.M. The sit-to-stand muscle power test: An easy, inexpensive and portable procedure to assess muscle power in older people. Exp. Gerontol. 2018, 112, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bergquist, R.; Weber, M.; Schwenk, M.; Ulseth, S.; Helbostad, J.L.; Vereijken, B.; Taraldsen, K. Performance-based clinical tests of balance and muscle strength used in young seniors: A systematic literature review. BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dvir, Z.; Müller, S. Multiple-Joint Isokinetic Dynamometry: A Critical Review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rodriguez-Perea, A.; Ríos, L.J.C.; Martinez-Garcia, D.; Ulloa-Díaz, D.; Rojas, F.G.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Rios, I.J.C. Reliability of isometric and isokinetic trunk flexor strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vega, E.C.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Payer, R.M.; Jara, C.C.; Guzman-Guzman, I.; Ponce, A.R.; Chirosa, L.J. Validity and reliability of evaluating hip abductor strength using different normalization methods in a functional electromechanical device. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chamorro, C.; de la Fuente, C.; Rubio, J.; Campos, C.; Chirosa, L.J. Absolute reliability and concurrent validity of a novel electromechanical pulley dynamometer for measuring shoulder rotation isometric strength in asymptomatic subjects. Study conducted at Pontificia Universidad Católica, Santiago, Chile. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2019, 69, 1000–1005. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chamorro, C.; De La Fuente, C.; Jerez, D.; Campos, C.; Chirosa, L.J. Reliability of shoulder rotators isometric strength test using a novel pulley electromechanical dynamometer. Influence of the assessment position. Asian J. Sports Med. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fàbrica, C.G.; Ferraro, D.; Mercado-Palomino, E.; Molina-Molina, A.; Chirosa-Rios, I. Differences in Utilization of Lower Limb Muscle Power in Squat Jump With Positive and Negative Load. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Machado-Payer, R.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Chirosa, L.J.; Ábalos-Medina, G. Muscle Quality Index as a Predictor of Hip Osteoarthritis. Top. Geriatr. Rehabil. 2020, 36, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Chirosa Ríos, L.J.; Reyes, A.; Delgado-Floody, P.; Machado Payer, R.; Guisado Requena, I.M. Muscle quality index and isometric strength in older adults with hip osteoarthritis. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Barboza González, P.; Chirosa Ríos, L.J.; Ulloa Díaz, D.; Chirosa Ríos, I.; Fuentealba Urra, S.; Guede Rojas, F.; Mardones Herrera, S.; Rebolledo Torres, E. Effect of muscle strength at different intensities on resting energy expenditure. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2017, 12, 668–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Soriano-Maldonado, A.; Carrera-Ruiz, Á.; Díez-Fernández, D.M.; Esteban-Simón, A.; Maldonado-Quesada, M.; Moreno-Poza, N.; García-Martínez, M.D.M.; Alcaraz-García, C.; Vázquez-Sousa, R.; Moreno-Martos, H.; et al. Effects of a 12-week resistance and aerobic exercise program on muscular strength and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: Study protocol for the EFICAN randomized controlled trial. Medicine 2019, 98, e17625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Miranda-Fuentes, C.; Guisado-Requena, I.M.; Delgado-Floody, P.; Arias-Poblete, L.; Pérez-Castilla, A.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Chirosa-Rios, L.J. Reliability of low-cost near-infrared spectroscopy in the determination of muscular oxygen saturation and hemoglobin concentration during rest, isometric and dynamic strength activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martinez-Garcia, D.; Rodriguez-Perea, A.; Barboza, P.; Ulloa-Díaz, D.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Chirosa, I.; Chirosa Ríos, L.J. Reliability of a standing isokinetic shoulder rotators strength test using a functional electromechanical dynamometer: Effects of velocity. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Delgado-Floody, P.; Intelangelo, L.; Campos-Jara, C.; Arias-Poblete, L.; García-Verazaluce, J.; Garcia-Ramos, A.; Chirosa, L.J. Behavior of the muscle quality index and isometric strength in elderly women. Physiol. Behav. 2020, 227, 113145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Rodriguez-Perea, Á.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; García-Ramos, A.; Martínez-García, D.; Chirosa Ríos, L.J. Reliability and concurrent validity of a functional electromechanical dynamometer device for the assessment of movement velocity. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sport. Eng. Technol. 2021, 175433712098488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sherwood, J.J.; Inouye, C.; Webb, S.L.; Jenny, O. Reliability and Validity of the Sit-to-Stand as a Muscular Power Measure in Older Adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Weir, J.P. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. James, L.P.; Roberts, L.A.; Haff, G.G.; Kelly, V.G.; Beckman, E.M. Validity and Reliability of a Portable Isometric Mid-Thigh Clean Pull. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1378–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hopkins, W. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability. Sportscience 2015, 19, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jara, C.A.C.; González, I.J.B.; Ríos, L.J.C.; Tamayo, I.M.; Fuenzalida, A.E.L.; Ríos, I.J.C. Validity and reliability of the haefni health system 1.0 device in the measurement of the isokinetic velocity range. Cuad. Psicol. Deport. 2014, 14, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hopkins, W.G. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sport. Med. 2000, 30, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Jara, C.C.; Ríos, L.J.C.; Mayorga, D.J.; Rios, I.C.; Salazar, C.M.; Beraldo, P.C. Comparison of two incremental protocols for evaluation of hip extension. J. Fisioter. Mov. 2017, 30, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Mong, Y.; Teo, T.W.; Ng, S.S. 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test in Subjects With Chronic Stroke: Reliability and Validity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 91, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Medina-Mirapeix, F.; Vivo-Fernández, I.; López-Cañizares, J.; García-Vidal, J.A.; Benítez-Martínez, J.C.; del Baño-Aledo, M.E. Five times sit-to-stand test in subjects with total knee replacement: Reliability and relationship with functional mobility tests. Gait Posture 2018, 59, 258–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cani, K.C.; Silva, I.J.C.S.; Karloh, M.; Gulart, A.A.; Matte, D.L.; Mayer, A.F. Reliability of the five-repetition sit-to-stand test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on domiciliary oxygen therapy. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2020, 36, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kumban, W.; Amatachaya, S.; Emasithi, A.; Siritaratiwat, W. Five-times-sit-to-stand test in children with cerebral palsy: Reliability and concurrent validity. NeuroRehabilitation 2013, 32, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. De Melo, T.A.; Duarte, A.C.M.; Bezerra, T.S.; França, F.; Soares, N.S.; Brito, D. The five times sit-to-stand test: Safety and reliability with older intensive care unit patients at discharge. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiva 2019, 31, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 06829 g001 550
Figure 1. Set-up for STS using FEMD to measure movement velocity and strength.
Figure 1. Set-up for STS using FEMD to measure movement velocity and strength.
Ijerph 18 06829 g001
Ijerph 18 06829 g002 550
Figure 2. Bland–Altman plots of test–retest for average and peak strength. (a) average strength at 5 kg, (b) peak strength at 5 kg, (c) average strength at 10 kg, (d) peak strength at 10 kg, (e) average strength at 15 kg, (f) peak strength at 15 kg.
Figure 2. Bland–Altman plots of test–retest for average and peak strength. (a) average strength at 5 kg, (b) peak strength at 5 kg, (c) average strength at 10 kg, (d) peak strength at 10 kg, (e) average strength at 15 kg, (f) peak strength at 15 kg.
Ijerph 18 06829 g002
Ijerph 18 06829 g003 550
Figure 3. Bland–Altman plots of test–retest for average and peak velocity. (a) average velocity at 5 kg, (b) peak velocity at 5 kg, (c) average velocity at 10 kg, (d) peak velocity at 10 kg, (e) average velocity at 15 kg, (f) peak velocity at 15 kg.
Figure 3. Bland–Altman plots of test–retest for average and peak velocity. (a) average velocity at 5 kg, (b) peak velocity at 5 kg, (c) average velocity at 10 kg, (d) peak velocity at 10 kg, (e) average velocity at 15 kg, (f) peak velocity at 15 kg.
Ijerph 18 06829 g003
Ijerph 18 06829 g004 550
Figure 4. Relationship between average and peak strength during 5 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg conditions between both testing sessions. (a) average strength at 5 kg, (b) peak strength at 5 kg, (c) average strength at 10 kg, (d) peak strength at 10 kg, (e) average strength at 15 kg, (f) peak strength at 15 kg.
Figure 4. Relationship between average and peak strength during 5 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg conditions between both testing sessions. (a) average strength at 5 kg, (b) peak strength at 5 kg, (c) average strength at 10 kg, (d) peak strength at 10 kg, (e) average strength at 15 kg, (f) peak strength at 15 kg.
Ijerph 18 06829 g004
Ijerph 18 06829 g005 550
Figure 5. Relationship between average and peak velocity during 5 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg conditions between both testing sessions. (a) average velocity at 5 kg, (b) peak velocity at 5 kg, (c) average velocity at 10 kg, (d) peak velocity at 10 kg, (e) average velocity at 15 kg, (f) peak velocity at 15 kg.
Figure 5. Relationship between average and peak velocity during 5 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg conditions between both testing sessions. (a) average velocity at 5 kg, (b) peak velocity at 5 kg, (c) average velocity at 10 kg, (d) peak velocity at 10 kg, (e) average velocity at 15 kg, (f) peak velocity at 15 kg.
Ijerph 18 06829 g005
Table
Table 1. Test–retest reliability of the average and peak strength in the 5STS using a FEMD.
Table 1. Test–retest reliability of the average and peak strength in the 5STS using a FEMD.
ConditionSession 1
(Mean ± SD)		Session 2
(Mean ± SD)		p-ValueES
(95% CI)		CV
(95% CI)		SEM
(95% CI)		ICC
(95% CI)
Average Strength
(kg)		5 kg6.3 ± 1.77.1 ± 1.90.0080.42
(−0.258–1.1459)		10.67
(7.88–16.52)		0.71
(0.53–1.11)		0.87
(0.66–0.95)
10 kg10.9 ± 1.610.8 ± 1.70.728−0.03
(−1.041–0.92)		3.70
(2.73–5.72)		0.40
(0.30–0.62)		0.95
(0.86–0.98)
15 kg14.7 ± 2.514.8 ± 2.40.4760.03
(−0.939–1.021)		1.64
(1.21–2.54)		0.24
(0.18–0.37)		0.99
(0.98–1.00)
Peak
Strength
(kg)		5 kg26.3 ± 10.827.1 ± 10.30.1800.08
(−0.905–1.056)		6.04
(4.46–9.35)		1.61
(1.19–2.49)		0.98
(0.94–0.99)
10 kg35.0 ± 11.335.7 ± 10.80.1160.07
(−0.917–1.044)		4.18
(2.88–7.63)		0.40
(0.30–0.62)		0.98
(0.94–0.99)
15 kg46.1 ± 17.145.2 ± 16.60.075−0.06
(−1.034–0.927)		3.02
(2.23–4.68)		0.24
(0.18–0.37)		0.99
(0.98–1.00)
SD, standard deviation; ES, Cohen’s d effect size ((higher mean–lower mean)/SD both); SEM, standard error of measurement; CV, coefficient of variation; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Table
Table 2. Test–retest reliability of the average and peak velocity in the 5STS using a FEMD.
Table 2. Test–retest reliability of the average and peak velocity in the 5STS using a FEMD.
ConditionSession 1
(Mean ± SD)		Session 2
(Mean ± SD)		p-ValueES
(95% CI)		CV
(95% CI)		SEM
(95% CI)		ICC
(95% CI)
Average
Velocity (cm/s)		5 kg100.8 (13.9)102.0 (14.0)0.2810.08
(−0.894–1.066)		2.84
(2.10–4.40)		2.88
(2.13–4.46)		0.96
(0.90–0.99)
10 kg95.8 (19.8)95.9 (20.7)0.8000.01
(−0.975–0.985)		1.80
(1.33–2.78)		1.72
(1.27–2.66)		0.99
(0.98–1.00)
15 kg93.0 (22.0)91.7 (23.6)0.205−0.06
(−1.037–0.923)		3.11
(2.30–4.81)		2.87(2.12–4.44)0.99
(0.96–1.00)
Peak Velocity (cm/s)5 kg210.8 (34.3)212.4 (33.6)0.2230.05
(−0.933–1.027)		1.71
(1.26–2.65)		3.62
(2.67–5.60)		0.99
(0.97–1.00)
10 kg199.5 (31.2)200.0 (30.6)0.3850.02
(−0.964–0.996)		0.74
(0.55–1.15)		1.48
(1.09–2.29)		1.00
(0.99–1.00)
15 kg196.6 (34.7)197.5 (34.7)0.1210.03
(−0.954–1.006)		0.79
(0.59–1.23)		1.56
(1.15–2.42)		1.00
(1.00–1.00)
SD, standard deviation; ES, Cohen’s d effect size ((higher mean–lower mean)/ SD both); SEM, standard error of measurement; CV, coefficient of variation; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Huerta-Ojeda, Á.; Chirosa-Ríos, L.J.; Guede-Rojas, F.; Guzmán-Guzmán, I.P.; Intelangelo, L.; Miranda-Fuentes, C.; Delgado-Floody, P. Test–Retest Reliability of Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer on Five Sit-to-Stand Measures in Healthy Young Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6829. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136829

AMA Style

Jerez-Mayorga D, Huerta-Ojeda Á, Chirosa-Ríos LJ, Guede-Rojas F, Guzmán-Guzmán IP, Intelangelo L, Miranda-Fuentes C, Delgado-Floody P. Test–Retest Reliability of Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer on Five Sit-to-Stand Measures in Healthy Young Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):6829. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136829

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jerez-Mayorga, Daniel, Álvaro Huerta-Ojeda, Luis Javier Chirosa-Ríos, Francisco Guede-Rojas, Iris Paola Guzmán-Guzmán, Leonardo Intelangelo, Claudia Miranda-Fuentes, and Pedro Delgado-Floody. 2021. "Test–Retest Reliability of Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer on Five Sit-to-Stand Measures in Healthy Young Adults" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 6829. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136829

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop