Comparison of Common Methodologies for the Determination of Knee Flexor Muscle Strength

Dan I Ogborn; Alix Bellemare; Brittany Bruinooge; Holly Brown; Sheila McRae; Jeff Leiter

doi:10.26603/001c.21311

Comparison of Common Methodologies for the Determination of Knee Flexor Muscle Strength

Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 1;16(2):350-359. doi: 10.26603/001c.21311.

Authors

Dan I Ogborn¹, Alix Bellemare², Brittany Bruinooge¹, Holly Brown³, Sheila McRae¹, Jeff Leiter²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Physical Therapy, University of Manitoba; Pan Am Clinic Foundation.
² Pan Am Clinic Foundation; Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba.
³ Pan Am Clinic Foundation.

Abstract

Background: Knee flexion strength may hold important clinical implications for the determination of injury risk and readiness to return to sport following injury and orthopedic surgery. A wide array of testing methodologies and positioning options are available that require validation prior to clinical integration. The purpose of this study was to 1) investigate the validity and test-retest reliability of isometric knee flexion strength measured by a fixed handheld dynamometer (HHD) apparatus compared to a Biodex Dynamometer (BD), 2) determine the impact of body position (seated versus supine) and foot position (plantar- vs dorsiflexed) on knee flexion peak torque and 3) establish the validity and test-retest reliability of the NordBord Hamstring Dynamometer.

Study design: Validity and reliability study, test-retest design.

Methods: Forty-four healthy participants (aged 27 ± 4.8 years) were assessed by two raters over two testing sessions separated by three to seven days. Maximal isometric knee flexion in the seated and supine position at 90^o knee flexion was measured with both a BD and an externally fixed HHD with the foot held in maximal dorsiflexion or in plantar flexion. The validity and test-retest reliability of eccentric knee flexor strength on the NordBord hamstring dynamometer was assessed and compared with isometric strength on the BD.

Results: Level of agreement between HHD and BD torque demonstrated low bias (bias -0.33 Nm, SD of bias 13.5 Nm; 95% LOA 26.13 Nm, -26.79 Nm). Interrater reliability of the HHD was high, varying slightly with body position (ICC range 0.9-0.97, n=44). Isometric knee flexion torque was higher in the seated versus supine position and with the foot dorsiflexed versus plantarflexed. Eccentric knee flexion torque had a high degree of correlation with isometric knee flexion torque as measured via the BD (r=0.61-0.86). The NordBord had high test-retest reliability (0.993 (95%CI 0.983-0.997, n=19) for eccentric knee flexor strength, with an MDC₉₅ of 26.88 N and 28.76 N for the left and right limbs respectively.

Conclusion: Common measures of maximal isometric knee flexion display high levels of correlation and test-retest reliability. However, values obtained by an externally fixed HHD are not interchangeable with values obtained via the BD. Foot and body position should be considered and controlled during testing.

Level of evidence: 2b.

Keywords: dynamometry; hamstrings; knee flexion; muscle strength; nordic hamstring curl; strength assessment.