Introduction
Trunk flexion is present in daily activities, such as walking or sit-to-stand (Roldán-Jiménez, Bennett & Cuesta-Vargas, 2015; Silva et al., 2015; Moon & Kim, 2017) , and in different sports performance actions, such as overhead throwing (Van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009; Liu, Leigh & Yu, 2010; Wagner et al., 2012; Wagner et al., 2014; Palmer et al., 2015) or hitting a ball (Lindsay, Horton & Paley, 2002; Chang et al., 2016). Studies have demonstrated the importance of trunk strength for preventing injuries in the spine (Hutten & Hermens, 1997; Mueller et al., 2012; Rossi et al., 2017) and knee (Araujo, Cohen & Hayes, 2015; Cronström et al., 2016), such as the low back pain and anterior cruciate ligament injuries that frequently occur in sports and the workplace (Leboeuf-Yde et al., 2009; Sanders et al., 2016; Kozak, Freitag & Nienhaus, 2017).
Due to the importance of trunk strength, clinicians and coaches must know whether changes in strength over time reflect a real gain or loss, or are the result of the measurement error (Atkinson & Nevill, 1998). Therefore, the validity and reliability of data are important when assessing strength. The validity of data concern to which an individual’s test performance reflects true performance and the reliability measures in tests and retests concern the repeatability of the data observed in a sample (Hopkins, 2000; Hopkins, Schabort & Hawley, 2001). In sports science, it is a requirement to have relative (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement (SEM) or coefficient of variation (CV)) of data. Relative reliability indicates how similar the rank orders of the participants in the test are to the retest (Weir, 2005). The main problem with relative reliability is that it depends on the variability of the sample. However, absolute reliability is related to the consistency of individual scores (Hopkins, 2000; Hopkins et al., 2009).
Until now, the evaluation of trunk strength has been carried out by way of medicine-ball throws (Glenn et al., 2015), handheld dynamometers (Cowley et al., 2009; Paalanne et al., 2009; Newman, Pollock & Hunt, 2012) or isokinetic devices (Dervisevic, Hadzic & Burger, 2007; Mcintire et al., 2007; Roth et al., 2017). In these isokinetic devices, there is no evaluation protocol to know at what velocity and at what range of movement the evaluation should be performed (Dvir & Müller, 2019), even though there have been attempts (Dvir & Keating, 2001). Still, there are indications that low-velocity movements are more reliable for measuring trunk strength (Guilhem et al., 2014; Roth et al., 2017). Different studies that have analyzed the reliability of test using peak force (Roth et al., 2017; De Blaiser et al., 2018; Juan-Recio et al., 2018) but it has not been shown which strength manifestation (peak force or mean force) is more reliable for assessing trunk strength.
Functional electromechanical dynamometry (FEMD) is a new technology that allows us to evaluate and train strength in human beings. Its provides a quantified measurement of strength and its ease of use and low cost. Unlike other isokinetic devices, this device (DynaSystem, Model Research, Granada, Spain) generates linear isokinetic speeds between other dynamic modes (tonic, kinetic, elastic, inertial, conical) to static (isometric, vibratory) allowing to evaluate and train through resistance/velocity constant and variable (Campos Jara et al., 2014). Furthermore, it has been described as a valid and reliable measurement method for evaluating upper and lower extremity muscle strength (Cerda Vega et al., 2018; Chamorro et al., 2018). This technology has been used to study the isometric strength of the shoulder rotators and hip abductor and has obtained high reliability values (ICC > 0.94; CV < 10%) (Cerda Vega et al., 2018; Chamorro et al., 2018). However, trunk strength has yet to be studied with this device.
Therefore, the main purposes of this study were (I) to determine the absolute and relative reliability of trunk tests with a FEMD (Dynasystem, Symotech) in the evaluation of the isokinetic and isometric strength of trunk flexors, and to determine the most reliable assessment condition, (II) to compare the absolute and relative reliability of mean force and peak force of trunk flexors, and (III) to determine which isokinetic condition of evaluation is best related to the maximum isometric contraction. We hypothesized that (I) low velocities and short range of movement would be more reliable than high velocities and large range of movement. Additionally, we hypothesized that (II) mean force would be a more reliable variable than peak force in trunk flexor evaluation and that (III) slow velocities are best related to isometric evaluation. The results are expected to provide new information regarding trunk strength evaluation protocols using FEMD.
Methods Participants
Thirty-seven physically active male student volunteers (age 21.4 ± 2.1 years, body mass 69.2 ± 6.9 kg, height 1.7 ± 0.1 m and body mass index (BMI) 23.0 ± 1.6 kg/m2; data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD)) without any experience in isokinetic or dynamometers devices were recruited from the university community (Table 1). Participants were eligible for the study if they were: (I) free of low back pain, with a maximum of 20% in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability questionnaire; (II) free of musculoskeletal injury; (III) not practicing specific trunk strength training; and IV) had a maximum BMI of 25 kg/m2. All participants were informed regarding nature, aims and risks associated with the experimental procedure before they gave their written consent to participate. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Granada (n° 350/CEIH/2017), and was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
| Age (years) | Body mass (Kg) | Height (m) | BMI (Kg/m2) | OLBPD (%) | ROM 100% (cm) | ROM 25% (cm) | ROM 50% (cm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 21.4 (2.1) | 69.2 (6.9) | 1.7 (0.1) | 23.0 (1.6) | 3.1 (3.9) | 51.4 (3.3) | 13.0 (0.9) | 25.8 (1.6) |
| Minimum | 19.0 | 59.1 | 1.6 | 19.4 | 0.0 | 45.2 | 11.0 | 23.0 |
| Maximum | 27.0 | 81.9 | 1.9 | 25.0 | 16.0 | 59.4 | 15.0 | 30.0 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/table-1
Notes:
The data are presented mean (SD).
ROM
range of movement
BMI
body mass index
OLBPD
oswestry low back pain disability
Study design
A repeated-measurement design was used to evaluate trunk flexor strength with different protocols. All test sessions were developed in the ‘controlled natural movement’ laboratory of the University of the Most Holy Conception (Chile). After two familiarisation sessions, participants attended to the laboratory on two separate days (at least 48 h apart) during two weeks. On each testing day, participants completed different condition of velocity (V) and range of movement (R) protocols. Participants were asked to maintain their physical activity level during the two weeks of the study. All evaluations were conducted by the same evaluator with an experience with the device for more than three years, at the same time of the day (± 1 h) for each participant and under similar environmental conditions (∼21 °C and ∼60% humidity). The order of the velocities and range of movements was randomly established. This order was carried out in the two testing sessions.
Instruments
Isometric and isokinetic strength were evaluated with a DynaSystem Research Functional Dynamometer (SYMOTECH, Granada, Spain) with a precision of three mm for displacement, 100 g for a sensed load, a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz and a range of velocities between 0.05 m s−1 to 2.80 m s−1, coupled with a standard bench, a pulley system and a subjection system (Fig. 1).
Enlarge this image.Figure 1: DynaSystem research functional dynamometer. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/fig-1
Range of movement
The distance between the greater trochanter and the acromion was measured manually to establish the range of movement. Measurements were made by applying anthropometric measurement protocol based on the internationally validated recommendation (Stewart, Marfell-Jones & International Society for Advancement of Kinanthropometry, 2011), using a SECA® brand measuring tape. That distance accounted for 100% of the range of movement. The 25% (R1) and 50% (R2) of that distance were calculated to establish the range of movement during the execution of the test (Fig. 2). These ROMs are set in the exercise configuration screen on the device prior to the execution of the test and this corresponds to the course of the rope measured in centimeters.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2: Participant performing a maximum effort of trunk flexion in the functional electromechanical dynamometer with different ROM (A, initial position; B, 25% cm ; C, 50% cm). DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/fig-2
Position
The participants were positioned on a flat bench with their feet resting on the floor. Participants were then stabilized at the test position (sitting) using straps. Sliding forward on the bench was avoided with the use of appropriate belts that pushed the pelvis and the legs down and back, but were not uncomfortable for the participants. Because the aim of the study focuses on trunk flexor strength, the seated posture helps to isolate these muscles better, reducing the action of the iliopsoas muscle in a closed kinetic chain. In addition, the sitting posture provides greater stability when fixing the pelvis. The seated knee flexion position reduces hamstring tension, favoring the lumbo-pelvic kinematics (anterior tilting during trunk flexion) and reducing biomechanical stress together with the consequent risk of lumbar pain (Jandre Reis & Ribero Macedo, 2015; Sadler et al., 2017). The initial position was seated with the trunk at a 90-degree angle to the thigh (Fig. 2).
Familiarisation protocol
Participants first attended two familiarisation sessions of 90 min on the FEMD and the procedures. The familiarisation consisted of a general warm up for both test sessions, consisting of five minutes of jogging (beats per minute <130; measured with a Polar M400), five minutes of joint mobility and three sets of 15s of frontal plank and glute bridge. The general warm-up was followed by four sets of five repetitions (two submaximal repetitions and three maximum repetitions) at a velocity of 0.15 m s−1 and 0.45 m s−1with a short range of movement (R1 = 25%) and a large range of movement (R2 = 50%). There was a three-minute pause between sets.
Test protocol
Participants arrived in a well-rested condition at the start of each testing session.
The instructions to the participants were always the same and no feedback was ever given to them. After the same warm-up as during the familiarisation protocols, participants rested for five minutes before the initiation. The test consisted of six series of four maximum consecutive repetitions, of trunk flexors at V1R1 (0.15 m s−1,25% cm), V2R1 (0.30 m s−1, 25% cm), V3R1 (0.45 m s−1, 25% cm), V1R2 (0.15 m s−1, 50% cm), V2R2 (0.30 m s−1, 50% cm), V3R2 (0.45 m s−1, 50% cm) and V0R90 (0 m s−1, 90 degrees). There was a three-minute pause between sets. After that, a maximum isometric contraction of five seconds, in a seated position with the trunk at a 90-degree angle to the thigh, was performed (Fig. 3).
Statistical analysis Outcome variables
The three highest repetitions of the mean force and the peak force for the concentric and the eccentric contractions were taken to calculate the dynamic force. In the calculation of the isometric force, the peak value and mean value of the repetition were taken.
Sample size
For test-retest evaluations without a control group, statistical theory predicts confidence intervals (d) = ±t0.975, n-1 ⋅ s ⋅ [Formula omitted. See PDF.] / [Formula omitted. See PDF.] for changes in the mean, where n is the sample size, s the SEM and t the statistician, equaling the expression n = 2(ts∕d)2 = 8s2/d2. The sample size is proportional to the square of the SEM. Previous studies (Dervisevic, Hadzic & Burger, 2007; Guilhem et al., 2014; Roth et al., 2017) have shown SEM values close to 8% with isokinetic parameters of trunk muscle strength. Assuming that the minimum clinically relevant change (d) be of 5%, then the sample size would be a minimum of 21 subjects.
Reliability
The descriptive data are presented as mean ±SD. The distribution of the data was verified by the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. Reliability was assessed by t-tests of paired samples with the effect size (ES), the CV and the ICC, with 95% confidence intervals. The scale used for interpreting the magnitude of the ES was specific to training research: negligible (<0.2), small (0.2–0.5), moderate (0.5–0.8), and large (≥0.8) (Cohen, 1988). The reliability observed in each evaluation condition was reported using the FEMD. For the relation between isometric tests and dynamic tests, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated with a 95% confidence interval. Following Hopkins et al. (2009), we classified the magnitude of the values of the intraclass correlation coefficient through a qualitative scale: values close to 0.1 are considered low reliability; 0.3, moderate; 0.5, high; 0.7, very high; and those close to 0.9, extremely high. Reliability analyses were performed using a customized spreadsheet (Hopkins, 2015), while JASP software package (version 0.9.1.0, http://www.jasp-stats.org) was used for all other analyses.
Results
The evaluation of the mean force of the concentric contraction of trunk flexors did not differ between the test and the retest (p > 0.05, ES < 0.20). However, the evaluation of the mean force of the eccentric contraction of trunk flexor strength was sensitive to the test and retest (p < 0.05, ES 0.13–0.32). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the test and retest of the peak force of concentric and eccentric contraction of trunk flexors (p > 0.05, ES < 0.20). The absolute reliability provided a stable repeatability for the isometric and dynamic protocols, with CV being below 10% in nearly all instances. The relative reliability of different strength protocols to evaluate the mean force of trunk flexors was very high (ICC = 0.71–0.85) for concentric contraction and very high (ICC = 0.74–0.86) and high (ICC = 0.69) for eccentric contraction (Table 2). Moreover, the absolute reliability provided better results in eccentric contraction (CV = 5.70–7.76) than concentric contraction (CV = 7.04–14.00). The relative reliability of different strength protocols to evaluate the peak force of trunk flexors was very high (ICC = 0.72–0.81) and high (ICC = 0.54–0.60) for concentric contraction and very high (ICC = 0.71–0.91) for eccentric contractions (Table 3). The most reliable conditions in which to evaluate flexor strength are presented in Fig. 4.
| Conditions | Test | Retest | p-value | ES | CV (95% CI) | SEM (95% CI) | ICC (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO | V0R90° | 30.8 (5.4) | 30.3 (5.4) | 0.337 | −0.11 | 8.21 (6.77–10.66) | 2.51 (2.04–3.26) | 0.79 (0.63–0.89) |
| CON | V1R1 | 26.9 (4.8) | 27.4 (4.5) | 0.251 | 0.11 | 6.82 (5.54–8.85) | 1.85 (1.50–2.40) | 0.85 (0.73–0.92) |
| V2R1 | 26.0 (5.2) | 26.6 (5.3) | 0.328 | 0.10 | 9.06 (7.37–11.77) | 2.38 (1.94–3.10) | 0.80 (0.65–0.89) | |
| V3R1 | 24.8 (5.3) | 25.1 (4.5) | 0.537 | 0.08 | 10.83 (8.81–14.06) | 2.70 (2.20–3.51) | 0.71 (0.51–0.84) | |
| V1R2 | 23.7 (4.4) | 24.3 (4.5) | 0.200 | 0.13 | 8.00 (6.51–10.39) | 1.92 (1.56–2.49) | 0.82 (0.68–0.91) | |
| V2R2 | 23.6 (5.4) | 24.1 (4.9) | 0.337 | 0.11 | 10.18 (8.27–13.22) | 2.43 (1.97–3.15) | 0.79 (0.63–0.88) | |
| V3R2 | 22.9 (5.1) | 23.9 (4.9) | 0.096 | 0.18 | 9.89 (8.04–12.84) | 2.31 (1.88–3.01) | 0.79 (0.64–0.89) | |
| ECC | V1R1 | 46.0 (9.0) | 48.7 (7.6) | 0.003 | 0.32 | 7.67 (6.24–9.96) | 3.63 (2.95–4.72) | 0.82 (0.68–0.90) |
| V2R1 | 48.7 (8.7) | 50.9 (8.0) | 0.021 | 0.26 | 7.78 (6.33–10.11) | 3.88 (3.15–5.04) | 0.79 (0.63–0.89) | |
| V3R1 | 52.0 (9.1) | 54.4 (7.7) | 0.043 | 0.28 | 8.98 (7.30–11.66) | 4.78 (3.88–6.21) | 0.69 (0.47–0.83) | |
| V1R2 | 45.4 (7.7) | 46.3 (7.2) | 0.265 | 0.13 | 8.03 (6.53–10.43) | 3.68 (2.99–4.78) | 0.77 (0.59–0.87) | |
| V2R2 | 46.8 (8.5) | 49.2 (7.7) | 0.002 | 0.30 | 6.55 (5.33–8.51) | 3.14 (2.56–4.08) | 0.86 (0.74–0.92) | |
| V3R2 | 48.3 (9.7) | 50.7 (9.1) | 0.040 | 0.26 | 9.88 (8.04–12.84) | 4.89 (3.98–6.35) | 0.74 (0.55–0.86) |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/table-2
Notes:
ISO
isometric contraction
CON
concentric contraction
ECC
eccentric contraction
V0
0 m s−1
V1
0–15 m s−1
V2
0–30 m s−1
V3
0–45 m s−1
R90
90 degrees
R1
25% cm
R2
50% cm
ES
Cohen’s d effect size
CV
coefficient of variation
SEM
standard error of measurement
ICC
intraclass correlation coefficient
95% CI
95% confidence interval
| Conditions | Test | Retest | p-value | ES | CV (95% CI) | SEM (95% CI) | ICC (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO | V0R90° | 37.5 (6.7) | 36.7 (5.6) | 0.212 | −0.14 | 7.72 (6.27–10.02) | 2.86 (2.33–3.72) | 0.79 (0.64–0.89) |
| CON | V1R1 | 42.2 (5.9) | 42.6 (5.9) | 0.721 | −0.05 | 8.89 (7.23–11.55) | 3.80 (3.09–4.94) | 0.60 (0.34–0.77) |
| V2R1 | 43.2 (6.7) | 42.9 (7.0) | 0.755 | −0.03 | 7.04 (5.73–9.15) | 3.03 (2.47–3.94) | 0.81 (0.66–0.90) | |
| V3R1 | 44.8 (9.4) | 46.2 (9.1) | 0.344 | 0.15 | 14.00 (11.39–18.19) | 6.37 (5.18–8.27) | 0.54 (0.26–0.73) | |
| V1R2 | 36.9 (6.4) | 37.1 (5.6) | 0.780 | 0.04 | 8.79 (7.15–11.42) | 3.26 (2.65–4.23) | 0.72 (0.51–0.84) | |
| V2R2 | 37.7 (6.8) | 38.1 (6.7) | 0.573 | 0.06 | 8.35 (6.79–10.85) | 3.17 (2.58–4.11) | 0.79 (0.63–0.89) | |
| V3R2 | 40.2 (7.2) | 40.4 (7.2) | 0.898 | 0.02 | 11.40 (9.27–14.81) | 4.60 (3.74–5.97) | 0.60 (0.35–0.77) | |
| ECC | V1R1 | 58.2 (9.1) | 58.7 (7.9) | 0.586 | 0.05 | 6.15 (5.00–7.99) | 3.60 (2.92–4.67) | 0.83 (0.69–0.91) |
| V2R1 | 65.6 (7.5) | 64.7 (8.8) | 0.354 | −0.11 | 6.41 (5.22–8.33) | 4.18 (3.40–5.42) | 0.75 (0.57–0.86) | |
| V3R1 | 73.7 (10.0) | 74.5 (9.6) | 0.525 | 0.08 | 7.31 (5.94–9.49) | 5.42 (4.40–7.04) | 0.71 (0.50–0.84) | |
| V1R2 | 57.1 (8.8) | 57.3 (8.2) | 0.823 | 0.02 | 6.93 (5.64–9.00) | 3.97 (3.22–5.15) | 0.79 (0.63–0.89) | |
| V2R2 | 60.0 (8.4) | 61.2 (8.5) | 0.101 | 0.14 | 5.07 (4.13–6.59) | 3.08 (2.50–4.00) | 0.87 (0.77–0.93) | |
| V3R2 | 66.8 (10.1) | 66.3 (9.7) | 0.665 | −0.05 | 7.76 (6.31–10.08) | 5.16 (4.20–6.71) | 0.74 (0.55–0.86) |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/table-3
Notes:
ISO
isometric contraction
CON
concentric contraction
ECC
eccentric contraction
V0
0 m s−1
V1
0–15 m s−1
V2
0–30 m s−1
V3
0–45m s−1
R90
90 degrees
R1
25% cm
R2
50% cm
ES
Cohen’s d effect size
CV
coefficient of variation
SEM
standard error of measurement
ICC
intraclass correlation coefficient
95% CI
95% confidence interval
Enlarge this image.Figure 4: (A) Linear correlation of V1R1 condition in the concentric phase between test-retest of mean force of trunk flexors. (B) Linear correlation of V2R2 condition in the eccentric phase between test-retest of mean force of trunk flexors. (C) Linear correlation of V2R1 condition in the concentric phase between test-retest of peak force of trunk flexors. (D) Linear correlation of V2R2 condition in the eccentric phase between test-retest of peak force of trunk flexors. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/fig-4
The most reliable strength manifestation (CV = 6.82%) to evaluate the concentric contraction of trunk flexors was mean force with V1R1 condition; the most reliable strength manifestation to evaluate the eccentric contraction of trunk flexors was peak force with V1R2 (CV = 5.07%), and the most reliable strength manifestation to evaluate the isometric contraction of trunk flexors was peak force (CV = 7.72%) (Tables 2–3).
The peak force of concentric trunk flexor strength under V1R1 conditions was best related to the maximum isometric contraction (r = 0.70) and the mean force of eccentric trunk flexor strength with V3R1 conditions (r = 0.73; see Table 4).
| Conditions | Mean force | Peak force | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | p-value | r | p-value | ||
| ISO-CON | V1R1 | 0.64 | <.001 | 0.70 | <.001 |
| V2R1 | 0.65 | <.001 | 0.45 | 0.005 | |
| V3R1 | 0.67 | <.001 | 0.48 | 0.003 | |
| V1R2 | 0.57 | <.001 | 0.47 | 0.003 | |
| V2R2 | 0.58 | <.001 | 0.50 | 0.001 | |
| V3R2 | 0.43 | 0.008 | 0.38 | 0.019 | |
| ISO-ECC | V1R1 | 0.58 | <.001 | 0.59 | <.001 |
| V2R1 | 0.61 | <.001 | 0.52 | 0.001 | |
| V3R1 | 0.73 | <.001 | 0.48 | 0.003 | |
| V1R2 | 0.48 | 0.003 | 0.58 | <.001 | |
| V2R2 | 0.56 | <.001 | 0.54 | <.001 | |
| V3R2 | 0.55 | <.001 | 0.50 | 0.002 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7883/table-4
Notes:
ISO
isometric contraction
CON
concentric contraction
ECC
eccentric contraction
V1
0.15 m s−1
V2
0.30 m s−1
V3
0.45 m s−1
R90
90 degrees
R1
25% cm
R2
50% cm
Discussion
In the present study, we assessed the absolute and relative reliability of functional trunk tests using a FEMD (Dynasystem, Symotech). The reliability of strength test results is crucial to assess the level of adequate performance and develop a successful rehabilitation or training program (Demoulin et al., 2012). The main findings of the present study were very high, and high absolute and relative reliability was found in all assessment conditioning analyzed.
These findings are comparable to the results of Roth et al. (2017), who found a CV of 7.3% when evaluating isometric flexion trunk strength using a isokinetic device (IsoMed-200). In addition, flexion trunk strength was evaluated with the same device at 60° /s and 150° /s speed obtaining a CV of 7.8% and 18.4% respectively with a range of movement from−30° to 30° (Roth et al., 2017). Jubany et al. (2015) found similar results when using a custom-made instrument including a hand-held dynamometer for measuring isometric trunk flexor muscle strength, obtaining a CV of 5.3% and a CV of 6.6% when using the gold standard Back-Check (Jubany et al., 2015).
In the literature, many different ranges of movement and velocities are considered for studying the reliability of trunk flexor strength measurement using isokinetics devices (Dervisevic, Hadzic & Burger, 2007; Guilhem et al., 2014; Roth et al., 2017). However, no standardized protocol was established for obtaining higher reliability. Therefore, the current study compares the range of movement and the velocities to determine which one is more reliable. By analyzing the data obtained in Tables 2 and 3, it can be verified that the absolute and relative reliability is similar in all evaluation conditions. However, the condition that presents greater reliability in the concentric phase, whether we observe mean force or peak force values, is when it is evaluated at short ranges (CV = 6.82; CV = 7.04). This is not the case in the eccentric phase, where it is higher when evaluated at large ranges (CV = 6.55; CV = 5.07).
The data suggest that the concentric phase of the trunk flexors should be evaluated at a velocity of 0.15 m s−1 if we take mean force values, and at a velocity of 0.30 m s−1 if we take peak force values. The eccentric phase, whether we take mean force values or peak force values, should be evaluated at the velocity of 0.30 m s−1. Nevertheless, in the eccentric phase of the trunk flexors, there was a learning effect between the test and the retest when values of mean force were taken (p < 0.05). More familiarisation sessions would be needed to evaluate the eccentric phase in the trunk flexors. These results are consistent with other studies that have shown there is a learning effect in isokinetic devices (Keller, Hellesnes & Brox, 2001; Gruther et al., 2009). Perhaps there is a greater learning effect in the eccentric phase because in the day to day we do not perform this type of force as much as the concentric phase.
Additionally, we compare the absolute and relative reliability of the mean force and peak force of the trunk flexors. There are no major differences to help determine whether it is better to use mean force or peak force to evaluate trunk flexor strength with FEMD. In the clinical area, and sports performance, there is a tendency to use peak force values of trunk flexors for the study of reliability (Yasuda, Minami & Daikuya, 2013; Roth et al., 2017; Ben Moussa Zouita et al., 2018); however, there are no studies in which the differences between using peak force or mean force are described. Even so, the use of peak force can overestimate the force produced by the overshoot in the isokinetic devices (Delitto et al., 1991; Timm et al., 1992).
One of the innovations of this research was to study what evaluation condition is more related to isometric strength. The mean force of eccentric trunk flexor strength with V3R1 condition (r = 0.73) was best related to the maximum isometric contraction. There are no previous studies that analyse this, but it could be interesting to evaluate patients with low back pain because of the unrestricted range of movement in the sagittal plane (Balagué et al., 2010; Laird et al., 2014; Laird et al., 2019). These types of patients sometimes cannot make maximum dynamic efforts but they could make maximum isometric efforts. Thanks to knowing this relationship, the training loads in dynamic could be established.
The limitations of our study are as follows: first, we have only evaluated male students without any back pain, so our data can not be extrapolated to the rest of the population. Second, using a novel device and offering linear values of velocity and range of movement has made our research more difficult to compare with other studies and there was a learning effect with some effect sizes greater than 20% in the eccentric assessment. Future research could perform the same evaluation in another type of population, such as patients with low back pain, people of another age range and even female students, to further determine the best evaluation condition in these types of population.
The application of this test for the clinical or sports field allows us to know the muscular strength of the trunk flexors. With the data obtained in this study, we can understand what coefficient of variation the test has, and thereby know the effects of special training or rehabilitation programs. On the other hand, a reliable evaluation protocol with FEMD has been created, allowing us to know the best velocity and range of movement for evaluating this musculature. All of the protocols evaluated have shown reliable values, so that all of the evaluation conditions could be used. The advantage of using the FEMD is that it is cheaper than isokinetic devices and allows evaluating muscle strength in a more functional way without using so many straps.
This allows coaches and medical practitioners to match the sporting gesture to the evaluation. In the clinical field it is recommended to use the most reliable protocol; however, in the sports field, it is recommended to use the velocity and range closest to the sport performed.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, it may be reasonably concluded that the assessment of the concentric, eccentric and isometric strength in the trunk flexors with FEMD is a reliable evaluation system. In this type of evaluation, data of mean force or peak force can be measured to determine the muscle strength without this influencing the reliability of the evaluation and if we want to relate the isometric strength with dynamic strength the V3R1 condition should be taken.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Angela Rodriguez-Perea conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Luis J. Chirosa Ríos conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Dario Martinez-Garcia performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
David Ulloa-Díaz prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Francisco Guede Rojas conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Ignacio J. Chirosa Rios conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
The Institutional Review Board of the University of Granada approved this research (nº350/CEIH/2017).
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data are available in the Supplemental Files. The raw data shows test and retest trunk flexors strength values of all conditioning.
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work.
Araujo S, Cohen D, Hayes L. 2015. Six weeks of core stability training improves landing kinetics among female capoeira athletes: a pilot study. Journal of Human Kinetics 45:27-37
Atkinson G, Nevill AM. 1998. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Medicine 26:217-238
Balagué F, Bibbo E, Mélot C, Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Keller TS. 2010. The association between isoinertial trunk muscle performance and low back pain in male adolescents. European Spine Journal 19:624-632
Ben Moussa Zouita A, Ben Salah FZ, Dziri C, Beardsley C. 2018. Comparison of isokinetic trunk flexion and extension torques and powers between athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation 14:72-77
Campos Jara C, Bautista Gonzalez I, Chirosa Rios L, Martin Tamayo I, Lopez Fuenzalida A, Chirosa Rios I. 2014. Validity and reliability of the haefni health system 1.0 device in the measurement of the isokinetic velocity range. Cuadernos de Psicologia del Deporte 14:91-98
Cerda Vega E, Jerez-Mayorga D, Jara CC, Guzman-guzman I, Ponce AR, Chirosa LJ. 2018. Validity and reliability of evaluating hip abductor strength using different normalization methods in a functional electromechanical device. PLOS ONE 8:1-12
Chamorro C, De La Fuente C, Jerez D, Campos C, Chirosa LJ. 2018. Reliability of shoulder rotators isometric strength test using a novel pulley electromechanical dynamometer. Influence of the assessment position. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine 9(2):e60406
Chang ES, Bishop ME, Baker D, West RV. 2016. Interval throwing and hitting programs in baseball: biomechanics and rehabilitation. The American Journal of Orthopedics 45:157-162
Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Cowley PM, Fitzgerald S, Sottung K, Swensen T. 2009. Age, weight, and the front abdominal power test as predictors of isokinetic trunk strength and work in young men and women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23:915-925
Cronström A, Creaby MW, Nae J, Eva Ageberg. 2016. Modifiable factors associated with knee abduction during weight-bearing activities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine 46:1647-1662
De Blaiser C, De Ridder R, Willems T, Danneels L, Roosen P. 2018. Reliability and validity of trunk flexor and trunk extensor strength measurements using handheld dynamometry in a healthy athletic population. Physical Therapy in Sport 34:180-186
Delitto A, Rose SJ, Crandell CE, Strube MJ. 1991. Reliability of isokinetic measurements of trunk muscle performance. Spine 16:800-803
Demoulin C, Jidovtseff B, Mahieu G, Verbunt J. 2012. Muscular performance assessment of trunk extensors: a critical appraisal of the literature. In: Norastech AA, ed. Low Back Pain. London: IntechOpen. 141-166
Dervisevic E, Hadzic V, Burger H. 2007. Reproducibility of trunk isokinetic strength findings in healthy individuals. Isokinetics and Exercise Science 15:99-109
Dvir Z, Keating J. 2001. Reproducibility and validity of a new test protocol for measuring isokinetic trunk extension strength. Clinical Biomechanics 16:627-630
Dvir Z, Müller S. 2019. Multiple-joint isokinetic dynamometry: a critical review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Epub ahead of print 2019 13 February
Glenn JM, Galey M, Edwards A, Rickert B, Washington TA. 2015. Validity and reliability of the abdominal test and evaluation systems tool (ABTEST) to accurately measure abdominal force. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 18:457-462
Gruther W, Wick F, Paul B, Leitner C, Posch M, Matzner M, Crevenna R, Ebenbichler G. 2009. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of muscle strength and endurance measurements in patients with chronic low back pain. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 41:613-619
Guilhem G, Giroux C, Couturier A, Maffiuletti NA. 2014. Validity of trunk extensor and flexor torque measurements using isokinetic dynamometry. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 24:986-993
Hopkins WG. 2000. Mesaures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine 30:1-15
Hopkins WG. 2015. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability. Sportscience 19:36-42
Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. 2009. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41:3-12
Hopkins W, Schabort E, Hawley J. 2001. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Medicine 31:211-234
Hutten MMR, Hermens HJ. 1997. Reliability of lumbar dynamometry measurements in patients with chronic low back pain with test-retest measurements on different days. European Spine Journal 6:54-62
Jandre Reis F, Ribero Macedo A. 2015. Influence of hamstring tightness in pelvic, lumbar and trunk range of motion in low back pain and asymptomatic volunteers during forward bending. Asian Spine Journal 9:535-540
Juan-Recio C, López-Plaza D, Barbado Murillo D, García-Vaquero MP, Vera-García FJ. 2018. Reliability assessment and correlation analysis of 3 protocols to measure trunk muscle strength and endurance. Journal of Sports Sciences 36:357-364
Jubany J, Busquets A, Marina M, Cos F, Angulo-Barroso R. 2015. Reliability and validity of a custom-made instrument including a hand-held dynamometer for measuring trunk muscle strength. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 28:317-326
Keller A, Hellesnes J, Brox JI. 2001. Reliability of the isokinetic trunk extensor test, Biering-Sørensen Test, and Åstrand bicycle test assessment of intraclass correlation coefficient and critical difference in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy individuals. Spine 26:771-777
Kozak A, Freitag S, Nienhaus A. 2017. Evaluation of a training program to reduce stressful trunk postures in the nursing professions: a pilot study. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 61:22-32
Laird RA, Gilbert J, Kent P, Keating JL. 2014. Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoeskeletal Disorders 15(229):1-13
Laird RA, Keating JL, Ussing K, Li P, Kent P. 2019. Does movement matter in people with back pain? Investigating ‘atypical’ lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain using wireless movement sensors. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 20(1):28-43
Leboeuf-Yde C, Nielsen J, Kyvik KO, Fejer R, Hartvigsen J. 2009. Pain in the lumbar, thoracic or cervical regions: do age and gender matter? A population-based study of 34,902 Danish twins 20–71 years of age. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 10(1):39-50
Lindsay DM, Horton JF, Paley RD. 2002. Trunk motion of male professional golfers using two different golf clubs. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 18:366-373
Liu H, Leigh S, Yu B. 2010. Sequences of upper and lower extremity motions in javelin throwing. Journal of Sports Sciences 28:1459-1467
Mcintire K, Asher M, Burton D, Liu H, Liu W. 2007. Development of a protocol for isometric trunk rotational strength testing and strength asymmetry assessment. Isokinetics and Exercise Science 15:183-194
Moon S-J, Kim T-H. 2017. Effect of three-dimensional spine stabilization exercise on trunk muscle strength and gait ability in chronic stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabilitation 41:151-159
Mueller S, Stoll J, Mueller J, Mayer F. 2012. Validity of isokinetic trunk measurements with respect to healthy adults, athletes and low back pain patients. Isokinetics and Exercise Science 20:255-266
Newman BL, Pollock CL, Hunt MA. 2012. Reliability of measurement of maximal isometric lateral trunk-flexion strength in athletes using handheld dynamometry. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, Technical Notes(6) 21(4):1-5
Paalanne NP, Korpelainen R, Taimela SP, Remes J, Salakka M, Karppinen JI. 2009. Reproducibility and reference values of inclinometric balance and isometric trunk muscle strength measurements in finnish young adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23:1618-1626
Palmer T, Uhl TL, Howell D, Hewett TE, Viele K, Mattacola CG. 2015. Sport-specific training targeting the proximal segments and throwing velocity in collegiate throwing athletes. Journal of Athletic Training 50:567-577
Roldán-Jiménez C, Bennett P, Cuesta-Vargas AI. 2015. Muscular activity and fatigue in lower-limb and trunk muscles during different sit-to-stand tests. PLOSE ONE 10(10):e0141675
Rossi DM, Morcelli MH, Cardozo AC, Denadai BS, Gonçalves M, Navega MT. 2017. Rate of force development and muscle activation of trunk muscles in women with and without low back pain: a case-control study. Physical Therapy in Sport 26:41-48
Roth R, Donath L, Kurz E, Zahner L, Faude O. 2017. Absolute and relative reliability of isokinetic and isometric trunk strength testing using the IsoMed-2000 dynamometer. Physical Therapy in Sport 24:26-31
Sadler SG, Spink MJ, Ho A, Jonge XJ De, Chuter VH. 2017. Restriction in lateral bending range of motion, lumbar lordosis, and hamstring flexibility predicts the development of low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 18:1-15
Sanders TL, Kremers M, Bryan AJ, Larson DR, Dahm DL, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. 2016. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction A 21-year population-based study. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 44(6):1502-1507
Silva P, Franco J, Gusmao A, Moura J, Teixeira-Salmela L, Faria C. 2015. Trunk strength is associated with sit-to-stand performance in both stroke and healthy subjects. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 51:717-724
Stewart A, Marfell-Jones M, International Society for Advancement of Kinanthropometry. 2011. International standards for anthropometric assessment. Potchefstroom South Africa: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry.
Timm KE, Gennrich P, Burns R, Fyke D. 1992. The mechanical and physiological performance reliability of selected isokinetic dynamometers. Isokinetics and Exercise Science 2:182-190
Van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. 2009. Is there a proximal-to-distal sequence in overarm throwing in team handball? Journal of Sports Sciences 27:949-955
Wagner H, Pfusterschmied J, Tilp M, Landlinger J, Von Duvillard SP, Müller E. 2014. Upper-body kinematics in team-handball throw, tennis serve, and volleyball spike. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 24:345-354
Wagner H, Pfusterschmied J, Von Duvillard SP, Müller E. 2012. Skill-dependent proximal-to-distal sequence in team-handball throwing. Journal of Sports Sciences 30:21-29
Weir JP. 2005. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19(1):231-240
Yasuda I, Minami Y, Daikuya S. 2013. Trunk muscle strength in patient with low back pain [Abstract]. Orthopedics and Muscular System 2(2):125
Angela Rodriguez-Perea1, Luis J. Chirosa Ríos1, Dario Martinez-Garcia1, David Ulloa-Díaz2, Francisco Guede Rojas3, Daniel Jerez-Mayorga4, Ignacio J. Chirosa Rios1
1 Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Granada, Spain
2 Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of Most Holy Conception, Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile
3 Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Concepcion, Chile
4 Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile
© 2019 Rodriguez-Perea et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.