Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1994 Dec;20(6):302-6.
doi: 10.2519/jospt.1994.20.6.302.

Interdevice reliability and validity assessment of the Nicholas Hand-Held Dynamometer

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Interdevice reliability and validity assessment of the Nicholas Hand-Held Dynamometer

E Trudelle-Jackson et al. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994 Dec.

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 have 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 (mean age = 28.4) 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources