Dataset Information

Measuring handgrip strength in school children: inter-instrument reliability between Takei and Jamar.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine inter-instrument reliability between Takei and Jamar dynamometers in school children. Fifty-six five grade participants aged eleven to twelve (n = 32 boys, n = 24 girls) performed handgrip strength test on two different occasions, with a 5-day gap between them, as test-retest. The Pearson correlation coefficient showed very large to almost perfect correlation between both devices (r = 0.76-0.91) which was graphically confirmed by Bland-Altman method. Test-retest also showed high reliability (ICC = 0.78-0.85) for Jamar and Takei. Trivial, nonsignificant differences (p > 0.05) were observed between for test-retest trials for Takei left hand (ES = 0.04), right hand (ES = 0.12) and Jamar left hand (ES = 0.15). According to the results, both the Jamar and Takei dynamometers are valid and reliable for measuring schoolchildren, and both devices may be used to assess a student's handgrip strength for this age group.

SUBMITTER: Trajkovic N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10784289 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring handgrip strength in school children: inter-instrument reliability between Takei and Jamar.

Trajković Nebojša N Rančić Doroteja D Ilić Tamara T Herodek Romina R Korobeynikov Georgiy G Pekas Damir D

Scientific reports 20240111 1

The aim of this study was to determine inter-instrument reliability between Takei and Jamar dynamometers in school children. Fifty-six five grade participants aged eleven to twelve (n = 32 boys, n = 24 girls) performed handgrip strength test on two different occasions, with a 5-day gap between them, as test-retest. The Pearson correlation coefficient showed very large to almost perfect correlation between both devices (r = 0.76-0.91) which was graphically confirmed by Bland-Altman method. Test-r ...[more]

PMID: 38212414

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmployees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts' reports.MethodsThe peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of inner logic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts' reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall's W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted.ResultsAgreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5%. Kendall's W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall's W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories.ConclusionThe superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrument and the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability.

Dataset Information

Measuring handgrip strength in school children: inter-instrument reliability between Takei and Jamar.

Publications

Measuring handgrip strength in school children: inter-instrument reliability between Takei and Jamar.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets