Suppr超能文献

基于多项握力测试的综合预测能力来识别努力程度的真实性。

Identifying sincerity of effort based on the combined predictive ability of multiple grip strength tests.

机构信息

Department of Occupational Science and Technology, College of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

出版信息

J Hand Ther. 2012 Jul-Sep;25(3):308-18; quiz 319. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2012.03.007.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort.

INTRODUCTION

Detecting sincerity of effort (SOE) of grip strength remains a frustrating and elusive task for hand therapists because there are no valid, reliable, or widely accepted assessments for identifying feigned effort. Some therapists use various combinations of different SOE tests in an attempt to identify feigned effort, but there is lack of evidence to support this practice.

PURPOSE

The present study examined the ability of a combination of three grip strength tests commonly used in the clinic to detect SOE: the five rung grip test, rapid exchange grip test, and coefficient of variation. A secondary purpose was to compare the predictive ability between the logistic and linear regression models.

METHODS

Healthy participants (n=146) performed the three SOE tests exerting both maximal and submaximal efforts. We compared the ability of two regression models, the logistic and linear models, to predict sincere versus insincere efforts.

RESULTS

Combining the three tests predicted SOE better than each test alone. Yet, the full logistic model, which was the best predictor of SOE, explained only 42% of variance and correctly classified only 58% of the efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings do not support the clinical practice of combining these three tests to detect SOE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable.

摘要

研究设计

回顾性队列研究。

简介

对手治疗师来说,检测握力的努力真诚度(SOE)仍然是一项令人沮丧且难以捉摸的任务,因为目前还没有有效、可靠且广泛接受的评估方法来识别虚假努力。一些治疗师使用各种不同 SOE 测试的组合来试图识别虚假努力,但缺乏支持这种做法的证据。

目的

本研究检验了三种常用于临床的握力测试(五指握梯测试、快速交换握力测试和变异系数)组合来检测 SOE 的能力。次要目的是比较逻辑回归和线性回归模型之间的预测能力。

方法

健康参与者(n=146)进行了三种 SOE 测试,分别施加以最大和次最大力量。我们比较了两种回归模型(逻辑和线性模型)预测真诚与不真诚努力的能力。

结果

三种测试的组合比单独使用每种测试预测 SOE 更准确。然而,预测 SOE 最佳的完整逻辑模型仅解释了 42%的方差,正确分类了仅 58%的努力。

结论

我们的研究结果不支持将这三种测试组合起来检测 SOE 的临床实践。

证据水平

不适用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验