Static and Dynamic Handgrip Strength Endurance: Test-Retest Reproducibility.

PURPOSE

This study investigated the reliability of static and dynamic handgrip strength endurance using different protocols and indicators for the assessment of strength endurance.

METHODS

Forty young, healthy men and women (age, 18-22 years) performed 2 handgrip strength endurance protocols: a static protocol (sustained submaximal contraction at 50% of maximal voluntary contraction) and a dynamic one (8, 10, and 12 maximal repetitions). The participants executed each protocol twice to assess the test-retest reproducibility. Total work and total time were used as indicators of strength endurance in the static protocol; the strength recorded at each maximal repetition, the percentage change, and fatigue index were used as indicators of strength endurance in the dynamic protocol.

RESULTS

The static protocol showed high reliability irrespective of sex and hand for total time and work. The 12-repetition dynamic protocol exhibited moderate-high reliability for repeated maximal repetitions and percentage change; the 8- and 10-repetition protocols demonstrated lower reliability irrespective of sex and hand. The fatigue index was not a reliable indicator for the assessment of dynamic handgrip endurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Static handgrip endurance can be measured reliably using the total time and total work as indicators of strength endurance. For the evaluation of dynamic handgrip endurance, the 12-repetition protocol is recommended, using the repeated maximal repetitions and percentage change as indicators of strength endurance.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Practitioners should consider the static (50% maximal voluntary contraction) and dynamic (12 repeated maximal repetitions) protocols as reliable for the assessment of handgrip strength endurance. The evaluation of static endurance in conjunction with dynamic endurance would provide more complete information about hand function.