Guerra Rita S, Amaral Teresa F, Sousa Ana S, Fonseca Isabel, Pichel Fernando, Restivo Maria T
1Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal;2System Integration and Process Automation Research Unit-Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal;3Porto Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal; and4Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Jul;31(7):1931-1940. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001666.
Guerra, RS, Amaral, TF, Sousa, AS, Fonseca, I, Pichel, F, and Restivo, MT. Comparison of Jamar and Bodygrip dynamometers for handgrip strength measurement. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1931-1940, 2017-Studies that compared the agreement between Jamar and other models of dynamometers for handgrip strength (HGS) measurement have exhibited variability in the provided results. The lack of comparability between dynamometers led to the development of the Bodygrip dynamometer. This study aims to examine the reliability of the Bodygrip for HGS measurement, to compare it with the Jamar, and to explore the HGS differences between instruments considering the ergonomic effect of using the Bodygrip with 2 different handles. A cross-sectional study was conducted in free-living (n = 114, 18-89 years) and inpatient (n = 50, 65-93 years) volunteers. Nondominant HGS was tested randomly with the Jamar and Bodygrip, the latter using 2 different handles-curved and straight types. Handgrip strength was obtained for each participant under the same conditions. Each individual performed 2 HGS measurements with each dynamometer, and the maximum HGS value was considered for dynamometers comparison. Differences in the maximum HGS value between the 2 devices (Jamar-Bodygrip), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland and Altman plots, and limits of agreement were obtained. Correlation between the highest HGS measurement obtained for the nondominant hand with the Jamar and with the Bodygrip using each handle was excellent (ICCs: 0.93-0.95). Mean differences of -0.5 (limits of agreement: -4.6; 3.5) kgf with the curved handle and of 1.0 (-7.7; 9.7) kgf with the straight handle for the free-living participants were obtained, whereas for inpatients these values were -1.0 (-3.8; 1.9) kgf and 2.1 (-3.3; 7.5) kgf, respectively, for the curved and straight handles. The Bodygrip is comparable to the Jamar in free-living adults and in hospitalized older adults, exhibiting excellent interinstrument reliability. The Bodygrip with the curved handle produces results closer to the Jamar when compared with Bodygrip with the straight handle, which emphasizes the importance of grip handle ergonomics to measurement reliability.
格拉，RS，阿马拉尔，TF，苏萨，AS，丰塞卡，I，皮切尔，F，以及雷斯蒂沃，MT。比较Jamar握力计和握力计测量握力的研究。《力量与体能研究杂志》31(7): 1931 - 1940，2017年——比较Jamar握力计与其他型号握力计测量握力（HGS）一致性的研究结果存在差异。由于不同握力计之间缺乏可比性，因此研发了握力计。本研究旨在检验握力计测量HGS的可靠性，将其与Jamar握力计进行比较，并考虑使用两种不同手柄的握力计的人体工程学效应，探讨不同仪器之间的HGS差异。对自由生活的志愿者（n = 114，年龄18 - 89岁）和住院志愿者（n = 50，年龄65 - 93岁）进行了横断面研究。分别使用Jamar握力计和握力计随机测试非优势手的HGS，后者使用两种不同的手柄——弯曲型和直型。在相同条件下获取每位参与者的握力。每位受试者使用每种握力计进行2次HGS测量，并取最大HGS值用于握力计比较。得出两种设备（Jamar - 握力计）之间最大HGS值的差异、组内相关系数（ICC）、布兰德 - 奥特曼图以及一致性界限。非优势手使用Jamar握力计和使用每种手柄的握力计所测得的最高HGS测量值之间的相关性极佳（ICC：0.93 - 0.95）。自由生活参与者使用弯曲手柄时平均差异为 - 0.5（一致性界限： - 4.6；3.5）千克力，使用直手柄时为1.0（ - 7.7；9.7）千克力；而住院患者使用弯曲手柄和直手柄时，这些值分别为 - 1.0（ - 3.8；1.9）千克力和2.1（ - 3.3；7.5）千克力。在自由生活的成年人和住院的老年人中，握力计与Jamar握力计具有可比性，显示出极佳的仪器间可靠性。与使用直手柄的握力计相比，使用弯曲手柄的握力计产生的结果更接近Jamar握力计，这强调了握柄人体工程学对测量可靠性的重要性。
