Hazard R G, Reid S, Fenwick J, Reeves V
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Vermont, Burlington 05401.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Jan;13(1):54-7. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198801000-00013.
This study examines the hypothesis that force/distance curve variability distinguishes submaximal from maximal efforts in isokinetic trunk and lifting strength tests. Thirty normal subjects were tested on the Cybex Trunk Extension/Flexion (TEF) and Liftask (LT) machines during maximal (100%) and submaximal (50%) efforts. Considering each test separately, visual assessments of curve variability were indeterminate of degree of effort in 28% of TEF and 34% of LT tests. Measurement models of curve variability were more clearly discriminating. When a given subject's test curves were considered together, scaled visual assessments identified the degree of effort in 91% of TEF and 86% of LT results. The measurement models were accurate 90-92% of TEF and 79-92% of LT results. Clinical judgment is required in evaluating effort during tests of isokinetic trunk and lifting strength.
在等速躯干和举重力量测试中,力/距离曲线的变异性可区分次最大努力和最大努力。30名正常受试者在Cybex躯干伸展/屈曲(TEF)和Liftask(LT)机器上进行了最大(100%)和次最大(50%)努力的测试。分别考虑每项测试时,在28%的TEF测试和34%的LT测试中,对曲线变异性的视觉评估无法确定努力程度。曲线变异性的测量模型更具区分性。当将给定受试者的测试曲线放在一起考虑时,按比例缩放的视觉评估在91%的TEF结果和86%的LT结果中确定了努力程度。测量模型在90 - 92%的TEF结果和79 - 92%的LT结果中是准确的。在评估等速躯干和举重力量测试中的努力程度时需要临床判断。