Department of Orthopaedics, The Institute of Clinical Sciences at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sportrehab Sports Medicine Clinic, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024 Aug;32(8):2170-2177. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12190. Epub 2024 Apr 21.
The linear encoder and the Calf Raise App have been shown to be valid for measurements of plantar flexor muscular endurance in the heel raise test when compared with gold standard equipment. However, the validity of the Calf Raise App has not yet been compared with a linear encoder, an instrument commonly used in clinical and research settings. The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of the Calf Raise App compared with a linear encoder for the measurement of average heel raise height and total concentric work in the heel raise test.
Fifty TeamGym athletes (82% females) from an on-going prospective study were included (mean [SD] age: 20 [7] years; body mass index (BMI) = 21.3 [2.5]). Concurrent validity was analysed with single measures intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using a two-way mixed effects, consistency model.
Ninety-eight samples were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) average heel raise height and total concentric work measured by the linear encoder and Calf Raise App were 9.9 (1.4) and 7.5 (1.2) cm, and 1728 (584) and 1291 (450) J, respectively. The mean (SD) number of unilateral heel raises was 30 (7.5). The results showed poor to moderate concurrent validity for the measurement of average heel raise height (ICC: 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.73). Good to excellent concurrent validity was shown for the measurement of total concentric work (ICC: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93).
The Calf Raise App shows good concurrent validity in the heel raise test compared with a linear encoder in measuring total concentric work but not average height. While caution is recommended when comparing results from the different instruments, each instrument can be used separately to compare between-limb differences or changes over time in plantar flexor muscular endurance in clinical and research settings.
Level III.
线性编码器和小腿抬高应用程序已被证明在跟腱抬高测试中测量足底屈肌肌肉耐力时与金标准设备具有有效性。然而，小腿抬高应用程序的有效性尚未与线性编码器进行比较，线性编码器是临床和研究环境中常用的仪器。本研究的目的是确定小腿抬高应用程序与线性编码器相比测量跟腱抬高测试中平均跟腱抬高高度和总向心功的同时效度。
纳入了一项正在进行的前瞻性研究中的 50 名 TeamGym 运动员（82%为女性）（平均[标准差]年龄：20[7]岁；体重指数（BMI）=21.3[2.5]）。使用双向混合效应一致性模型的单测量组内相关系数（ICC）进行同时效度分析。
分析中纳入了 98 个样本。线性编码器和小腿抬高应用程序测量的平均跟腱抬高高度和总向心功的平均值（标准差）分别为 9.9（1.4）cm 和 7.5（1.2）cm，1728（584）J 和 1291（450）J。单侧跟腱抬高的平均值（标准差）为 30（7.5）次。结果显示，平均跟腱抬高高度的测量具有较差到中等的同时效度（ICC：0.62；95%置信区间[CI]：0.48-0.73）。总向心功的测量具有良好到优秀的同时效度（ICC：0.89；95%CI：0.84-0.93）。
与线性编码器相比，小腿抬高应用程序在测量跟腱抬高测试中的总向心功方面具有良好的同时效度，但不能测量平均高度。在比较不同仪器的结果时应谨慎，但每个仪器都可以单独用于比较临床和研究环境中足底屈肌肌肉耐力的两腿间差异或随时间的变化。
三级。
