Background: Handheld dynamometers provide an accurate measurement of muscle strength and have been shown to have good interrater reliability. The proximal stabilization and fulcrum are two methods of manual muscle testing; however, there is uncertainty about which method may be better for obtaining muscle strength measures. Objective: The purposes were to determine if there was a difference in hamstring strength and to determine the interrater reliability of DPT students using a handheld dynamometer when comparing the proximal stabilization and the fulcrum methods. Methods: A descriptive-comparative research study that examined two methods of manual muscle testing with the use of a Microfet 2 MMT-Wireless digital handheld dynamometer. In prone, each participant was instructed to bend their knee to 90° of knee flexion, where the handheld dynamometer was placed on the lower leg for 5 s. Each technique was performed three times, and an average of the series was calculated. Results: Twenty-nine participants volunteered for this study. The mean scores for Raters 1 and 2 between hamstring testing using the proximal stabilization and fulcrum methods were, respectively, t(28) = -2.041, p = 0.051, and t(28) = -1.990, p = 0.056. The interrater reliability showed good reliability between Rater 1 and Rater 2 for hamstring testing for the proximal stabilization method and fulcrum methods, respectively, ICC = 0.742 (95% CI: 0.452, 0.879), p ≤ 0.001, and ICC = 0.752 (95% CI: 0.472, 0.884), p ≤ 0.001. Conclusion: There are no statistically significant differences between the uses of these two methods in healthy adults; however, there is good interrater reliability of DPT students.
Keywords: DPT students; fulcrum; hamstring; proximal.
Copyright © 2024 Thomas A. Koc Jr. et al.