Objective: To investigate the reliability of a muscle strength test of the arm/shoulder in elderly people, aged 75 and older, and to compare subjects with and without previous muscle strength training experience.
Design: Reliability study - test-retest.
Setting: Research centre for the elderly.
Main measures: One repetition maximum (1 RM) was measured using an arm/shoulder strength-training device (Pull Down, Norway). Two measurements were conducted, approximately one week apart.
Results: Forty people were included in the study and 34 completed both sessions. Eleven participants had previous muscle strength training experience on the indicated device. There was a high correlation between the test sessions, r = 0.97 for both groups. The analysis of 95% limits of agreement for the mean difference was -4.3/+6.9 kg for the group without and -3.0/+6.4 kg for the group with previous experience, respectively.
Conclusion: One repetition maximum evaluated by the Pull Down device seems to be a reliable and safe method for dosing and evaluating a muscle strength training programme for elderly people. The observed variation of approximately -4/+7 kg cannot be interpreted as an effect of muscle training, but is more likely an effect of learning, fluctuations in daily condition and/or motivation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Porter MM, Vandervoort AA, Lexell J. Aging of human muscle: structure, function and adaptability. Scand J Med Sci Sports1995; 5: 129-142.
2.
Morley JE, Baumgartner RN, Roubenoff R, Mayer J, Sreekumaran Nair K. Sarcopenia. From the Chicago meetings. J Lab Clin Med2001; 137: 231-243.
3.
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci2001; 56: M146-M156.
4.
Kinney JM.Nutritional frailty, sarcopenia and falls in the elderly. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care2004; 7: 15-20.
5.
Keysor JJ.Does late-life physical activity or exercise prevent or minimize disablement?Am J Prev Med2003; 25 (suppl): 129-136.
6.
Fiatarone Singh MA.Exercise to prevent and treat functional disability. Clin Geriatr Med2002; 18: 431-462.
7.
Latham NKBennett DA, Stretton CM, Andersson CS. Systematic review of progressive resistance strength training in older adults. J Gerontol2004; 59A: 48-61.
8.
Enoka RM.Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology, second edition. Human Kinetics, 1994.
9.
Wilmore HJ, Costill LD. Physiology of sport and exercise, second edition. Human Kinetics, 1991: 84-84.
10.
Abernethy P, Wilson G, Logan P. Strength and power assessment, issues, controversies and challenges. Sports Med1995; 19: 401-417.
11.
Sale DG.Testing strength and power. In MacDougall JD, Wenger HA, Green HJ eds. Physiological testing of the high-performance athlete. Human Kinetics, 1991: 21-103.
12.
Rikli RE, Jones CJ, Beam WC, Duncan SJ, Lamar B. Testing versus training effects on 1 RM strength assessment in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc1996; 28: S153-S153 abstract.
13.
Phillips WT, Batterham AM, Julie E, Valenzuela JE, Burkett LN. Reliability of maximal strength testing in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2004; 85: 329-334.
14.
Ploutz-Snyder LL, Giamis EL. Orientation and familiarization to 1 RM strength testing in old and young women. J Strength Cond Res2001; 15: 519-523.
15.
Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL, Perkins AJ, Hendrie HC. Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research. Med Care2002; 40: 771-781.
16.
Mattiasson-Nilo I, Sonn K, Johannesson K, Gosman-Hedström G, Person G.B, Grimby G. Domestic activities and walking in elderly: Evaluation from a 30-hour heart rate recording. Aging1990; 2: 191-198.
17.
Frändin K, Grimby G. Assessment of physical activity, fitness and performance in 76-year-olds. Scand J Med Sci Sports1994; 4:41-46.
18.
Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil1995; 1: 10-14.
19.
Grimby G, Gudjonsson G, Rodhe M, Stibrant Sunnerhagen K, Sundh V, Östensson M-L. The functional independence measure in Sweden: Experience for outcome measurement in rehabilitation medicine. Scand J Rehabil Med1996; 28: 51-62.
20.
Daving Y, Andrén E, Grimby G. Inter-rater agreement using the Instrumental activity measure. Scand J Occup Ther2000; 7: 33-38.
21.
Grimby G, Andrén E, Daving Y, Wright B. Dependence and perceived difficulty in daily activities in community-living stroke survivors 2 years after stroke. Stroke1998; 29: 1843-1849.
22.
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Williams and Wilkins, 1993.
23.
Borg GA.Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc1982; 14: 377-381.
24.
Rousson V, Gasser T, Saifert B. Assessing intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability of continuous measurements. Statist Med2002; 21: 3431-3446.
25.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res1999; 8: 135-160.
26.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; i: 307-310.
27.
Pollock ML, Carroll JF, Graves JE et al. Injuries and adherence to walk/jog and resistance training programs in the elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc1999; 23: 1194-1200.
28.
Shaw CE, McCully KK, Posner JD. Injuries during the one repetition maximum assessment in the elderly. J Cardiopulm Rehabil1995; 15: 283-287.
29.
Altman DG.Some common problems in medical research. In Altman DG ed. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, 1991: 398-403.
