Trunk extension strength (TES) has been identified as a modifiable risk factor for low back pain, yet measurement solutions that are reliable, accessible, and designed specifically for TES are lacking. Insights between isometric and isokinetic TES metrics are also limited.
Objective
To assess the intersession measurement reliability and agreement between a new custom-designed TES dynamometer (CTD) and modified fixed dynamometer (MFD) system, and the relationship between isometric and isokinetic TES.
Methods
The study contained 30 healthy young adult individuals (18F/12 M, 24.4 ± 2.8 yrs, 1.70 ± 0.08 m, 75.1 ± 18.5 kg), respectively. Maximal isometric TES was measured on both dynamometers during two within-day sessions, 15 min apart. Eccentric (E) and concentric (C) isokinetic TES were also measured at 30 and 120 deg/s.
Results
Relative reliability was good to excellent for isometric measurements and excellent across all isokinetic tests. Absolute reliability metrics were higher for the CTD than the MFD, but comparable to other similar devices reported in the literature. Relative agreement between the dynamometers was moderate, while significant mean bias was detected (MFD < CTD). The relationships between isometric and isokinetic TES were small to moderate for the CTD and moderate to large for the MFD.
Conclusion
This work presents a new device and approach to TES measurement that are reliable and accessible, along with new insights on how isometric TES relates to dynamic muscle performance. Whether isometric or isokinetic TES provides clinicians with predictive or prognostic insight requires further research.
GunBKBanaagAKhanM, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for musculoskeletal back injury among U.S. Army personnel. Mil Med2022; 187: e814–e820. 2021/06/24.
2.
YuanXStewartEColahanC, et al.Musculoskeletal spine injuries in U.S. Active duty service members: prevalence/incidence, healthcare utilization, and cost analysis spanning fiscal years 2016–2021. Mil Med2024; 189: 45–55.
3.
CohenSPGallagherRMDavisSA, et al.Spine-area pain in military personnel: a review of epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Spine J2012; 12: 833–842.
4.
YuanXPavVColahanC, et al.Active duty service members newly presenting with low back pain in fiscal year 2017: health care utilization, access to care, and private sector costs over 2-year follow-up. Mil Med2023; 188: e2387–e2396.
5.
KnoxJOrchowskiJScherDL, et al.The incidence of low back pain in active duty United States military service members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2011; 36: 1492–1500.
6.
RoyTCLopezHPPivaSR. Loads worn by soldiers predict episodes of low back pain during deployment to Afghanistan. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2013; 38: 1310–1317.
7.
ChoKHBeomJWLeeTS, et al.Trunk muscles strength as a risk factor for nonspecific low back pain: a pilot study. Ann Rehabil Med2014; 38: 234–240.
8.
NagaiTAbtJPSellTC, et al.Lumbar spine and hip flexibility and trunk strength in helicopter pilots with and without low back pain history. Work2015; 52: 715–722.
9.
Zouita Ben MoussaAZouitaSBen SalahF, et al.Isokinetric trunk strength, validity, reliability, normative data and relation to physical performance and low back pain: a review of the literature. Int J Sports Phys Ther2020; 15: 160–174.
10.
MuellerSStollJMuellerJ, et al.Validity of isokinetic trunk measurements with respect to healthy adults, athletes and low back pain patients. Isokinetics & Exercise Science2012; 20: 255–266.
11.
HardingATWeeksBKHoranSA, et al.Validity and test-retest reliability of a novel simple back extensor muscle strength test. SAGE Open Med2017; 5: 2050312116688842.
12.
ReinkingMFBockrath-PuglieseKWorrellT, et al.Assessment of quadriceps muscle performance by hand-held, isometric, and isokinetic dynamometry in patients with knee dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther1996; 24: 154–159.
13.
StarkTWalkerBPhillipsJK, et al.Hand-held dynamometry correlation with the gold standard isokinetic dynamometry: a systematic review. PM&R2011; 3: 472–479.
14.
ThorborgKBandholmTHolmichP. Hip- and knee-strength assessments using a hand-held dynamometer with external belt-fixation are inter-tester reliable. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2013; 21: 550–555.
15.
AlthobaitiSFallaD. Reliability and criterion validity of handheld dynamometry for measuring trunk muscle strength in people with and without chronic non-specific low back pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract2023; 66: 102799.
16.
Juan-RecioCPrat-LuriABarbadoD, et al.Reliability of a trunk flexion and extensor muscle strength test with hand-held and isokinetic dynamometers in female athletes. J Hum Kinet2024; 92: 43–52.
17.
ValentinGMariboT. Hand-held dynamometry fixated with a tripod is reliable for assessment of back extensor strength in women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int2014; 25: 2143–2149.
18.
YangSWuWZhangC, et al.Reliability and validity of three isometric back extensor strength assessments with different test postures. J Int Med Res2020; 48: 0300060519885268.
19.
KocjanASarabonN. Assessment of isometric trunk strength - the relevance of body position and relationship between planes of movement. J Sports Sci Med2014; 13: 365–370.
20.
EstrázulasJAEstrázulasJAde JesusK, et al. Evaluation isometric and isokinetic of trunk flexor and extensor muscles with isokinetic dynamometer: a systematic review. Phys Ther Sport2020; 45: 93–102.
21.
OrtegaJAFRomeroDMSarmentoH, et al.Relationship between dynamic and isometric strength, power, speed, and average propulsive speed of recreational athletes. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology2022; 7: 79.
22.
JunejaHVermaSKKhannaGL. Isometric strength and its relationship to dynamic performance: a systematic review. Journal of Exercise Science and Physiotherapy2012; 6: 60–69. Journal Article.
23.
LordJPAitkensSGMcCroryMA, et al.Isometric and isokinetic measurement of hamstring and quadriceps strength. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: 324–330.
24.
LumDHaffGGBarbosaTM. The Relationship between Isometric force-time characteristics and dynamic performance: A systematic review. Sports2020; 8: 63.
25.
OtisJCGodboldJH. Relationship of isokinetic torque to isometric torque. J Orthop Res1983; 1: 165–171.
26.
WarburtonDEJamnikVKBredinSS, et al.The physical activity readiness questionnaire for everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic physical activity readiness medical examination (ePARmed-X+). The Health & Fitness Journal of Canada2011; 4: 3–17.
27.
RiemannBLWatsonMDDaviesGJ. Reliability and validity of a novel isokinetic knee dynamometer system. Acta Bioeng Biomech2021; 23: 107–116.
28.
de SallesBFSimãoRMirandaF, et al.Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports Med2009; 39: 765–777.
29.
KnaierRInfangerDCajochenC, et al. Diurnal and day-to-day variations in isometric and isokinetic strength. Chronobiol Int2019; 36: 1537–1549. 20190902.
30.
CuliverARiemannBLBennionD, et al.Performance across the isokinetic velocity spectrum: interpretation for individuals after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Biomech (Bristol)2025; 126: 106544.
Team RDC. A language and environment for statistical computing; R foundation for statistical computing. 2023. DOI: https://www.R-project.org/.
33.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Measurement error proportional to the mean. Br Med J1996; 313: 106.
34.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med2016; 15: 155–163.
35.
HopkinsWG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med2000; 30: 1–15.
36.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res1999; 8: 135–160.
37.
FlattAABlalockACEWadeAN, et al.Biostrap Kairos wristband versus electrocardiography for resting heart rate variability assessment. Sensors (Basel)2025; 25: 3165.
38.
LudbrookJ. Confidence in Altman-bland plots: a critical review of the method of differences. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol2010; 37: 143–149.
39.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–310.
40.
LudbrookJ. A primer for biomedical scientists on how to execute model II linear regression analysis. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol2012; 39: 329–335.
41.
RanganathanPPrameshCSAggarwalR. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res2017; 8: 187–191.
42.
ZakiRBulgibaAIsmailR, et al.Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PLoS One2012; 7: e37908.
43.
DerviševićEHadžićVBurgerH. Reproducibility of trunk isokinetic strength findings in healthy individuals. Isokinet Exerc Sci2007; 15: 99–109.
44.
Garcia-VaqueroMPBarbadoDJuan-RecioC, et al.Isokinetic trunk flexion-extension protocol to assess trunk muscle strength and endurance: reliability, learning effect, and sex differences. J Sport Health Sci2020; 9: 692–701.
45.
MulderMLVan den SteenEDe NeveJ, et al.Core muscle strength can be reliably measured using a novel isokinetic device: an intra-observer study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil2022; 35: 993–1001.
46.
KrollPGMachadoLHappyC, et al.The relationship between five measures of trunk strength. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil2000; 14: 89–97.
47.
JamesonTDKnightKLIngersollCD, et al.Correlation of isokinetic, isometric, isotonic strength measurements with a one-leg vertical jump. Isokinet Exerc Sci1997; 6: 203–208.
48.
FauKJRamosMU. Isokinetic and isometric torque relationships in the human body. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1980; 61: 64–67.
49.
OsternigLRBatesBTJamesST. Isokinetic and isometric torque force relationships. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1977; 58: 254–257.
