The purpose of this study was to assess the relative and absolute reliability of a handheld dynamometer when used for examining elbow flexion power in patients with brachial plexus palsy. The assessment of the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability coefficients for the handheld dynamometer was done using the stationary Kin-Com® dynamometer as the reference standard. We determined the measurement errors and checked the systematic biases of the handheld dynamometer. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities of the handheld dynamometer had a very high intraclass correlation coefficient. The values of handheld dynamometer readings had a high correlation to Kin-Com® readings. The Medical Research Council grading was a comparatively inaccurate method for quantitative assessment of motor power. We conclude that a handheld dynamometer measurement is more precise and reliable than the Medical Research Council grading for measuring recovery of elbow flexion in patients with brachial plexus palsy.
AgreJCMagnessJLHullSZet al.Strength testing with a portable dynamometer reliability for upper and lower extremities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987, 68: 454–8.
2.
BohannonRW. Hand-held dynamometry; stability of muscle strength over multiple measurements. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1987, 2: 74–7.
3.
BohannonRW. Muscle strength testing with hand-held dynamometers, 2nd Edn. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990.
4.
BohannonRW. Intertester reliability of hand-held dynamometry: a concise summary of published research. Percept Mot Skills. 1999, 88: 899–902.
5.
BurnsSPBreuningerAKaplanCMarinH. Hand-held dynamometry in persons with tetraplegia: comparison of make-versus break-testing techniques. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005, 84: 22–9.
6.
CarlsenBTKircherMFSpinnerRJBishopATShinAY. Comparison of single versus double nerve transfers for elbow flexion after brachial plexus injury. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011, 127: 269–76.
7.
CarterRELubinskyJDomholdtE. Rehabilitation research. Principles and applications, 4th Edn. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders, 2011.
8.
ChuangLLLinKCWuCYet al.Relative and absolute reliabilities of the myotonometric measurements of hemiparetic arms in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013, 94: 459–66.
9.
CouletBBorettoJGLazergesCChammasM. A comparison of intercostal and partial ulnar nerve transfers in restoring elbow flexion following upper brachial plexus injury (C5-C6+/-C7). J Hand Surg Am. 2010, 35: 1297–1303.
10.
HydeSAGoddardCMScottOM. The myometer: the development of a clinical tool. Physiotherapy. 1983, 69: 424–7.
11.
JamesMA. Use of the medical research council muscle strength grading system in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am. 2007, 32: 155–6.
12.
KatohM. Reliability of isometric knee extension muscle strength measurements made by a hand-held dynamometer and a belt: a comparison of two types of device. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015, 27: 851–4.
13.
KendallFPMcCrearyEK. Provance PG et al. Muscles: testing and function, with posture and pain, 5th Edn. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005.
14.
MacAvoyMCGreenDP. Critical reappraisal of Medical Research Council muscle testing for elbow flexion. J Hand Surg Am. 2007, 32: 149–53.
15.
NoreauLVachonJ. Comparison of three methods to assess muscular strength in individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 1998, 36: 716–23.
16.
QuickTJSinghAKFoxMet al.A quantitative assessment of the functional recovery of flexion of the elbow after nerve transfer in patients with a brachial plexus injury. Bone Joint J. 2016, 98: 1517–20.
17.
RankinGStokesM. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehabil. 1998, 12: 187–99.
18.
SapegaAA. Muscle performance evaluation in orthopaedic practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990, 72: 1562–74.
19.
SatbhaiNGDoiKHattoriYSakamotoS. Functional outcome and quality of life after traumatic total brachial plexus injury treated by nerve transfer or single/double free muscle transfers: a comparative study. Bone Joint J. 2016, 98: 209–17.
20.
SchramaPPStennebergMSLucasCvan TrijffelE. Intraexaminer reliability of hand-held dynamometry in the upper extremity: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014, 95: 2444–69.
21.
SeagravesFHorvatM. Comparison of isometric test procedures to assess muscular strength in elementary school girls. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1995, 7: 61–8.
22.
ShahgholiLBengtsonKABishopATet al.A comparison of manual and quantitative elbow strength testing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012, 91: 856–62.
StratfordPBalsorB. A comparison of make and break tests using a hand-held dynamometer and the Kin-Com ®. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994, 19: 28–32.
25.
TsaiYJTuYKHsiaoCKSuFC. Within-session reliability and smallest real difference of muscle strength following nerve transfers in patients with brachial plexus injuries. J Hand Surg Am. 2015, 40: 1196–201.
26.
van den BeldWAvan der SandenGASengersRCVerbeekALGabreëlsFJ. Validity and reproducibility of a new diagnostic motor performance test in children with suspected myopathy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006, 48: 20–7.
27.
WadsworthCNielsenDHCorcoranDSPhillipsCESannesTL. Interrater reliability of hand-held dynamometry: effects of rater gender, body weight, and grip strength. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1992, 16: 74–81.
28.
WikholmJBBohannonRW. Hand-held dynamometer measurements: tester strength makes a difference. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1991, 13: 191–8.
29.
WilesCMKarniY. The measurement of muscle strength in patients with peripheral neuromuscular disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1983, 46: 1006–13.
