Handgrip strength (HGS) is a key indicator of upper limb function and overall health. While the Jamar dynamometer is considered the gold standard for HGS assessment, alternatives like the Jamar Plus+ and Biodex have emerged, though their reliability and agreement remain underexplored.
Aim
To evaluate the test–retest reliability and agreement of the Jamar, Jamar Plus+, and Biodex dynamometers in healthy young adults.
Methods
This exploratory cross-sectional study included 35 participants (22 females, 13 males; mean age 23.4 years). HGS was assessed using the three devices, following standardised protocols, with retest after 7 days. Reliability was analysed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC). Agreement was examined through Bland–Altman plots and Limits of Agreement (LoA %).
Results
Jamar and Jamar Plus+ showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.96–0.98) and strong agreement, with narrow LoA percentages and low measurement error, especially on the non-dominant hand. In contrast, comparisons involving the Biodex revealed wider LoA (up to ±73%) and higher SEM and MDC values, indicating lower agreement with handheld devices. These discrepancies are likely due to differences in measurement principles, hand positioning, and unit conversion. Male participants showed significantly higher grip strength across all instruments.
Conclusion
The Jamar and Jamar Plus+ can be used interchangeably. The Biodex may be considered when appropriate adjustments are made, though its agreement with handheld dynamometers is limited. These findings highlight the need for standardised protocols and further research to ensure consistent and reliable HGS assessment across devices.
Dos SantosGMXRezendeGGoiaDN, et al.Innovation in the development of assistive technology for eating. J Hand Ther2023; 36(4): 1031–1035.
2.
BohannonRW. Grip strength: an indispensable biomarker for older adults. Clin Interv Aging2019; 14: 1681–1691.
3.
WindAETakkenTHeldersPJM, et al.Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults?Eur J Pediatr2010; 169: 281–287.
4.
PortoJMNakaishiAPMCangussu-OliveiraLM, et al.Relationship between grip strength and global muscle strength in community-dwelling older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr2019; 82: 273–278.
5.
NeriSGRLimaRMRibeiroHS, et al.Poor hand grip strength, determined clinically, is associated with falls in older women. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls2021; 6(2): 43–49.
6.
PhamTMcNeilJJBarkerAL, et al.Longitudinal association between handgrip strength, gait speed and risk of serious falls in a community-dwelling older population. PLoS One2023; 18(5): e0285530.
7.
HalawehH. Correlation between health-related quality of life and hand grip strength among older adults. Exp Aging Res2020; 46(2): 178–191.
8.
FifolatoTMNardimHCBdo Carmo LopesER, et al.Association between muscle strength, upper extremity fatigue resistance, workability and upper extremity dysfunction in a sample of workers at a tertiary hospital. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2021; 22: 508.
9.
JäkelBKedorCGrabowskiP, et al.Hand grip strength and fatigability: correlation with clinical parameters and diagnostic suitability in ME/CFS. J Transl Med2021; 19: 159.
10.
MutalibSASharmaDPikeS, et al.GripAble: interrater reliability and normative grip strength of UK population. J Hand Ther2024; 22, Published online March.
11.
SinakiMWahnerHWOffordKP. Relationship between grip strength and related regional bone mineral content. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1989; 70(12): 823–826.
12.
FraserAVallowJPrestonA, et al.Predicting 'normal' grip strength for rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology1999; 38(6): 521–528.
13.
ChanDCCLeeWTKLoDHS, et al.Relationship between grip strength and bone mineral density in healthy Hong Kong adolescents. Osteoporos Int2008; 19: 1485–1495.
14.
GüntherCMBürgerARickertM, et al.Grip strength in healthy Caucasian adults: reference values. J Hand Surg Am2008; 33(4): 558–565.
15.
AmaralCAAmaralTLMMonteiroGTR, et al.Hand grip strength: reference values for adults and elderly people of Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. PLoS ONE2019; 14(1): e0211452.
16.
KülkampWAche-DiasJDal PupoJ. Handgrip strength adjusted for body mass and stratified by age and sex: normative data for healthy Brazilian adults based on a systematic review. Sport Sci Health2022; 18: 1149–1160.
17.
HuemerMTKluttigAFischerB, et al.Grip strength values and cut-off points based on over 200,000 adults of the German National Cohort - a comparison to the EWGSOP2 cut-off points. Age Ageing2023; 52(1): afac324.
18.
SaraivaBTCAgostineteRRFreitas JúniorIF, et al.Association between handgrip strength and bone mineral density of Brazilian children and adolescents stratified by sex: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr2021; 21: 207.
19.
AmaralJFManciniMNovo JúniorJM. Comparison of three hand dynamometers in relation to the accuracy and precision of the measurements. Rev Bras Fisioter2012; 16(3): 216–224.
KingTI. Interinstrument reliability of the jamar electronic dynamometer and pinch gauge compared with the jamar hydraulic dynamometer and B&L engineering mechanical pinch gauge. Am J Occup Ther2013; 67(4): 480–483.
American Society of Hand Therapists (ASHT). ASHT clinical assessment recommendations In: FessEEMoranC (eds). ASHT Clinical Assessment Recommendations. Garner: The Society, 1981.
36.
BobosPNazariGLuZ, et al.Measurement properties of the hand grip strength assessment: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2020; 101(3): 553–565.
37.
BarbosaRFonsecaMCR. Reliability and validity of a load cell device for evaluating handgrip strength. Physiotherapy and Research2015; 22(4): 378–385.
38.
MathiowetzV. Comparison of Rolyan and Jamar dynamometers for measuring grip strength. Occup Ther Int2002; 9(3): 201–209.
39.
HamiltonGMcDonaldCChenierT. Measurement of grip strength: validity and reliability of the sphygmomanometer and jamar grip dynamometer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther1992; 16(5): 215–219.
40.
GuerraRSAmaralTF. Comparison of hand dynamometers in elderly people. J Nutr Health Aging2009; 13: 907–912.
41.
HuangLLiuYLinT, et al.Reliability and validity of two hand dynamometers when used by community-dwelling adults aged over 50 years. BMC Geriatr2022; 22: 580.
42.
MagniNOldsMMcLaineS. Reliability and validity of the K-force grip dynamometer in healthy subjects: do we need to assess it three times?Hand Ther2023; 28(1): 33–39.
43.
SavasSKilavuzAKayhan KoçakFÖ, et al.Comparison of grip strength measurements by widely used three dynamometers in outpatients aged 60 Years and over. J Clin Med2023; 12(13): 4260.
44.
KingTI2nd. Interinstrument reliability of the Jamar electronic dynamometer and pinch gauge compared with the Jamar hydraulic dynamometer and B&L Engineering mechanical pinch gauge. Am J Occup Ther2013; 67(4): 480–483.
45.
RolstedSKAndersenKDDandanellG, et al.Comparison of two electronic dynamometers for measuring handgrip strength. Hand Surg Rehabil2024; 43(3): 101692.
46.
Cildan UysalSTonakHAKitisA. Validity, reliability and test-retest study of Grip strength measurement in two positions with two dynamometers: jamar Plus and K-Force Grip. Hand Surg Rehabil2022; 41(3): 305–310.
47.
MutalibSAMaceMSeagerC, et al.Modernising grip dynamometry: inter-instrument reliability between GripAble and jamar. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2022; 23(1): 80.
48.
de Araujo Ribeiro AlvaresJBRodriguesRde Azevedo FrankeR, et al.Inter-machine reliability of the Biodex and Cybex isokinetic dynamometers for knee flexor/extensor isometric, concentric and eccentric tests. Phys Ther Sport2015; 16(1): 59–65.
49.
PaulusJPaulsJRadizziL, et al.Knee strength measurement: can we switch between isokinetic dynamometers?Isokinetics and Exercise Science2021; 29(3): 247–268.
50.
CvjetkovicDDBijeljacSPalijaS, et al.Isokinetic testing in evaluation rehabilitation outcome after ACL reconstruction. Med Arch2015; 69(1): 21–23.
51.
HogrelJYBenvenisteOBachassonD. Routine monitoring of isometric knee extension strength in patients with muscle impairments using a new portable device: cross-validation against a standard isokinetic dynamometer. Physiol Meas2020; 41(1): 015003.
52.
VogrinMLičenTGreinerN, et al.Peak torque comparison between SMM iMoment and Biodex System Pro 4 isokinetic dynamometers. Acta Medico-Biotechnica2021; 13(2): 46–54.
53.
TuominenJLeppänenMJarskeH, et al.Test−Retest reliability of isokinetic ankle, knee and hip strength in physically active adults using Biodex system 4 Pro. Methods Protoc2023; 6(2): 26.
54.
CrociEBornPEckersF, et al.Test-retest reliability of isometric shoulder muscle strength during abduction and rotation tasks measured using the Biodex dynamometer. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32(10): 2008–2016.
55.
PrandoBCCarvalhoCPetrellaM, et al.Test-retest reliability of isometric and isokinetic wrist strength. J Orthop Sci2023; 28(1): 138–142.
56.
van der WoudeDRTakkenTRuytenT, et al.Feasibility and reproducibility of isokinetic dynamometry in children with neuromuscular diseases. J Clin Med2024; 13: 5285.
57.
TrutschniggBKilgourRDReinglasJ, et al.Precision and reliability of strength (Jamar vs. Biodex handgrip) and body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry vs. bioimpedance analysis) measurements in advanced cancer patients. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab2008; 33(6): 1232–1239.
58.
WalterSDEliasziwMDonnerA. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med1998; 17: 101–110.
59.
MokkinkLBde VetHDiemeerS, et al.Sample size recommendations for studies on reliability and measurement error: an online application based on simulation studies. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method2023; 23: 241–265.
60.
MarimELafasseROkazakiV. Global lateral preference inventory. Braz J Mot Behav2011; 6(3): 14–23.
61.
BechtolCO. Grip test; the use of a dynamometer with adjustable handle spacings. J Bone Joint Surg Am1954; 36-A(4): 820–824.
62.
FessEE. Grip strength. In: CasanovaJS (ed). Clinical Assessment Recommendations. 2nd edition. American Society of Hand Therapists, 1992, vol 41, pp. 163–177.
63.
ShechtmanOGestewitzLKimbleC. Reliability and validity of the DynEx dynamometer. J Hand Ther2005; 18(3): 339–347.
64.
ReisMMArantesPMM. Medida da força de preensão manual- validade e confiabilidade do dinamômetro saehan. Fisioter Pesqui2011; 18(2): 176–181.
65.
SavasSKilavuzAKayhan KoçakFÖ, et al.Comparison of grip strength measurements by widely used three dynamometers in outpatients aged 60 years and over. J Clin Med2023; 12: 4260.
66.
NitschkeJE. Reliability of isokinetic torque measurements: a review of the literature. Aust J Physiother1992; 38: 125–134.
ShiratoriAIopRJúniorN, et al.Handgrip strength assessment protocols in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology, São Paulo2014; 54(2): 140–147.
69.
DeTullioLMWolfeDMStrohlAB. Clinical examination of the hand. In: SkirvenMTOstermanALJane FedorczykJ, et al. (eds). Rehabilitation of the Hand and Upper Extremity, Philadelphia. 7. Elsevier, 2020, vol 1, pp. 56–57.
70.
KamimuraTIkutaY. Evaluation of grip strength with a sustained maximal isometric contraction for 6 and 10 seconds. J Rehabil Med2001; 33(5): 225–229.
71.
MacDermidJSolomonGFedorczykJ, et al.Clinical Assessment Recommendations 3rd Edition: Impairment-Based Conditions. American Society of Hand Therapists, 2015.
ShapiroSSWilkMB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika1965; 52(3/4): 591–611.
74.
WilcoxonF. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin1945; 1(6): 80–83.
75.
PortneyLG. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Evidence-Based Practice. 4a. ed. F. A. Davis, 2020.
76.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med2016; 15(2): 155–163.
77.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1(8476): 307–310.
78.
CiucurelCIconaruEI. Nonlinear dynamics analysis of handgrip strength using the poincaré plot method through video processing techniques. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol2024; 9(4): 234.
79.
AwotidebeTOFasakinOMAdemoyegunAB, et al.Influence of body and hand anthropometric characteristics on handgrip strength in young Nigerian women. Bull Fac Phys Ther2023; 28: 35.
80.
AlmashaqbehSFAl-MomaniSKhaderA, et al.The effect of gender and arm anatomical position on the hand grip strength and fatigue resistance during sustained maximal handgrip effort. J Biomed Phys Eng2022; 12(2): 171–180.
81.
FeiringDEllenbeckerTDersheidG. Test-retest reliability of the Biodex isokinetic dynamometer. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy1990; 11(7): 298–300.
82.
BardoAKivellTLTownK, et al.Get a grip: variation in human hand grip strength and implications for human evolution. Symmetry2021; 13(7): 1142.
83.
FessEE. Guidelines for evaluating assessment instruments. J Hand Ther1995; 8(2): 144–148.
84.
SartorioFLippiLVercelliS, et al.Reliability and validity of the hand-held dynamometer “NOD”: a new instrument for assessment of isometric grip strength. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2025; 26: 5.
85.
Jiménez-SánchezAPereira-CunillJLLimón-MirónML, et al.A cross-sectional validation study of Camry EH101 versus JAMAR Plus handheld dynamometers in colorectal cancer patients and their correlations with bioelectrical impedance and nutritional status. Nutrients2024; 16(12): 1824, Published 2024 Jun 11.
86.
GuerraRSAmaralTFSousaAS, et al.Comparison of jamar and Bodygrip dynamometers for handgrip strength measurement. J Strength Cond Res2017; 31(7): 1931–1940.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
