%0 Journal Article
%T A Comparison of Various Cervical Muscle Strength Testing Methods Using a Handheld Dynamometer
%A David A. Krause
%A John H. Hollman
%A Kelsey A. Hansen
%A Matthew J. Hastreiter
%A Molly L. Peichel
%A Taylor N. Kuhn
%J Sports Health
%@ 1941-0921
%D 2019
%R 10.1177/1941738118812767
%X Cervical muscle strength, proposed as a modifiable risk factor in concussions, can be assessed using various methods. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability and force outputs of 3 methods that use handheld dynamometry (HHD) for assessing cervical muscle strength. All 3 testing methods are reliable, and force outputs are significantly different between methods. Repeated-measures reliability. Level 5. The study used a convenience sample of 30 participants. HHD ˇ°make testsˇ± for cervical extension, flexion, and right and left side bending were performed using lying push tests, sitting push tests, and sitting pull tests. A sole examiner performed all tests. Two testing sessions were conducted 1 week apart. Analysis included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), repeated-measures analyses of variance (¦Á = 0.05) with post hoc Bonferroni tests, and minimal detectable change (MDC) calculations. All testing methods were reliable; the lying push test had the greatest point estimate values (ICC, 0.89-0.95). Significant differences in force were found between the 3 testing methods. The MDC was most sensitive for the lying push method. Of the 3 cervical muscle testing methods investigated, the lying position with a push test had the largest ICC according to the point estimate and the most sensitive MDC. Force values between the 3 methods were significantly different, which suggests that consistent testing methods should be used. Results from this study support the clinical use of an HHD ˇ°make testˇ± in a lying position for assessing cervical muscle strength. The test is reliable and more sensitive to change compared with tests in a seated position
%K muscle strength dynamometer
%K neck muscles
%K reproducibility of results
%U https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1941738118812767