Skip to main content
Hand Therapy logoLink to Hand Therapy
. 2022 Feb 14;27(1):32. doi: 10.1177/17589983221074934

Corrigendum to The reliability and validity of novel clinical strength measures of the upper body in older adults

PMCID: PMC10584059  PMID: 37904792

Corrigendum to The reliability and validity of novel clinical strength measures of the upper body in older adults. Journal of Hand Therapy 25 (4): 130–138. DOI: 10.1177/1758998320957373.

It has been identified the calculations used to establish the minimal detectable change (MDC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were incorrect in the original manuscript. The corrected SEM was calculated as SD1ICC . 1 In addition, SEM is referred to in the original manuscript as the standard error of the mean, this is incorrect and is calculated as the standard error of measurement. The corrected minimal detectable change (MDC) at the 90% confidence interval was calculated using MDC90=SEM×2/3×1.65  and reported as an absolute and a percentage score. 2

Table 3.2.

Differences between sessions one and two for the novel and traditional strength measures.

Mean ± SD (Kg) Session differences
Session 1 Session 2 S2-S1 (Kg) SEM ICC 95% CI CV%RMS MDC90 MDC90%
Novel strength measures
CON D 21.3 ± 11.6 21.2 ± 12.7 −0.13 1.68 0.98* 0.942–.993 9.3 2.26 11
ND 23.0 ± 14.1 22.4 ± 14.1 −0.52 1.84 0.98* 0.954–.976 12.2 2.48 11
ECC D 28.0 ± 13.8 27.2 ± 14.3 −0.75 1.96 0.98* 0.948–.993 8.7 2.64 9
ND 26.9 ± 13.5 25.4 ± 13.0 −1.51 2.42 0.97* 0.899–.989 11.6 3.26 12
POT D 27.1 ± 12.6 28.3 ± 11.5 1.19 3.52 0.92* 0.799–.971 13.5 4.74 18
ND 26.6 ± 12.0 27.9 ± 11.9 1.33 2.92 0.94* 0.915–.989 13.6 3.93 15
Traditional strength measures
HG D 34.7 ± 15.1 35.1 ± 14.4 0.39 2.34 0.98* 0.936–.991 6.4 3.15 9
ND 32.6 ± 16.6 33.6 ± 16.3 0.84 1.89 0.99* 0.965–.995 7 2.55 8
SA D 14.6 ± 6.5 14.4 ± 6.3 −0.16 1.69 0.93* 0.823–.975 11.4 2.27 16
ND 15.3 ± 6.7 15.2 ± 6.2 −0.10 1.69 0.94* 0.836–.977 10.3 2.28 15
SF D 17.3 ± 6.6 17.1 ± 7.1 −0.20 1.22 0.97* 0.909–.988 6.9 1.65 10
ND 17.7 ± 6.7 17.7 ± 7.2 −0.02 1.18 0.97* 0.917–.989 6.2 1.59 9
EE D 18.6 ± 7.3 18.9 ± 7.3 0.35 0.98 0.98* 0.952–994 5.5 1.32 7
ND 18.6 ± 7.6 19.5 ± 7.5 0.87 1.31 0.97* 0.920–.989 7.2 1.76 9

D: Dominant arm, ND: Non-dominant arm, CON: Concentric, ECC: Eccentric, POT: Push off Test, HG: Handgrip, SA: Shoulder abduction, SF: Shoulder flexion, EE: Elbow extension, SEM: Standard error of measurement, MDC: Minimal detectable change, ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient, CI: Confidence interval, CV%RMS: Root-mean-squared coefficient of variation.

*Significant ICC test-retest reliability p < 0.001.

The reported ranges for absolute reliability increased from SEM: 0.17–1.15 to SEM: 0.98–3.52; and the MDC90% from 2.1-9.9% to 7–18%. The changes have been made to Table 3.2 to reflect the new values. Despite the initial errors in calculation, similar to the initial findings the traditional strength measures generally performed better than the novel strength measures. The higher values reported for the novel strength measures (POT, CON and ECC) should be considered when evaluating longitudinal changes during clinical assessment.

References

  • 1.Weir JP. The intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(1): 231–240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24): 3192–3199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Hand Therapy are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES