Motor Strength Measurements Obtained Using an Inexpensive Spring Tensiometer and a Clinical Dynamometer Correlated Well: A Prospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Manual muscle strength testing is the primary method for testing muscle strength in clinical settings but is highly subjective. An objective measure of muscle strength can be obtained using a handheld dynamometer, but its cost inhibits its widespread usage. We hypothesized that a spring tensiometer (ST) could be an objective tool that can be used as a viable alternative to a dynamometer. Twenty-six outpatients were included, and the strengths of several muscle groups were measured using tensiometers and dynamometers. A paired t-test and Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot analyses were used to estimate the reliability and measurement accuracy of both tools. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the factors contributing to the measurement gap between the two instruments. A total of 260 muscle force values were evaluated. Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses indicated that the measurements of the two instruments were strongly correlated and highly accurate. In the multiple regression analysis, the gap between the two instruments was significantly related to the original muscle strength and muscle part but was not significantly related to sex, age, body mass index, or laterality. For biceps and triceps muscle groups, the correlations were particularly strong and accurate, indicating that a tensiometer could be well substituted for a dynamometer. Our data show that a ST is similar to a dynamometer in terms of precision. A ST is an inexpensive alternative to a dynamometer and more accessible for clinical use than a dynamometer.