Premium
Reproducibility of the Jumping Mechanography As a Test of Mechanical Power Output in Physically Competent Adult and Elderly Subjects
Author(s) -
Rittweger Jörn,
Schiessl Hans,
Felsenberg Dieter,
Runge Martin
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52022.x
Subject(s) - medicine , reproducibility , jumping , test (biology) , physical medicine and rehabilitation , gerontology , physical therapy , statistics , physiology , mathematics , paleontology , biology
Objectives: To compare the reproducibility of the newly developed jumping mechanography with other physical tests. Design: Study 1: Repeated testing with an interval of 2 weeks to assess the short‐term repetition error. Study 2: Testing on 5 successive days to assess learning effects. Setting: Geriatric clinic, Esslingen, Germany. Participants: Study 1 had 36 subjects aged 24 to 88; Study 2 had 22 subjects aged 19 to 86. Locomotor competence in all subjects was assessed using the ability to walk unaided and to perform a tandem stand and tandem walk. Measurements: The test battery consisted of timed up and go, freely chosen gait speed, maximum gait speed, chair‐rising test, and maximum power in jumping mechanography. Results: All subjects performed the jumping mechanography without major problems. Study 1: Of all tests, maximum power in jumping mechanography depicted the smallest intrasubject short‐term error (3.6%), the largest intersubject coefficient of variation (45.4%), and the greatest test‐retest correlation coefficient ( r =0.99). Study 2: The only tests for which the learning effects were confined to the 1% range were the maximum gait speed test and the maximum power in jumping mechanography. Conclusion: Assessment of maximum power in jumping mechanography appears to have good test‐retest reliability with negligible learning effects. Moreover, it results in a comparatively large intersubject variability, which makes it an interesting method in the assessment of aging effects in middle‐aged to older subjects and patients.