Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

A Comparison of Traditional Versus Weight-Bearing Hip Strength Assessment.

File Size Format  
2017-05-ms-urbi.pdf 1.07 MB Adobe PDF View/Open

Item Summary

Title:A Comparison of Traditional Versus Weight-Bearing Hip Strength Assessment.
Authors:Urbi, Anthony-Edward K.
Contributors:Athletic Training (department)
Date Issued:May 2017
Publisher:University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Abstract:A Comparison of Weight-Bearing and Traditional Hip Strength Assessments
Urbi, AK, Freemyer, BG, Stickley, CD; Department of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation
Science, University of Hawai’i, Mānoa, Honolulu, HI
Context: Hip strength assessment in a weight-bearing (WB) position has been
advocated to be an alternative and more meaningful method of muscles testing
compared to traditional non-weight-bearing (NWB) assessments. Though shown to be
reliable, no other studies have examined the differences between WB and NWB
Objective: To determine the hip strength differences between WB assessments and
NWB assessments in healthy female athletes.
Design: Prospective experimental study.
Setting: University Laboratory.
Patients: Female athletes (N=51, 16.2 ± 3.5 years, ranged 12-25 years old, 161.5 ±
8.32 cm, 58.3 ± 11.6 kg) that participated in soccer, basketball, and volleyball, were
recruited from local universities and high schools.
Interventions: Hip strength was quantified by a single examiner (AU) using two
MicroFET2 handheld dynamometers (HHDs) to determine force (N). The WB
assessments was conducted to test the hip abductor and external rotator strength in a
standing double-leg squat and lunge position. Two HHDs was simultaneously utilized
only in the squat bilaterally (SQ-B) and one HHD was used in the squat unilaterally (SQU)
and lunge (LNG) assessments. The NWB assessments was conducted to
individually test hip abduction (HAB), extension (HEXT), and external rotation (HER)
strength. A break test was performed with the valgus force applied proximal to the knee
for all strength assessments besides the HEXT assessment. The peak strength of three
trials was normalized to body mass (N/kg).
Main Outcome Measures: Data met t-test assumptions. Each WB assessment (SQB,
SQ-U, LNG) were separately compared to each NWB assessment (HAB, HEXT,
HAB) in order to evaluate the differences in a matched pairs t-test (t) with effect size (d)
to determine the difference magnitude. A Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficients (r) was calculated to determine the correlation between the WB and NWB
Results: Significant differences was observed between the WB and NWB
assessments, except for the right leg SQ-U and HER (t=1.83, p=0.07, d=0.24).
Conversely, participants were significantly weaker in the LNG versus NWB
assessments. Significant correlations between WB and NWB assessments ranged from
low to moderate (r=0.28 to 0.58) when examining the right and left leg.
Conclusions: The results of our study demonstrate that there is a difference between
the WB and NWB hip strength assessments. The low to moderate correlations
demonstrates different hip muscle patterns. We recommend the SQ-B assessment to
evaluate the hip abductor and external rotator in WB position. This information is
important to consider as it demonstrates that the gluteus maximus provides dynamic
stability in the WB assessment and provide unique information from an injury prevention
and treatment perspective. Word Count: 412
Description:M.S. Thesis. University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa 2017.
Rights:All UHM dissertations and theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission from the copyright owner.
Appears in Collections: M.S. - Athletic Training

Please email if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.

Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.