Reproducibility of an isokinetic eccentric muscle endurance task
Authors: Sauret Jerome , De Ste Croix Mark , Deighan Martine , Iga John , James David 
Published: September 2009

AbstractDespite the widespread use of isokinetic eccentric muscle endurance protocols, no research has examined the absolute and relative reliability of such tests. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of an isokinetic eccentric knee muscle endurance task. Fifteen healthy untrained males volunteered to take part in the study and written informed consent was obtained. The procedures received approval from the University Research Ethics Committee. Participants visited the laboratory on three separate occasions: 2 weeks before testing to familiarize them with the experimental procedures, and on two separate occasions, 2 weeks apart and at the same time of day. Isokinetic eccentric knee extension and flexion movements of the dominant limb were performed using a calibrated dynamometer (Biodex System 3). Range of motion during testing was set using voluntary maximal full extension (0 rad) to 1.57 rad of knee flexion and testing was conducted at 1.56 rad · s−1. Participants performed four maximal efforts to determine maximal peak torque. After 2 min rest, participants completed the all‐out endurance test of 50 continuous eccentric repetitions. Data were gravity corrected and windowed to only include constant velocity periods. Repeated‐measures analyses of variance were used to examine differences in maximal peak extension and flexion torque and the maximal torque measurement recorded during the endurance test. Absolute and relative reliability of the torque fatigue index, work fatigue index, and total work were assessed through calculation of intra‐class correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation, and absolute 95% limits of agreement using the methods described by Bland and Altman (1986). Differences between the strength test and the endurance trial for peak torque were found to be non‐significant for both quadriceps (323 vs. 323 N · m) and hamstrings (183 vs. 178 N · m). The intra‐class correlation coefficients revealed significant (P<0.05) positive moderate to strong correlations (r=0.44–0.94) across repeated trials for all parameters except hamstring torque fatigue (P=0.11) and hamstring work fatigue index (P=0.08). Coefficients of variation ranged from 6% to 48% and were large for the work fatigue index and torque fatigue index but acceptable for total work for both the extensors and flexors. The 95% limits of agreement indicated systematic bias in repeated trials for both the work fatigue index and torque fatigue index for extensors and flexors, ranging from −3% to −10%, with less fatigue evident in the second test. There was also systematic bias for total work, with more work being performed during the second than the first test for both extensors and flexors. The random error was large for all variables and there was greater random error in the hamstrings compared with the quadriceps. Together with moderate to strong intra‐class correlation coefficients and large coefficients of variation, the data suggest that there is small systematic bias in repeated eccentric muscle actions for both the quadriceps and hamstrings, although the random error was large despite habituation procedures. Therefore, data from an isokinetic eccentric muscle endurance task should be viewed with some caution even when participants receive considerable habituation before assessment.