Mesquita, Marceli M. A., Santos, Marta S., Vasconcelos, Alan B. S., de Sá, Clodoaldo A., Pereira, Luana C. D., Silva-Santos, Ínea B. M. da, da Silva Junior, Walderi M., de Matos, Dihogo G., Fontes, Alan dos S., Oliveira, Paulo M. P., Aidar, Felipe J., DeSantana, Josimari M., Fernandes, Iohanna G. S., and Da Silva-Grigoletto, Marzo E.
Objective. The aim of this study was to analyze the reproducibility of a protocol using the maximal isometric strength test of the trunk in elderly women aged above 60 years, without low back pain. Methods. Twenty-one physically inactive elderly women, who had not engaged in any activity or exercise program in the past three months, participated in the cross-sectional study that consisted of two days of evaluations for the maximal isometric strength of the extensor and flexor muscles of the trunk, with a 48 h interval between the sessions. A platform with fixed seating was used, which allowed the fixation of the hip and lower limbs, with a load cell connected to a linear encoder. To verify the reliability of the test, the interclass correlation coefficient, variation coefficient, minimum detectable difference (MDD), standard error of measurement, and Bland–Altman graphs were calculated. Results. No statistical difference was observed between the first and second evaluation, which indicates that there was no learning effect. Interclass correlation coefficient values were classified as very high and high for extensor (0.98) and flexor (0.86) muscles, respectively, besides low variation (9% for both muscle groups) and acceptable values for minimum detectable difference (extensors = 51.1 N, flexors = 48.9 N). In addition, the Bland–Altman analysis revealed low bias and values within the limits of agreement. Conclusion. It is concluded that the test of maximum isometric strength of the trunk in healthy and trained elderly people presents high reliability. These values proved to be reliable if performed in at least two evaluation sessions, which confirms the hypothesis of the authors by the consistency of the measurement test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]