Portable Fixed Frame Dynamometry Shows Poor Agreement with Isokinetic Dynamometry During Isometric Knee Extension and Flexion Strength Tests
Ashley Jones , Chris Brogden , Gareth Nicholson , Joshua Martin , Josh Walker
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise ›› : 1 -9.
Portable Fixed Frame Dynamometry Shows Poor Agreement with Isokinetic Dynamometry During Isometric Knee Extension and Flexion Strength Tests
This study aimed to evaluate the level of agreement between the KangaTech (KT360) portable fixed-frame dynamometer and the Cybex isokinetic dynamometer (IKD) in assessing maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the knee flexor and extensor muscles. Specifically, the research investigated whether the KT360 provides comparable measurements to the IKD when quantifying isometric knee muscle strength.
Twenty-three physically active participants (16 males, 7 females; age: 27±7 years) completed MVIC testing of the knee flexors and extensors using both KT360 and IKD. Testing order was randomised, and standardised protocols were followed. Peak force (KT360) and peak joint moment (IKD, converted to force) were recorded. Agreement was assessed using paired t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimum detectable change (MDC), and Bland–Altman analysis.
KT360 recorded 24% lower peak force for extensors and 17%–21% higher for flexors compared to IKD (P<0.001). ICC values ranged from poor to excellent (−0.093 to 0.964). Bland–Altman analysis revealed systematic bias: KT360 underestimated extensor strength (~27%) and overestimated flexor strength (~17%–19%), with wide limits of agreement and significant heteroscedasticity.
KT360 and IKD are not interchangeable for assessing isometric knee strength. While KT360 offers portability and accessibility, its results should be interpreted with caution, especially in contexts requiring precise strength quantification such as injury risk assessment and rehabilitation.
KangaTech / Cybex / Dynamometer / Hamstrings / Quadriceps / Injury risk
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
KangaTech. Knee extension protocol. 2023. https://help.kanga-tech.com/Protocols/knee-ext. Accessed 15 Jun 2025. |
| [14] |
KangaTech. Knee flexion H45/K30. 2023. https://help.kanga-tech.com/Protocols/knee-flex-45-30. Accessed 15 Jun 2025. |
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
Opar DA, Piatkowski T, Williams MD, Shield AJ. A novel device using the Nordic hamstring exercise to assess eccentric knee flexor strength: a reliability and retrospective injury study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(9):636–40. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4837. |
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
Toonstra J, Mattacola CG. Test-retest reliability and validity of isometric knee-flexion and-extension measurement using 3 methods of assessing muscle strength. J Sport Rehabil. 2013;22(1):10.1123/jsr.2013.TR7. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2013.TR7. |
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
The Author(s)
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |