Affiliations: [a] University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Ljubljana,
Slovenia | [b] University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Sport and Physical
Education, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Note: [] Address for correspondence: Edvin Dervišević, MD,
PhD, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Department of Sports Medicine,
Gortanova 22 Street, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Tel.: +386 41 341 790; E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate bilateral quadriceps and hamstrings strength,
at two different ranges of motion (RoM): 30° (SRoM) and 90° (FRoM),
using different angular velocities. Background: Recent studies have indicated that short RoM
isokinetic testing of knee muscles yielded strength findings that were
compatible with those derived from a much larger RoM. However, findings were
based on a single adjusted velocity in each of the RoMs. Method: Sixteen healthy male students volunteered to
participate in this study. Two testing sessions, a week apart, were performed.
In the first session testing started with a RoM of 90° (FRoM,
0° – full extension) and angular velocities of 60 and 180°/s.
Measurements related to concentric (quadriceps and hamstring) and eccentric
(quadriceps only) contractions. In the second part of the test, the RoM was
adjusted to 30° (SRoM, 30–60° knee flexion) with velocities of
30 and 60°/s, respectively. The order of RoM testing was reversed in the
second session. All tests were conducted bilaterally. Results: Both FRoM- and SRoM-based scores have shown good
reproducibility based on the Bland Altman plots and low values of standard
error of measurement and coefficient of variance of standard deviation. No
statistically significant differences were noted between the FRoM and
SRoM-based strength scores. The results suggest that range of motion used in
isokinetic testing alone or in combination with other factors, namely side
tested and isokinetic velocity, does not significantly influences changes in
peak torque values for both quadriceps and hamstrings. Conclusion: This study suggests that SRoM isokinetic testing
provides an effective alternative to the commonly applied range.
