The dynamic control ratio at the equilibrium point (DCRe): introducing relative and absolute reliability scores

ABSTRACT

Analytical methods to assess thigh muscle balance need to provide reliable data to allow meaningful interpretation. However, reproducibility of the dynamic control ratio at the equilibrium point has not been evaluated yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare relative and absolute reliability indices of its angle and moment values with conventional and functional hamstring–quadriceps ratios. Furthermore, effects of familiarisation and angular velocity on reproducibility were analysed. A number of 33 male volunteers participated in 3 identical test sessions. Peak moments (PMs) were determined unilaterally during maximum concentric and eccentric knee flexion (prone) and extension (supine position) at 0.53, 1.57 and 2.62 rad · s^–1. A repeated measure, ANOVA, confirmed systematic bias. Intra-class correlation coefficients and standard errors of measurement indicated relative and absolute reliability. Correlation coefficients were averaged over respective factors and tested for significant differences. All balance scores showed comparable low-to-moderate relative (<0.8–0.9) and good absolute reliability (<10%). Relative reproducibility of dynamic control equilibrium parameters augmented with increasing angular velocity, but not with familiarisation. At 2.62 rad · s^–1, high (moment: 0.906) to moderate (angle: 0.833) relative reliability scores with accordingly high absolute indices (4.9% and 6.4%) became apparent. Thus, the dynamic control equilibrium is an equivalent method for the reliable assessment of thigh muscle balance.

KEYWORDS:

• Reproducibility
• intra-class correlation coefficient
• standard error of measurement
• hamstring-quadriceps muscle balance
• dynamic control equilibrium

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank all participants who volunteered to participate in this study and demonstrated great motivation and commitment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.