Abstract
Background Adequate muscle strength, power, and endurance are important in children's daily activities and sports. Various instruments have been developed for the assessment of muscle function; each measures different aspects. The Functional Strength Measurement (FSM) was developed to measure performance in activities in which strength is required.
Objective The study objective was to establish the test-retest reliability and structural and construct validity of the FSM.
Design A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted.
Methods The performance of 474 children with typical development on the FSM was examined. Test-retest reliability (n=47) was calculated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (2.1A) for agreement. Structural validity was examined with exploratory factor analysis, and internal consistency was established with the Cronbach alpha. Construct validity was determined by calculating correlations between FSM scores and scores obtained with a handheld dynamometer (HHD) (n=252) (convergent validity) and between FSM scores and scores on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children–2 (MABC-2) (n=77) (discriminant validity).
Results The test-retest reliability of the FSM total score ranged from .91 to .94. The structural validity revealed one dimension, containing all 8 FSM items. The Cronbach alpha was .74. The convergent validity with the HHD ranged from .42 to .74. The discriminant validity with MABC-2 items revealed correlations that were generally lower than .39, and most of the correlations were not significant. Exploratory factor analysis of a combined data set (FSM, HHD, and MABC-2; n=77) revealed 2 factors: muscle strength/power and muscle endurance with an agility component.
Limitations Discriminant validity was measured only in children aged 4 to 6 years.
Conclusions The FSM, a norm-referenced test for measuring functional strength in children aged 4 to 10 years, has good test-retest reliability and good construct validity.
Adequate muscle function is an important factor in enabling children to perform their daily activities and sports.1,2 Jumping, running up a flight of stairs, pushing a friend on a swing, and lifting a box filled with toys are examples of physical activities that place different demands on muscle functioning. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of muscle functioning is important for interpreting situations in which children have difficulty executing their daily tasks. Understanding the extent to which deficits in muscle functioning limit performance and how training can influence change is an important aspect of program design. Verschuren et al3 asserted that knowledge of the psychometric properties of strength measurements is critical in evaluating the efficacy of training programs.
Physical therapists and sports coaches may be particularly interested in measuring strength in children. Three aspects of muscle functioning—strength, endurance, and power—are generally evaluated. These aspects may be assessed in various ways, and the interpretation of the results can be used to make inferences regarding general functional ability and training needs.
Muscle strength refers to the ability of a muscle to generate a maximal contraction expressed as a unit of force (eg, newtons). Strength can be evaluated with different instruments or clinical measures, depending on the context and purpose of the assessment. Clinical measurement of isometric muscle strength can be done with manual muscle testing, which is an inexpensive and rapid approach. However, manual muscle testing may not be sufficiently sensitive to measure strength in good and normal ranges.4
Strength also can be determined with the 1-repetition-maximum assessment principle, which refers to the maximal load that can be moved one time throughout the full range of motion while the proper form of the movement is maintained.5–7 Generally, the 1-repetition-maximum principle is used to evaluate strength during simple concentric or eccentric tasks, such as lifting a dumbbell or performing a bench press. However, standardized 1-repetition-maximum protocols for children are not available, making comparisons across different groups difficult.
The isokinetic dynamometer is considered the gold standard for measuring dynamic muscle action and often is used in laboratory settings.8 However, isokinetic dynamometers are not used routinely in clinical settings because they are expensive and the equipment has to be adapted to fit the various anthropometric characteristics of each child.9
In contrast, the handheld dynamometer (HHD) is a portable and user-friendly device that allows the rapid measurement of isometric strength. Although the HHD is widely used, Beenakker et al10 suggested that isometric strength does not yield information about the functional use of the generated force in real-life situations and asserted that isometric strength and functional ability are not linearly related.
Muscle endurance is defined as the ability to sustain a fixed contraction or repeatedly generate consecutive contractions for a prolonged period of time.5,6 Endurance levels can be determined by observing changes in the performance of the functional activity being examined. The number of repetitions to fatigue is a clinically useful method for designing individual training schedules and for comparing individual preintervention and postintervention values. However, the utility of assessment of the number of repetitions to fatigue is limited because activities selected for evaluation can be performed in different ways and normative values for comparing outcomes in children are not available.11
Muscle power refers to either the amount of work done by a muscle (muscle group) per unit of time (work/time) or the product of the force exerted by the muscle and the velocity of the muscle action. In physical education literature, muscle power is further defined as the ability of a muscle group to perform an explosive movement, such as a sprint, jump, or throw.12 Muscle power can be assessed with isokinetic dynamometry or functional activities, such as vertical or long jump tests.12,13 In the latter tests, power is calculated with equations that take into consideration body mass and distance covered.
Functional strength is defined as the strength needed to perform a certain activity. Everyday functional tasks require not only strength but also regulation of the amount and timing of force. Thus, motor coordination (ie, balance, agility, and control of spatial and temporal accuracy) also plays a role in functional tasks. For the evaluation of functional strength in children during standardized functional activities, various motor performance and physical fitness test batteries can be used; these include the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency–second edition (BOT-2)14 and the Eurofit Test Battery (for children aged 12–16 years).15 Each of these batteries includes a subtest containing a few items that measure strength (eg, bent-arm hang and handgrip), endurance (eg, number of push-ups, wall sit-ups, and v-sit-ups completed in a defined time), and power (eg, distance covered during a standing long jump). Additionally, a number of outcome measures for functional muscle strength have been developed for use in clinical populations; these include the Functional Strength Test3 for children with cerebral palsy and the Motor Performance Test16 for children with myopathy.
In the absence of a standardized, norm-referenced instrument for measuring different components of strength during functional activities in children, the Functional Strength Measurement (FSM)17 was developed. This instrument was designed for children with typical development (TD) or children with mild motor problems, such as developmental coordination disorder, between the ages of 4 and 10 years.
The process of developing the FSM commenced in 2006, with a review of the literature regarding strength measurement in children and an evaluation of existing outcome measures commonly used to assess strength, power, and endurance in children. We also collected information from our observations of children at schools, playgrounds, and sports facilities. The data led to the creation of a list of physical activities that met 3 criteria: strength was an important factor in successful task performance, function was evident (ie, the activities chosen were similar to activities performed in everyday life), and coordination requirements were low (ie, the balance and spatial requirements of an activity were not important to the goal of the task). A panel of 4 experts in pediatric physical therapy was convened to evaluate whether the list of activities complied with the 3 criteria and to determine whether the list of preliminary test items could be standardized.
The items that did not comply with the criteria were modified or deleted because they were either too difficult to standardize or too difficult for the children to perform. In a consensus meeting, the expert panel found that the remaining 8 items were an adequate reflection of the construct functional strength and thereby met the requirement for face validity.17 The retained 8 items are included in the current version of the FSM, described in this article.
Next, normative values for each of the retained items for different age groups were established on the basis of data collected from 616 children (4–10 years old). For this normative sample, performance on the test items improved across the age range.17 The clinical utility and feasibility of the FSM were established by consulting the 9 therapists who were involved in gathering the normative data. The therapists were asked to report on the children's performance during the test, their motivation to adhere to the activities, and their understanding of the test instructions. They also were asked to comment on the administration time and the ease of scoring. These users reported that the FSM was simple to administer and that testing and scoring could be completed within 30 minutes. The fact that children found the activities interesting and fun was viewed as another relevant advantage.
In the final test, 4 items (“overarm throwing,” “underarm throwing,” “chest pass,” and “lifting a box”) focused on the upper extremities and 4 items (“lateral step-up,” “sit to stand,” “stair climbing,” and “standing long jump”) focused on the lower extremities. The FSM was developed for use in children who have functional strength–related motor problems and who may be seen at pediatric physical therapy practices. The tasks were designed to appeal to young children because they replicated activities commonly encountered in daily life (Tab. 1).
Constructs of Items of the Functional Strength Measurement (FSM)
The FSM measures 2 types of muscle function: the explosive power generated during one movement and muscle endurance (number of repetitions within a 30-second time frame).
The FSM starts with a standardized warm-up protocol, which is described in the FSM manual.17 The FSM includes practice trials and 3 rated trials. The result from the best trial for each item is recorded and compared with normative scores, which are presented as standard scores and percentile scores aligned to the conventions used in other norm-referenced tests, such as the Movement Assessment Battery for Children–2 (MABC-2),18 Bayley Scales of Infant Development–third edition,19 and BOT-2.14 The standard scores are defined as follows: 0=upper normal range (higher than the 50th percentile), 1=lower normal range (between the 16th and 50th percentiles), 2=at-risk range (between the 5th and 15th percentiles), and 3=impaired range (lower than the 5th percentile). Full tables of all of the standard scores for the 8 items across the age range (4–10 years) are provided in the FSM manual.17 The standard scores can be summed and interpreted as a total standard score or can be combined and presented as cluster scores. The clusters include items of the upper extremities and items of the lower extremities or items measuring explosive power and items measuring muscle endurance. The FSM items are shown in the Figure.
Items of the Functional Strength Measurement (FSM) and short descriptions.17
To meet the criteria for developing a new outcome measure, it is important to establish whether the test is reliable and whether the test truly measures the construct being investigated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the test-retest reliability and structural and construct validity of the FSM. In the absence of a gold standard for evaluating functional muscle strength in children, the construct validity of the FSM was examined by generating and verifying 2 hypotheses about the relationship among functional strength, isometric strength, and coordination (balance and spatial accuracy).
First, we hypothesized that because isometric strength is related to the capacity to produce force and functional strength is related to the use of force within an activity, a moderate correlation (.4–.7)20 would be found between items of the FSM and HHD measurements of isometric strength (convergent validity). Second, we hypothesized that because FSM items were selected on the basis of the prerequisite that the balance and spatial accuracy demands of the various tasks were low, we would find a low correlation (<.4)20 between items of the FSM and items of the MABC-2 (discriminant validity). The MABC-2 was chosen because it contains items requiring high levels of accuracy (ie, aiming at a target at a 2-m distance and hopping within small [30 × 45 cm] squares) or balance (ie, walking with accurate foot placement on a line and standing on one leg). It is evident that in these tasks, fine-tuning of muscle force, rather than absolute strength, is the constraining factor for adequate performance. Therefore, we expected that the correlations between the FSM and the MABC-2 (discriminant validity) would be lower than those between the FSM and the HHD (convergent validity).21
Method
A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted to investigate the test-retest reliability and structural and construct validity of the FSM. Informed consent was obtained from the parents of all of the children.
Participants
Children with TD and aged 4 to 10 years were recruited from 16 different schools in the Netherlands (N=474: 245 boys and 229 girls; mean age=7.1 years, SD=1.9). Children with a history of serious neurologic, orthopedic, or cognitive problems (intelligence quotient of <70) were excluded. Data for different subsets of participants were used to examine test-retest reliability and various aspects of validity. The demographics of each participant subset are described later in this article.
Instruments
HHD.
The microFET2 HHD (Hoggan Health Industries, Salt Lake City, Utah) was used to measure isometric strength. Measuring isometric strength with an HHD requires the participant to exert force against a portable power transducer, which registers the force produced in newtons. Two protocols for assessing force include the “make” and “break” methods. In the break method, the examiner gradually overcomes the muscle force and stops when the limb starts to move. In the make method, the participant pushes against the power transducer for 3 seconds, and the maximal force produced is recorded. In the present study, isometric strength was measured according to the protocol and positions described by Beenakker et al.10 The reliability of the HHD for measuring isometric strength in children was established in several studies,22–24 and van den Beld et al24 found that, overall, the HHD was a valid measure for assessing isometric strength in children. In the present study, the force of elbow flexion, elbow extension, knee extension, and 3-point grip was measured bilaterally with the HHD. The break method was used for all items, except for the 3-point grip, for which the make method was used.
MABC-2.
The MABC-218 is a standardized, norm-referenced test of motor coordination developed to assess children between the ages of 3 and 16 years. There are 3 item subsets per age band, consisting of 8 items measuring manual dexterity (3 items), aiming and catching (2 items), and balance (3 items). The internal consistency of the MABC-2 is .90, and the test-retest reliability is excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.97).25,26 In the present study, the aiming and catching subset and the balance subset were used.
Procedure
All therapists involved in testing were trained in the administration of the FSM, HHD, and MABC-2 according to the standardized protocols described in the respective manuals. Children with TD were tested at different primary schools in the Netherlands. The FSM, HHD, and MABC-2 were all administered on the same day, and all children were tested by the same pediatric physical therapist (14 therapists in total). The order was the same for all children. We started with the HHD; measurements were taken while the child was sitting or lying down (15 minutes). After a rest, the 2 aiming and catching items and the 3 balance items of the MABC-2 were administered (10 minutes). None of these items was tiring. After another short break, the FSM was administered. According to the FSM protocol, items for the upper and lower extremities were alternated, and there was a 30-second rest period between trials (20 minutes).
Test-Retest Reliability
All therapists tested a random selection of 3 to 5 children with the FSM twice within 2 weeks. This subset of children consisted of 47 children between 4 and 10 years of age (24 boys, 23 girls; mean age=6.7 years, SD=1.5). Because we wanted to determine whether the FSM was reliable for both younger and older children, this sample was divided into 2 groups: 4 to 6 years (n=24) and 7 to 10 years (n=23).
Structural Validity
The FSM item scores for all 474 children were used for this analysis.
Construct Validity
Convergent validity.
A group of 252 children (125 boys, 127 girls; mean age=7.2 years, SD=2.2) selected by convenience sampling was evaluated with the FSM and HHD.
Discriminant validity.
A group of 77 children aged between 4 and 6 years (42 boys, 35 girls; mean age=5.01 years, SD=0.85) was tested with the FSM and MABC-2.
Factor Analysis
Data for factor analysis were from the group of 77 children included in the discriminant validity analysis. The group was tested with the FSM, HHD, and MABC-2.
Data Analysis
The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine whether the data were normally distributed. Log transformation was used for data that were not normally distributed.
The 2-way ICC (2.1A) for agreement27 was calculated to determine the test-retest reliability of the FSM with standard scores. The standard error of measurement was calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the difference between the test and retest scores by the square root of 2 (SDdifference/√2).27 The smallest detectable change was calculated by multiplying 1.96 by the standard deviation of the difference between the test and retest scores (1.96 × SDdifference).27
Structural validity was examined by exploratory factor analysis. Eigenvalues of greater than 1 were used to determine the number of dimensions in the FSM. To determine the degree to which items of the FSM were interrelated, we calculated the Cronbach alpha.
Convergent validity (construct validity) was determined by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients comparing the outcomes for the FSM items with the HHD data. Discriminant validity was determined by calculating Spearman rho correlations comparing the standard scores on the FSM with the standard scores on the MABC-2.
Factor analysis (varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization) was conducted with the raw data for the FSM, HHD, and MABC-2, and a scree plot was created to examine the underlying factors explaining the pattern of correlations among the 3 measures.
All statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS version 22 (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York).
Results
Test-Retest Reliability
For test-retest reliability, the ICCs for FSM cluster scores ranged from .77 to .91. The ICCs for FSM total scores were .91 for 4- to 6-year-old children and .94 for 7- to 10-year-old children. The medians, ranges, ICCs, 95% confidence intervals, standard errors of measurement, and smallest detectable changes are shown in Table 2.
Test-Retest Reliability (ICC), SEM, and SDC of Standard Scores for Items and Clusters and Total Score of the Functional Strength Measurement (FSM)a
Structural Validity
Factor analysis of the 8 FSM items revealed that one factor had an eigenvalue of greater than 1. This factor explained 64% of the variance (eigenvalue=5.71). The Cronbach alpha was .74. Deleting items did not increase the Cronbach alpha.
Construct Validity
Convergent validity.
Table 3 shows the correlations between the different items of the FSM and the HHD. The correlation between the predominantly upper limb items of the FSM and the upper extremity items of the HHD ranged from .54 to .74. The correlation between the predominantly lower limb items of the FSM and isometric knee extension strength ranged from .42 to .69.
Pearson Correlations Between Hand-Held Dynamometer Items and Functional Strength Measurement (FSM) Itemsa
Discriminant validity.
Table 4 shows the correlations between the standard scores of the different items of the FSM and the MABC-2. The correlation between the predominantly upper extremity items of the FSM and the aiming and catching items of the MABC-2 ranged from .23 to .39. The correlation between the predominantly lower extremity items of the FSM and the MABC-2 items ranged from .24 to .29.
Spearman Rho Correlations Between Functional Strength Measurement (FSM) Items and Movement Assessment Battery for Children—2 Itemsa
Determining Underlying Factors
The MABC-2 data were not normally distributed. Therefore, log transformation of the raw data was used for this analysis. The exploratory factor analysis of the combined data set (FSM, HHD, and MABC-2) revealed that 5 components had an eigenvalue of greater than 1. Together they explained 71% of the variance. The scree plot, however, showed the presence of 2 major factors. Therefore, confirmatory factor analysis was repeated with 2 fixed factors. Table 5 shows the results of the 2-factor solution. These factors explained 51% of the variance. Values exceeding .50 are shown in bold type in Table 5.
Factor Analysisa
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the test-retest reliability and structural and construct validity of the FSM.17 The construct validity was examined by generating and verifying hypotheses about the relationship among isometric strength, functional strength, and coordination.
Test-Retest Reliability
Our results showed good test-retest reliability20 for FSM cluster scores (ICC=.77–.95) and FSM total scores (ICC=.91–.94). In younger children (4–6 years old), the 95% confidence interval was larger (especially for endurance items), meaning that scores in young children were less stable. As expected, the 95% confidence interval was larger when we examined single items than when we examined cluster scores and the total score. Therefore, we advise that—especially in younger children—conclusions about functional strength should be based only on cluster and total scores and not on item scores.
Structural Validity
Structural validity is defined as the degree to which the scores of the measurement instrument are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct being measured.27 Because more than 50% (64%) of the variance was explained, it may be stated that the FSM has good structural validity.20 Moreover, the internal consistency, as measured with the Cronbach alpha, was high (.74), suggesting that the different items of the FSM are related.20 This finding means that the 8 items together measure a similar construct, as we expected, because the various FSM items were selected on the basis of activities in which functional strength plays an important role.
Construct Validity
We found moderate to strong correlations (.42–.74) between items of the FSM and both upper and lower extremity items of the HHD, suggesting the presence of an overall factor related to strength. However, functional strength involves multiple muscle groups working together in a coordinated manner across a range of joint angles. The range of correlations indicates that apart from isometric strength, additional factors—such as power, muscle endurance, and coordination—play important roles in certain items of the FSM.
Our findings regarding convergent validity are partly in accordance with those of other studies. Baker et al28 reported that dynamic strength and isometric strength are moderately related (.57–.61). Castro-Pinero et al29 also found moderate to high correlations between functional measures of muscle power of the lower extremities (standing long jump, vertical jump, squat jump, and counter jump) and the upper extremities (throwing a basketball and push-ups) and isometric strength (pushing a bar). It is likely that the higher correlations reported in the latter study reflected the nature of the activities chosen to assess isometric strength. Pushing a bar is an isometric strength item but includes more than one muscle (group), whereas the HHD (as in the present study) provides a more isolated measure of muscle strength.
Correlations between functional strength items of the lower extremities (ie, standing long jump) and isometric upper extremity strength (ie, elbow flexion and extension) also were moderate. Although this finding may seem unexpected, support for the relationship between upper extremity strength and jumping was also found in other studies. Fjørtoft et al30 described high correlations between throwing a medicine ball and the standing broad jump. Seyfarth et al31 explained that in the take-off phase of the standing long jump, stored energy from the upper limb muscles was used to augment the execution of the jump. Moreover, Lees et al32 suggested that arm swing contributed to jump performance in both submaximal and maximal jumping.
The FSM was designed to measure functional strength during activities that minimize demands on motor coordination. In accordance with our hypothesis, the upper extremity items of the FSM were weakly correlated (.23–.39) with the catching and aiming items of the MABC-2. Evidently, both types of tasks involve the act of throwing. However, throwing a beanbag onto a defined spot (a target) is different from throwing or passing a weighted bag as far as possible. These correlations were lower than the correlations between the upper extremity items of the FSM and the HHD (.52–.72), also in accordance with our hypothesis.
Discriminant validity was confirmed with the MABC-2 balance items. There was no significant correlation between the FSM items and the item “walking on the line” (.10–.19). The item “lateral step-up” showed low correlations with the item “walking on the line” (.24) and the item “standing on one leg” (.25–.29).
The correlation between the upper extremity cluster of the FSM and the item “standing on one leg” was significant (.33). This relationship may be understood by considering the movement pattern used to generate a forceful throw. The FSM item “throwing” requires weight transfer in an anterior-posterior direction to lift the heavy bag behind the head or move it between the legs and propel it forward, thus placing some demand on static balance control. Importantly, the correlation between the lower extremity cluster of the FSM and the balance domain of the MABC-2 was not significant. This finding confirmed that we were able to keep the prerequisite levels of balance as well as spatial accuracy needed to perform the lower extremity FSM items as low as possible.
Although balance and accuracy are important factors in all movements and daily activities, it seems that the coordination requirements within items of the FSM are low and do not constrain children with TD in performing the items. Further research is needed to confirm whether this is also the case in children with mild developmental disabilities and to test whether other mediating factors explain the correlations between test items.
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis of the FSM, MABC-2, and HHD items revealed 2 underlying components within the total item set. One of these components appeared to be related to muscle strength because all of the HHD items loaded on this factor. The FSM items “overarm throwing,” “standing long jump,” “underarm throwing,” “chest pass,” and “stair climbing” also loaded on this strength factor. Apart from the item “stair climbing,” these items are considered to be measures of explosive power, in that stored energy is transferred into action. This finding supports the validity of the FSM items as a measure of power.
All MABC-2 items except for the dynamic balance items (“walking on the line” and “hopping”) loaded on a different factor together with the items “lateral step-up,” “lifting a box,” “chest pass,” and “sit to stand.” The items “lateral step-up,” “lifting a box,” and “sit to stand” require the ability to switch rapidly between different types of muscle contractions (eccentric and concentric). This factor appears to be related to muscle endurance with an agility component. Agility is defined as the ability to change the direction of the body in an efficient and effective manner.33 Performing tasks with agility requires a combination of balance, speed, and repetitive reversal contractions.
The item “chest pass” loaded on both factors. For this item, there is less opportunity to use alternative strategies and to make a kinetic chain. Only the upper extremities are allowed to move, and the starting position for this item is more fixed. Participants are required to sit against a wall while pushing a bag. Maintaining this upright sitting position while keeping the back against the wall probably requires more postural fixation, and pushing the bag requires muscle power.
The FSM was developed to detect functional strength deficits in children. Children with developmental coordination disorder have been reported to have less strength than children with TD.2 Three recent studies34–36 showed that children with mild motor problems performed worse on certain items of the FSM than children with TD. These studies also supported the validity of the FSM. In 2 of these 3 studies, the FSM was used as an outcome measure and was sensitive enough to reveal improvement in functional strength after intervention.35,36
In summary, the FSM appears to meet the criteria for a thorough evaluation of muscle functioning. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the FSM allows determination of the nature of the muscle functioning deficit because both muscle power and muscle endurance are evaluated. The literature has reported that deficits in muscle function have a negative influence on motor performance in children.1,2 The FSM can be used to identify the specific aspect of muscle functioning that limits performance during activities. Moreover, when force production has a large reversal or alternating component, the fast changes in force control become the limiting factor (which we called muscle endurance with an agility component). In this way, the nature of the strength deficit may be captured further. The extent of the deficit may be determined by use of the normative values. Once the nature and extent of the performance deficits have been established with the FSM, therapists and coaches can use this information to design appropriate intervention programs and evaluate their efficacy.35
Study Limitations
The fact that discriminant validity was investigated only in children with TD and aged 4 to 6 years limits the generalization of the findings. Further studies investigating validity in older children and in children with motor performance problems are planned.
In the absence of a gold standard outcome measure for assessing functional strength, we chose to investigate construct validity by generating 2 hypotheses regarding the relationship among isometric strength, functional strength, and coordination. It would be interesting to compare the FSM with the BOT-2, because the latter test has some items measuring strength and some items measuring agility. In the present study, we investigated only test-retest reliability. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability has not yet been examined.
Clinical Utility
In daily physical therapist practice, the FSM can be used to detect deficits in functional strength. Therapists examining children with generalized weakness may use the FSM to determine whether the upper or lower extremities are more affected and to establish whether there is predominantly a muscle power deficiency or a muscle endurance deficiency. In this way, interventions can be more focused on specific problems. With the existing norms, it is possible to compare the performance of groups of patients with that of children with TD and to determine whether problems in daily life may be related to functional strength deficits. Further studies examining the responsiveness and clinical utility of the FSM in children with specific diagnoses are planned so that the FSM may be used as an outcome measure in strength training interventions for these children.
In conclusion, the FSM is a reliable, standardized, norm-referenced test that measures different components of muscle function during functional activities in children aged 4 to 10 years.
The FSM has good construct validity and good test-retest reliability. The reliability is higher in older children (7–10 years) than in younger children (4–6 years). Additionally, the total score or combined cluster scores for the items are more reliable than individual item scores.
Footnotes
Mrs Aertssen and Professor Smits-Engelsman provided concept/idea/research design, data analysis, project management, participants, and facilities/equipment. All authors provided writing. Mrs Aertssen provided data collection. Professor Smits-Engelsman provided institutional liaisons and consultation (including review of manuscript before submission). The authors thank all of the schools, children, and parents for participating in this study and the students of AvansPlus for their help with collecting the data.
The study was approved by the Dutch Medical Ethics Committee (CCMO).
- Received January 20, 2014.
- Accepted November 5, 2015.
- © 2016 American Physical Therapy Association
References
Issue highlights
