Accuracy of Spring and Strain Gauge

Hand-held Dynamometers
RICHARD W BOHANNON,' A. WILLIAMS ANDREWS2
The accuracy of two spring gauge and two strain gauge hand-held dynamometers
was determined using certified weights. Each dynamometer, which had extensive prior
use, was vertically loaded with the certified weights in 5 Ib increments from 5-55 Ibs.
Analysis of variance was used to compare the actual certified weights with the weights
measured by each dynamometer. Additionally, Pearson product moment correlations
were calculated between the weights measured by each device. The two spring gauge
dynamometers measured comparably as did the two strain gauge dynamometers. Only
the two strain gauge dynamometers, however, registered (measured) weights not
differing significantly from the actual weights with which they were loaded. The corre-
lations between each device's measurements were 0.98 or above. If the dynamometers
tested are indicative, strain gauge dynamometers may be more accurate than spring
gauge dynamometers after extensive use.
The imprecision of subjective manual muscle
test grades and their insensitivity to changes in
muscle strength provide clinicians with an impetus
for using more objective instruments for measur-
ing muscle strength (1). Among the instruments
that have been used extensively for this purpose
in a clinical environment are hand dynamometers,
fixed dynamometers, isokinetic dynamometers,
and hand-held dynamometers (2). Unlike that of
some other instruments (3-6), the accuracy of
specific hand-held dynamometers has not been
determined and reported. Before clinicians can
make informed decisions regarding the purchase
and use of instruments, they must be aware of
the instruments' accuracy. The purpose of this
brief report is to compare the accuracy of two
spring gauge and two strain gauge dynamome-
ters. We expected from previous informal calibra-
tion checks that the two strain gauge dynamom-
eters, unlike the two spring gauge dynamometers,
would be accurate. We expected the measure-
ments obtained with all the dynamometers to be
highly correlated.
' Associate Professor, School of Allied Health. University of Connecti-
cut. U-101. Storrs. CT 06269.
Graduate student. Division of Physical Therapy. University of North
Carolina. Chapel Hill. NC.
01 96-601 1/89/1008/0323$02.00/0
THE JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY
Copyright Q 1989 by The Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
Sect~ons of the American Physical Therapy Association
METHOD
Two different types of gauges were com-
pared. The two spring gauge dynamometers were
the same model (Spark hand-held dynamometer,
Spark Instruments and Academics, Inc, P.O. Box
5123, Coralville, IA 52241). They had a range of
0 to 60 Ibs and registered force with a dial display.
The dial face was divided into half-pound incre-
ments. The two strain gauge dynamometers were
the same model (Chatillon model DFG-100, John
Chatillon and Sons, 83-30 Kew Gardens Road,
Kew Gardens, NY 1 141 5-1 999). They had a range
of 0 to 11 5 Ibs and registered force with a digital
display. The display registered to 0.1 Ibs of sen-
sitivity. All four dynamometers were over 2 years
old and had been used in thousands of clinical
tests.
To measure instrument accuracy, each in-
strument was placed vertically in a vise and a
pendulum goniometer was used to assure that its
flat end piece was perpendicular to the pull of
gravity. Certified weights were then placed on the
flat end piece of each device in 5 Ib increments
from 5-55 Ibs. (Fig. 1). Each dynamometer was
reset (zeroed) between the application of each
calibration load.
The weight indicated (measured) by each
dynamometer was compared to the actual certi-
fied weight it was measuring as well as to the
weight measured by the other three dynamome-
ters. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure
JOSPT February 1989 SPRING AND STRAIN HAND-HELD DYNAMOMETERS 323
and a Tukey HSD post hoc test were used for
this purpose. In addition, Pearson product mo-
ment correlations were calculated between each
instrument's measurements of the weights.
RESULTS
Figure 2 illustrates the measurements of the
certified weights obtained using each dynamom-
eter. A close inspection of the figure reveals that
throughout the range of weights applied, the two
spring gauges measured higher weights than the
two strain gauges. At every 5 Ib increment both
spring gauges measured at least 1 Ib high. The
mean weight of the certified weights was 30 Ibs,
whereas the mean of the weights measured by
the dynamometers were strain gauge one (30.0
Ibs), strain gauge two (30.0 Ibs), spring gauge one
(31.7 Ibs) and spring gauge two (31.8 Ibs). The
ANOVA results are reported in Table 1. They
reveal that the actual certified weights and the
weights measured by the four dynamometers
were significantly different (p < 0.001). The Tukey
HSD test with an alpha level of 0.05 and a critical
range for pairs of means of 0.36 Ibs demonstrated
the following: 1) the weights measured by the two
Figure 1. Application of a 25 Ib weight to a strain
gauge dynamometer during the calibration proce-
dure.
a STRAI N GAUGE #1
0 STRAI N GAUGE # 2
.D
0
d
SPRING GAUGE # I
0 SPRING GAUGE # 2
Y) 50
P=
CERTIFIED WEIGHTS (LBS)
Figure 2. Actual weights measured by four hand-
held dynamometers when certified weights were
placed on them in 5 Ib increments. The certified
weights were discrete data, whereas the measured
weights were continuous data.
TABLE 1
Analysis of variance table summarizing the comparison of
actual weights and weights measured using four
dynamometers
- - -
Source SS DF MS F P
Weight 39.663 4 9.916 113.677 0.000
Error 3.489 40 0.087
strain gauges were not significantly different from
the actual certified weights, 2) the weights meas-
ured by the two spring gauges were significantly
different from the actual certified weights, 3) the
weights measured by the two strain gauges did
not differ significantly, 4) the weights measured
by the two spring gauges did not differ signifi-
cantly, 5) the weights measured by the strain
gauges differed significantly from the weights
measured by the spring gauges. The correlations
between each device's measurements of the
weights were all 0.98 or above.
DISCUSSION
The results obtained by placing certified
weights on the four dynamometers, each of which
had considerable prior clinical use, indicated that
the dynamometers did not demonstrate equal
accuracy. Given the results of calibration studies
with other instruments (3-6) it was not too sur-
prising to find some inaccuracies. The two strain
gauge dynamometers, however, unlike the two
spring gauge dynamometers were accurate within
the range tested. This was consistent with our
prestudy expectations. Whether the spring gauge
324 BOHANNON AND ANDREWS JOSPT February 1989
dynamometers were accurate when new is not
known. It is possible that they were accurate
initially but with extensive use grew inaccurate as
their springs fatigued. Whether accurate or not,
however, all the gauges provided measurements
that were correlated. Thus, the instruments a p
pear to be measuring the same variable (weight,
i.e., force).
Given the results of this study it would appear
that the two spring gauges could be used inter-
changeably and that the two strain gauges could
be used interchangeably. The former, however,
would systematically provide force indications
that were over 1.6 Ibs higher than actual. To use
either spring or strain gauge interchangeably
clearly would not be appropriate. Whether the
devices we checked for accuracy are indicative of
all such devices is unknown. They were devices,
however, of which the history was known. Given
our results, clinicians should be encouraged to
check the accuracy of their hand-held dynamom-
eters. They should also be aware that, over time,
the devices may not equally maintain their accu-
racy. Spring gauge dynamometers, like those
tested herein, may be particularly prone to inac-
curacy over time. 0
REFERENCES
1. Beasley WC: Influence of method on estimates of normal knee
extensor force among normal and post polio children. Phys Ther
Rev 36:21-41,1956
2. Bohannon RW: The clinical measurement of strength. Clin Rehabil
15-16. 1987
3. Mathiowetz V. Weber K. Volland G. Kashman N: Reliabilitv and
vahdity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. Hand Suri(Am)
9:222-226.1984
4. Murray D< Harrison E: Constant velocity dynamometer: an ap-
praisal using mechanical loading. Med Sci Sports Exerc 18:612-
624.1986
5. Olds K. Godfrey CM, Rosenrot P: Computer assisted isokinetii
dynamometry. A calibration study. Fourth Annual Conference on
Rehabilitation Engineering. Washington. DC. 1981
6. Solgaard S. Kristiansen B. Jensen JS: Evaluation of instruments
for measuring grip strength. Acta Orthop Scand 55569472,1984
JOSPT February 1989 SPRING AND STRAIN HAND-HELD DYNAMOMETERS