Accurate measurement of trunk flexor and extensor strength is important for identifying, treating, and monitoring spinal pathologies. Clinicians commonly use handheld dynamometry because it is convenient, but poor standardisation of patient position and tester technique can reduce intra-rater reliability and the validity of longitudinal measurements. The VALD ForceFrame Strength Testing System is a portable, standardized hybrid strength-assessment device intended to quantify strength and power outputs with consistent positioning and fixation. This study examined the test–retest reliability of maximal isometric trunk flexion and extension measured with the VALD ForceFrame in community-dwelling adults.
The investigation was conducted as a repeated-measures reliability study. Participants completed two testing sessions during which they performed maximal isometric trunk flexion and extension contractions using the VALD ForceFrame. Test–retest reliability was quantified using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and complementary agreement statistics. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated and used to derive the minimum detectable change (MDC).
The source reports the overall analytical approach and the reliability statistics but does not provide further procedural specifics such as exact participant positioning, number of trials per test, rest intervals, or the time interval between sessions.
A total of 29 healthy community-dwelling adults participated in the study. They completed two separate testing sessions involving maximal isometric trunk flexion and extension on the VALD ForceFrame. The source reports participant count and health status but does not include detailed demographic data (age, sex distribution, physical activity level) or exclusion criteria in the provided text.
Test–retest reliability was assessed primarily with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Correlation coefficients (r) were also reported for each test. The SEM was computed to quantify measurement variability and to allow calculation of the MDC, which represents the smallest change that can be interpreted as a real difference beyond measurement error.
For maximal isometric trunk flexion measured with the VALD ForceFrame, the study reported a correlation of r = 0.92 and an ICC range of 0.83–0.86. These statistics indicate very high correlation and excellent reliability for the flexion test under the study conditions. The MDC for trunk flexion was reported as 71.35 N.
For maximal isometric trunk extension, reported values were r = 0.93 with an ICC range of 0.86–0.97, indicating very high correlation and excellent test–retest reliability for the extension measurement. The MDC for trunk extension was 101.20 N.
The study computed the SEM and used it to derive the minimum detectable change values. Reported MDCs were 71.35 N for trunk flexion and 101.20 N for trunk extension. These MDC values quantify the magnitude of force change that must be exceeded to be confident a real change has occurred rather than random measurement variation.
The source does not provide the raw SEM values, confidence intervals for MDCs, or the formulae and constants used to compute the SEM and MDC in the text provided here.
The research received ethical approval from the Brisbane Private Hospital Low Risk Ethics Committee (LREC21BPH2). The authors confirmed that participant consent and adherence to reporting guidelines were obtained. Funding for the project was declared as a research grant from Johnson & Johnson Health Care Products & Pharmaceuticals (grant number DPS-SPINE-2020-017).
Datasets generated for the study are not publicly available due to potentially identifiable information and participant confidentiality. The authors state that de-identified data may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to ethical approval and institutional requirements.
Among the 29 healthy adults tested, the VALD ForceFrame Strength Testing System produced excellent reliability for maximal isometric trunk flexion and extension, with high correlation coefficients and ICC ranges indicating consistent test–retest performance. The reported MDCs (71.35 N for flexion and 101.20 N for extension) provide clinicians with thresholds for interpreting whether observed changes in measured force exceed measurement error.
These results suggest the VALD ForceFrame may offer a standardized and reliable alternative to less standardized handheld dynamometry for assessing change in trunk muscle strength. However, the source reports only healthy participants and does not include detailed demographic or procedural parameters in the summary text; applicability to clinical populations, specific spinal pathology groups, or to different testing protocols would require further data or replication.
The study concludes that the VALD ForceFrame provides a reliable method for quantifying maximal isometric trunk flexor and extensor strength in a sample of healthy community-dwelling adults. Clinicians seeking standardized strength assessment tools can consider the ForceFrame, keeping in mind the reported MDC thresholds for interpreting meaningful change. Additional reporting of procedural details and testing in clinical populations would strengthen generalisability.