Quantification of the Safe Maximal Lift in Functional Capacity Evaluations: Comparison of Muscle Recruitment Using SEMG and Therapist Observation
- 263 Downloads
Introduction This study aimed to identify any correlation between muscle activity using surface electromyography (SEMG) and therapist determined safe maximal lift (SML) during the bench to shoulder lift of the WorkHab FCE. This would support construct (convergent) validity of SML determination in the WorkHab FCE. Method An experimental laboratory based study design was used. Twenty healthy volunteers performed the bench to shoulder lift of the WorkHab FCE whilst SEMG of upper trapezius, mid deltoid, thoracic, brachioradialis and bicep muscles were recorded. A summary of the data is presented using descriptive statistics and differences between groups were tested using generalised linear mixed models. Results Results showed a significant difference in activity and duration of muscle activation with increasing weight lifted [p = 0.000 and p = 0.024 (brachioradialis)]. There was a significant difference between the up lift (bench to shoulder) and the down lift (shoulder to bench) for all muscles (p = 0.000) except the brachioradialis (p = 0.819). No significant change was found in muscle activity before or after the SML. Conclusion Convergent validity of the bench to shoulder lift of the WorkHab FCE was not established as no relationship between the muscle recruitment using SEMG and SML, as determined by therapist observation was identified during this lift.
KeywordsElectromyography Lifting Work capacity evaluation WorkHab FCE
The authors would like to thank the individuals who volunteered to participate in this study and WorkHab Australia who donated the equipment to complete the study. This study was made possible with the support of a University of Newcastle Equity Fellowship grant (No.: GO189367).
- 12.Isernhagen S. Functional capacity testing:what’s new? what’s different. Interdiscip J Rehabil. 2009; June: 20–3.Google Scholar
- 23.Mitchell T. Utilization of the functional capacity evaluation in vocational rehabilitation. J Vocat Rehabil. 2008;28(1):21–8.Google Scholar
- 26.Bradbury S, Roberts D. Workhab functional capacity evaluation procedural manual WorkHab Australia; 1998.Google Scholar
- 27.Cram J, Kasman G, Holtz J. Introduction to surface electromyography. Maryland: Aspen; 1998.Google Scholar
- 34.Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer P, Frings-Dresen M. Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluation methods: a systematic review with reference to Blankenship, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2004;77(8):527–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.Google Scholar
- 39.Holtgrefe K, Glenn T. Principles of aerobic exercise. In: Kisner C, Colby L, editors. Therapeutic exercise: foundations and techniques. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis; 2007. p. 231–49.Google Scholar
- 43.StataCorp. Stata statistical software: version 11.1. College Station, TX. 11.1 ed 2009.Google Scholar
- 47.Cifrek M, Medved V, Tonkovic S, Ostojic S. Surface EMG based muscle fatigue evaluation in biomechanics. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2009;24(4):327–40.Google Scholar
- 54.NSW Workers Compensation Act (1987). http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+70+1987+FIRST+0+N?#pt.3-div.2-sec.40a.