The journal of nutrition, health & aging

, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp 907–912 | Cite as

Comparison of hand dynamometers in elderly people




Some dynamometers previously tested in healthy adults showed variable degrees of practicality, weight and ergonomics. More practical models could also be used as a more suitable tool in gerontological field and clinical studies. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the reliability of the measurements and the performance of hand grip strength dynamometers in the elderly.

Study design

Crosssectional study.


A retirement home and a social day care centre for old people in Porto, Portugal.

Participants and measurements

The accuracy of four static grip strength dynamometers (Smedlay’s® Hand, Sammons Preston Rolyan® Bulb, Eisenhut® and the Jamar® Hydraulic Hand) was first tested in laboratory. The grip strength of fifty-five elderly individuals 65–99 years was measured with the four dynamometers and the Jamar® Hydraulic Hand which was used as the comparison dynamometer.


The accuracy of the four dynamometers measurements compared to known forces was excellent (r > 0.96). A strong association between the measurements obtained by the Jamar® Hydraulic and the other instruments evaluated was found (r > 0.77) but significant differences between the mean hand grip strength values evaluated with the Jamar® Hydraulic and each one of the other dynamometers were found. The Bland and Altman plots confirmed that none of the three dynamometers reflects a good agreement with the Jamar® Hydraulic.


All four dynamometers showed excellent results regarding their laboratory tested accuracy. However, their application among elderly people rendered very different results. The Smedlay’s® results’ were closer to the Jamar® Hydraulic, though none of these three dynamometers produced comparable results to the Jamar® Hydraulic.

Key words

Hand grip strength dynamometers elderly Mini Nutritional Assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rantanen T, Era P, Heikkinen E. Maximal isometric strength and mobility among 75-year-old men and women. Age Ageing. 1994; 23(2):32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klidjian AM, Archer TJ, Foster KJ, Karran SJ. Detection of dangerous malnutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1982; 6(2):119–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Windsor JA, Hill GL. Grip strength: a measure of the proportion of protein loss in surgical patients. Br J Surg. 1988; 75(9):880–882.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webb AR, Newman LA, Taylor M, Keogh JB. Hand grip dynamometry as a predictor of postoperative complications reappraisal using age standardized grip strengths. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1989; 13(1):30–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matos LC, Tavares MM, Amaral TF. Handgrip strength as a hospital admission nutritional risk screening method. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007; 61(9):1128–1135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rantanen T, Avlund K, Suominen H, Schroll M, Frändin K, Pertti E. Muscle strength as a predictor of onset of ADL dependence in people aged 75 years. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2002; 14(3) Suppl:10–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bohannon RW. Hand-grip dynamometry predicts future outcomes in aging adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2008; 31(1):3–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M, Simonsick EM, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB et al. Strength, but not muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the health, aging and body composition study cohort. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006; 61(1):72–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Syddall H, Cooper C, Martin F, Briggs R, Aihie Sayer A. Is grip strength a useful single marker of frailty? Age Ageing. 2003; 32(6):650–656.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohannon RW. Test-retest reliability of the MicroFET 4 hand-grip dynamometer. Physiother Theory Pract. 2006; 22(4):219–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathiowetz V, Vizenor L, Melander D. Comparison of baseline instruments to the Jamar dynamometer and the B&L engineering pinch gauge. Occup Ther J Res. 2000; 20:147–162.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bellace JV, Healy D, Besser MP, Byron T, Hohman L. Validity of the Dexter Evaluation System’s Jamar dynamometer attachment for assessment of hand grip strength in a normal population. J Hand Ther. 2000; 13(1):46–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mathiowetz V. Comparison of Rolyan and Jamar dynamometers for measuring grip strength. Occup Ther Int. 2002; 9(3):201–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fike ML, Rousseu E. Measurement of adult hand strength: a comparison of 2 instruments. OccupTher J Res. 1982; 2:43–49.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamilton GF, McDonald C, Chernier TC. Measurement of grip strength — validity and reliability of the sphygmomanometer and Jamar grip dynamometer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1992; 16:216–219.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shechtman O, Davenport R, Malcolm M, Nabavi D. Reliability and validity of the BTE-Primus grip tool. J Hand Ther. 2003; 16(1):36–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beaton DE, O’Driscoll SW, Richards RR. Grip strength testing using the BTE work simulator and the Jamar dynamometer: a comparative study. Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1995; 20(2):293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown A, Cramer LD, Eckhaus D, Schmidt J, Ware L, MacKenzie E. Validity and reliability of the dexter hand evaluation and therapy system in hand-injured patients. J Hand Ther. 2000; 13(1):37–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fess EE. Grip Strength. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Society of Hand Therapists; 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaz M, Thangam S, Prabhu A, Shetty PS. Maximal voluntary contraction as a functional indicator of adult chronic undernutrition. Br J Nutr. 1996; 76(1):9–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee RD, Nieman DC. Nutritional Assessment, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Mosby; 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jarzem PF, Gledhill RB. Predicting height from arm measurements. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 1993; 13:761–765.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Mini Nutritional Assessment: A practical assessment tool for grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Facts and Research in Gerontology. 1994; 2Suppl:15–59.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rubenstein LZ, Harker J, Guigoz Y and Vellas B. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and the MNA: An Overview of CGA, Nutritional Assessment, and Development of a Shortened Version of the MNA. In: “Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA): Research and Practice in the Elderly”. Vellas B, Garry PJ and Guigoz Y, editors. Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Series. Clinical & Performance Programme, vol. 1. Karger, Basel 1999, pp101–116.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nestlé Nutrition Institute, MNA® Elderly [homepage]. NNI [accessed in 2008 Jan03]. MNA® Forms, Portuguese. Available at:
  26. 26.
    Vellas B, Guigoz Y, Garry PJ, Nourhashemi F, Bennahum D, Lauque S et al. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition. 1999; 15(2):116–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Massy-Westropp N, Rankin W, Ahern M, Krishnan J, Hearn TC. Measuring grip strength in normal adults: reference ranges and a comparison of electronic and hydraulic instruments. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2004; 29(3):514–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mathiowetz V. Comparison of Rolyan and Jamar dynamometers for measuring grip strength. Occup Ther Int. 2002; 9(3):201–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bohannon RW. Parallel comparison of grip strength measures obtained with a MicroFET 4 and a Jamar dynamometer. Percept Mot Skills. 2005; 100(3 Pt 1):795–798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shechtman O, Gestewitz L, Kimble C. Reliability and validity of the DynEx dynamometer. J Hand Ther. 2005; 18(3):339–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Last J. A dictionary of epidemiology. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guigoz Y. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) review of the literature—What does it tell us? J Nutr Health Aging. 2006; 10(6):466–485; discussion 485–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guigoz Y, Lauque S, Vellas BJ. Identifying the elderly at risk for malnutrition. The Mini Nutritional Assessment. Clin Geriatr Med. 2002; 18(4):737–757.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andrews AW, Thomas MW, Bohannon RW. Normative values for isometric muscle force measurements obtained with hand-held dynamometers. Phys Ther. 1996; 76(3):248–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frederiksen H, Hjelmborg J, Mortensen J, McGue M, Vaupel JW, Christensen K. Age trajectories of grip strength: cross-sectional and longitudinal data among 8,342 Danes aged 46 to 102. Ann Epidemiol. 2006; 16(7):554–562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luna-Heredia E, Martín-Peña G, Ruiz-Galiana J. Handgrip dynamometry in healthy adults. Clin Nutr. 2005; 24(2):250–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer Verlag France 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculdade de Ciências da Nutrição e Alimentação da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.UISPAUnidade de Integração de Sistemas e Processos Automatizados do Instituto de Engenharia Mecanica da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Faculdade de Ciências da Nutrição e Alimentação da Universidade do Porto. Rua Dr. Roberto FriasPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations