Comparison of isokinetic and isoinertial lifting tests as predictors of maximal lifting capacity

  • Ira Jacobs
  • Douglas G. Bell
  • Jan Pope


This study compared the relationship between isokinetic lifting test (ILT) performance and a maximal operational lifting test (OLT) with that between an isoinertial progressive lifting test (PLT) and OLT. Fifty subjects performed the ILT, PLT and OLT after familiarization trials. OLT was defined as the weight of the heaviest crate that could be lifted to 1.34 m with a progressive, incremental test. ILT performance was the force generated during a single maximal simulated lift on an isokinetic dynamometer. PLT performance was the maximal weight lifted to 1.52 m with a progressive, incremental protocol on a weight stack. OLT was highly correlated with ILT (r=0.96) and PLT (r=0.97); the standard error was similar for both linear regression equations. The results demonstrate that a single maximal voluntary lift on an isokinetic dynamometer is as good a predictor of OLT as in the PLT presently used in military recruit centers.

Key words

Muscle strength Ergometry Occupational Military Lifting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aghazadeh F, Ayoub MM (1985) A comparison of dynamicand static-strength models for prediction of lifting capacity. Ergonomics 28:1409–1417Google Scholar
  2. Arnold JD, Rauschenberger JM, Souble WG, Guion RM (1982) Validation and utility of a strength test for selecting steelworkers. J Appl Psychol 67:588–604Google Scholar
  3. Asmussen E (1967) Measurement of muscular strength. Försvarsmedicin 3:152–155Google Scholar
  4. Aume NM (1984) A machine for weight-lift testing. Report AFAMRL-TR-84-040. Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OhioGoogle Scholar
  5. Borg G (1962) Physical performance and perceived exertion. Gleerup, LundGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaffin DB, Herrin GD, Keyserling WM (1978) Preemployment strength testing: an updated position. J Occup Med 20:403–408Google Scholar
  7. Dixon WJ (ed) (1981) BMDP statistical software. University of California Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacobs I, Pope J (1986) A computerized system for muscle strength evaluation: measurement reproducibility, validity and some normative data. Nat Strength Condition Assoc J 8:28–33Google Scholar
  9. Jetté M, Sidney K, Regimbai M, Barsalou J, Montelpare W (1987) Effects of three heavy resistance weight training programs on the upper body strength of young women. Can J Sport Sci 12:71–77Google Scholar
  10. Jiang BC, Ayoub MM (1987) Modelling of maximum acceptable load of lifting by physical factors. Ergonomics 30:529–538Google Scholar
  11. Kamon E, Kiser D, Landa Pytel J (1982) Dynamic and static lifting capacity and muscular strength of steelmill workers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 43:853–857Google Scholar
  12. Karwowski W, Mitai A (1986) Isometric and isokinetic testing of lifting strength of males in team work. Ergonomics 29:869–878Google Scholar
  13. Kroemer KHE (1983) An isoinertial technique to assess individual lifting capacity. Hum Factors 25:493–506Google Scholar
  14. McDaniel JW, Skandis RJ, Madole SW (1983) Weight lift capabilities of air force basic trainees. Report AFAMRL-TR-83-0001, Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OhioGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitai A, Vinayagamoorhty R (1984) Three-dimensional dynamic strength measuring device: a prototype. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45:B9-B12Google Scholar
  16. Mital A, Karwowski W, Mazouz A-K, Orsarh E (1986) Prediction of maximum acceptable weight of lift in the horizontal and vertical planes using simulated job dynamic strengths. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 5:288–292Google Scholar
  17. Nordesjö L-O, Schéle R (1974) Validity of an ergometer cycle test and measures of isometric muscle strength when predicting some aspects of military performance. Försvarsmedicin 10:11–23Google Scholar
  18. Nottrodt JW, Celentano EJ (1984) OPSS: Prediction of maximal lifting capacity. DCIEM Report No. 84-R-60, Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  19. Pytel JL, Kamon E (1981) Dynamic strength test as a predictor for maximal and acceptable lifting. Ergonomics 24:663–672Google Scholar
  20. Sale DG, Norman RW (1982) Testing strength and power. In: MacDougall JD, Wenger HD, Green HJ (eds) Physiological testing of the elite athlete. Canadian Association of Sport Sciences, Mutual Press, pp 7–37Google Scholar
  21. Sharp DS, Wright JE, Vogel JA, Patton JF, Daniels WL, Knapik J, Kowal DM (1980) Screening for physical capacity in the US army: analysis of measures predictive of strength and stamina. USARIEM Report No. T8/80, United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MassGoogle Scholar
  22. Wright JE, Sharps DS, Vogel JA (1984) Assessment of muscle strength and prediction of lifting capacity in US army personnel. USARIEM-M-9/85, United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MassGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ira Jacobs
    • 1
  • Douglas G. Bell
    • 1
  • Jan Pope
    • 1
  1. 1.Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental MedicineDownsviewCanada

Personalised recommendations