Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

Detection Of A "faked" Strength Task Effort In Volunteers Using A Computerized Exercise Testing System.

D. Fishbain, E. Abdel-Moty, R. Cutler, H. Rosomoff, R. Steele-Rosomoff
Published 1999 · Medicine, Psychology

Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
The objective of this study was to develop an experimental method to separate a "faked" strength effort from a "best" effort in volunteers. Thirty-four pain-free volunteers (18 males, 16 females) performed a shoulder press and pull-down on an isokinetic computerized exercise testing system (CETS), giving a best effort followed by a faked effort. Two months later, a randomly selected subgroup (6 males) repeated the experiment to test the predictive validity of the derived variables. In the statistical analysis, best efforts were first compared with fake efforts by paired ttest for 80 CETS variables for males and females separately. Variables showing a strong difference between the best and faked effort were then selected for further analysis. In the second step of the analysis, the method of multiple correlations (r2 method) was used to reduce the number of redundant CETS variables to five in both the male and female groups. In the third step, a stepwise discriminant analysis was used to select predictor variables for the male and female groups. For the variables selected by the discriminant analysis for both males and females, sensitivities and specificities were calculated. Finally, the developed discriminant formula was used in the predictive validity part of the study to determine the sensitivities and specificities of the developed method. The discriminant analysis selected the following CETS variables for male and female groups, respectively: duty cycle down, work weight/down, peak value up (males); and average power up, 40% repetition down, duty cycle up (females). For males, using their three variables, the discriminant function classified 77.14% of the efforts correctly with 88.9% sensitivity and 64.7% specificity. For females, using their three variables, the discriminant function classified 90.63% of the efforts correctly with 100% sensitivity and 81.3% specificity. In the predictive validity group, the discriminant function classified 75% of the efforts correctly with 83.3% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity. This pilot study indicates that the method developed here may be useful in the experimental study for the discrimination between faked and best efforts on this isokinetic CETS machine. Future studies using this method will need to involve a larger number of volunteers.
This paper references
10.1097/00043764-198309000-00017
The seriously uninjured hand--weakness of grip.
H. Stokes (1983)
10.1097/00007632-199208000-00008
Effect of Instructions on Isokinetic Trunk Strength Testing Variability, Reliability, Absolute Value, and Predictive Validity
L. Matheson (1992)
10.1249/00005768-198205000-00015
Differentiated ratings of perceived exertion during physical exercise.
K. Pandolf (1982)
10.1016/0003-9993(92)90013-M
Forced-choice testing provides evidence of malingering.
L. Binder (1992)
10.1097/00002060-199004000-00010
Voluntary Control of Submaximal Grip Strength
B. Niebuhr (1990)
Electromyography reliability in maximal and submaximal isometric contractions.
J. Yang (1983)
10.1097/00007632-199209000-00009
Lifting Capacity Indices of Subject Effort
R. Hazard (1992)
10.1097/00002517-199203000-00002
Lumbar iEMG during isotonic exercise: chronic low back pain patients versus controls.
M. Robinson (1992)
10.1016/0268-0033(88)90035-6
Differentiation of maximal and submaximal knee extension efforts by isokinetic testing.
R. Bohannon (1988)
10.1097/00002517-199112000-00006
Reproducibility of maximal versus submaximal efforts in an isometric lumbar extension task.
M. Robinson (1991)
10.1007/BF01076741
Detecting submaximal efforts in grip strength testing with the coefficient of variation
M. Robinson (2005)
10.1097/00007632-198801000-00013
Isokinetic Trunk and Lifting Strength Measurements: Variability as an Indicator of Effort
R. Hazard (1988)
10.1177/0272989X9501500112
Meta-analytic Tools for Medical Decision Making: A Practical Guide
V. Hasselblad (1995)
10.1016/0363-5023(89)90204-9
Detection of submaximal effort by use of the rapid exchange grip.
D. Hildreth (1989)
10.1177/001872088102300601
Evaluation of Maximal and Submaximal Static Muscle Exertions
K. Kroemer (1981)
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb21257.x
THE DETERMINATION OF MALINGERING
I. Y. Bash (1980)
10.1097/00002060-198710000-00001
DIFFERENTIATION OF MAXIMAL FROM SUBMAXIMAL STATIC ELBOW FLEXOR EFFORTS BY MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY
R. Bohannon (1987)
10.1097/00043764-199308000-00015
Consistency of sincere and feigned grip exertions with repeated testing.
E. Hoffmaster (1993)
10.1097/00002060-198904000-00006
Assessing Sincerity of Effort in Maximal Grip Strength Tests
G. A. Smith (1989)
10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.77
Cross-Validation of a Psychological Test Battery to Detect Faked Insanity.
D. Schretlen (1992)
10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90298-1
Suboptimal muscular performance: measuring isokinetic strength of knee extensors with new testing protocol.
Z. Dvir (1996)
10.2519/JOSPT.1996.24.1.19
Detection of submaximal effort in isometric and isokinetic knee extension tests.
P. C. Lin (1996)



This paper is referenced by
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar