NIOSHTIC-2 Publications Search
Comparison of dynamic, static, and psychophysical evaluations of human strength capabilities.
Atuahene F; Freivalds A
J Hum Ergol 1987 Jan; 16(2):179-191
Methods of evaluation (static, dynamic, and psychophysical) of human strength were compared in terms of absolute strength values obtained, reliability and repeatability, for three types of tests involving the major muscle groups: arm/shoulders, legs, and torso. Twenty university students were selected as subjects for this study. There was a large variation in human strength capability depending on how it was measured. Specifically, the study indicated that static strength was greater than dynamic strength which was greater than psychophysical strength. Leg strength was greater than torso strength which was greater than arm strength. The male coefficient of variability was one half the female coefficient of variability. The coefficient of variability for dynamic strength was greater than that for static which was greater than psychophysical. Each method also had certain constraints which may limit its validity for given situations. Results indicated that, while static strength testing is the simplest method, it may not be the most valid, considering the dynamic aspect of a task. Dynamic strength testing may be the more appropriate method but will depend on the isokinetic velocity chosen and the type of measurement equipment used. Considerably more time was involved in psychophysical strength testing, and the results may vary according to each person's individual interpretation of the test as well as feelings of fatigue.
NIOSH-Publication; NIOSH-Grant; Grants-other; Biomechanics; Ergonomics; Musculoskeletal-system; Muscle-function; Task-performance; Work-capability; Sex-factors
Industrial & Mgmt Systems Engr Pennsylvania State University 207 Old Main Bldg University Park, Penn
Issue of Publication
Other Occupational Concerns; Grants-other
Journal of Human Ergology
Pennsylvania State University Park, University Park, Pennsylvania
Page last reviewed: February 18, 2022
Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Information Division