SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bohannon, R. W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bohannon, R. W
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The relationship between static standing capacity and lower limb static strength in hemiparetic stroke patients

Richard W Bohannon

Department of Physical Therapy, Southeastern Regional Rehabilitation Centre, Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, Fayetteville

This study was undertaken to determine if static standing capacity in 81 hemiparetic stroke patients was related to the static strength of seven muscle groups of both the paretic and nonparetic lower extremities. Standing capacity was graded using an ordinal scale. Static strength was measured using a hand held dynamometer. Standing capacity was correlated (p<0.01) with the strength of six muscle groups of each lower extremity. Regression analysis revealed that standing capacity was predictable by the strength of the paretic muscle groups (adjusted R2 = 0.193, F = 3.74, p = 0.002), but not the nonparetic muscle groups (adjusted R2 = 0.121, F = 2.57, p = 0.020). Because of the distribution of standing scores in this study and the limited explanation of standing capacity by the strength measurements, further study is important if the factors responsible for standing capacity are to be identified. Such identification should help direct the choice of treatment strategies.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 287-291 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/026921558700100405


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
R. W Bohannon, S. Walsh, and M. C Joseph
Ordinal and timed balance measurements: reliability and validity in patients with stroke
Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 1993; 7(1): 9 - 13.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Advertisement