3D strength surfaces for ankle plantar- and dorsi-flexion in healthy adults: an isometric and isokinetic dynamometry study

Table 4 Linear regression models for predicting composite^a isometric and isokinetic peak torques

Model	Predictor	Coefficients		p-value
		Beta	Std. Beta
Isometric PF				.077
(R² = 0.174)	Height (cm)	-.146	-.089	.705
(N = 48)	Weight (kg)	.263	.228	.313
	Sex (M = 0,F = 1)	−8.886	-.271	.172
	Activity (MET^amin/week)	.000	.086	.566
Isometric DF				< .001
(R² = 0.683)	Height (cm)	.119	.110	.451
(N = 52)	Weight (kg)	.159	.226	.107
	Sex (M = 0,F = 1)	−12.481	-.562	.000
	Activity (MET^amin/week)	.000	.044	.616
Isokinetic PF				.004
(R² = 0.297)	Height (cm)	.470	.337	.124
(N = 48)	Weight (kg)	-.116	-.119	.569
	Sex (M = 0, F = 1)	−9.263	-.333	.072
	Activity (MET^amin/week)	-.001	-.202	.147
Isokinetic DF				< .001
(R² = 0.704)	Height (cm)	.121	.193	.172
(N = 52)	Weight (kg)	.142	.350	.012
	Sex (M = 0,F = 1)	−5.031	-.395	.001
	Activity (MET^amin/week)	.000	-.006	.941

^aComposite isometric torques were calculated as the means from 10, 20 and 30° PF for each direction; Composite isokinetic torques were calculated as the means from 15 angle-velocity combinations (−10° DF, 0° PF, 10° PF, 20° PF and 30° PF at 30, 60 and 120°/s) for each direction
Note 4 subjects had missing data for PF torque, but not DF torque, thus sample sizes for these composite strength score analyses are not equal
Significant p-values are indicated with bold

ISSN: 1757-1146