Back

App-Guided Grip Strength Assessment: Feasibility and Validity of Self-administered Testing with a Smart Dynamometer

Francis, G.; DeTreux, K.; Enright, M.; George, L.; Lambrides, Y.; Mangudi Varadarajan, K.; Tsui, W.

2026-01-30 orthopedics
10.64898/2026.01.29.26345154 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionRemote grip strength assessment offers potential for scalable at-home health monitoring, yet most validated methods require in-person supervision. The Squegg Smart Dynamometer is a Bluetooth-enabled device designed for both supervised and remote app-guided, self-administered testing. Validating self-administered grip strength assessment is essential for clinical and research use. This study evaluated whether self-administered grip strength measurements with the Squegg device are comparable to supervised testing, and examined the influence of participant and procedural factors. MethodsIn this prospective, within-subject comparative study, 96 healthy adults completed grip strength tests with the Squegg device under two modalities: self-administered (app-guided) and supervised (by trained personnel). Covariates included sex, hand dominance, age, education, prior grip testing experience, and test order. Analyses included Shapiro-Wilk tests, ANOVA, and Bland-Altman analysis. ResultsGrip strength residuals met normality assumptions. Guidance modality (self-administered vs. supervised) had no significant effect (F1,270 = 1.41, p = 0.24). The mean difference between modalities was 0.68 lbs relative to an average grip strength of 83.4 lbs (95% CI: -1.77 to 0.41). Sex explained 45% of between-subject variation. Within subjects, variation was associated with hand dominance (6%), test order (4%), and guidance modality (0.4%). No significant effects were observed for age, education, or prior device experience. Bland-Altman analysis showed consistent agreement across the grip strength range. ConclusionsSelf-administered grip strength assessments with the Squegg Smart Dynamometer are comparable to supervised testing, supporting its potential for remote patient monitoring. Future work should confirm findings in broader populations, home settings, and longitudinal contexts.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 2%
14.8%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.5%
4
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
6
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
7
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
9
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
10
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
11
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
15
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
16
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
18
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
23
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
24
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%