Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 25, 2026

08:40
Quantifying Arms and Legs Contributions during Repetitive Electrically-Assisted Sit-To-Stand Exercise in Paraplegics: A Pilot Study
Published on: November 11, 2022
1.1K
Evaluating the Test-Retest Reliability and Measurement Error of a Sit-Stand-Power Test in Individuals Treated for
Genevieve L Bottone1, Kenneth S Anderson1, Alexander M Brooks1
1University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Integrative Cancer Therapies
|April 24, 2026
Summary
The sit-to-stand power (STSp) test shows good reliability for assessing lower-body muscular power in cancer survivors. This low-cost test can help monitor power changes in oncological settings, but protocol standardization is needed.
Area of Science:
- Exercise oncology
- Musculoskeletal function assessment
- Cancer rehabilitation
Background:
- Muscular strength and physical function are key in exercise oncology, but muscular power is often overlooked.
- Muscular power significantly impacts morbidity and mortality.
- The sit-to-stand power (STSp) test is a practical method for evaluating lower-body power.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the STSp test in cancer survivors.
- To determine the measurement error and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the STSp test.
- To assess the feasibility of the STSp test in oncological settings.
Main Methods:
- 103 adults treated for cancer completed the STSp test twice within 2-10 days.
- Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC(3,1)).
- Standard error of measurement (SEM) and MDC were calculated.
Main Results:
- The STSp test demonstrated good reliability for both peak power (ICC=0.86) and average power (ICC=0.86).
- Peak power SEM was 199.9 W and MDC was 554.10 W.
- Average power SEM was 179.05 W and MDC was 496.30 W.
Conclusions:
- The STSp test is a reliable tool for assessing lower-body muscular power in cancer survivors.
- Its low cost and feasibility make it suitable for monitoring power in oncology.
- Substantial within-subject variability necessitates further protocol standardization.

