The relationship between torque and joint angle during knee extension in boys and men.

The length-tension relationship of muscle contraction is well documented in adults. However, research on this relationship in children has been limited. The aim of this study was to compare differences in the torque-joint angle relationship of the quadriceps muscle in children and adults. Eight boys aged 8-10 years and eight men aged 20-26 years performed two maximal voluntary isometric contractions at six knee joint angles (20 degrees, 40 degrees, 60 degrees, 80 degrees, 90 degrees, 100 degrees). The mean of the two trials was used as the performance measure. Both groups demonstrated an expected increase in relative torque as the joint angle increased (P< 0.05). The men produced significantly greater relative torque at 20 degrees, 40 degrees and 60 degrees knee flexion (P < 0.05). The percentage of maximal torque at these angles for the men and boys respectively were: 35.2+/-4.3 vs 15.2+/-12%, 63.6+/-9.1 vs 51.8+/-16.8% and 93.6+/-6.5 vs 84.4+/-14.4%. There were no group differences at 80 degrees or 90 degrees. Peak torque was attained at 80 degrees in men, but decreased significantly (P< 0.05) at 90 degrees and 100 degrees. For boys, peak torque was attained at joint angles of 80 degrees and 90 degrees. The reduction in peak torque at 100 degrees was not statistically significant, but the relative torque at this angle was lower in men than in boys (77.9+/-13.7 vs 87.1+/-10.4%; P< 0.05). In conclusion, the relationship between torque and joint angle appears to be affected by age.     

Growth in Precursor and Reading‐Related Skills: Do Low‐Achieving and IQ‐Discrepant Readers Develop Differently?

Poor readers who met low achievement and IQ‐discrepancy definitions of reading disability were compared with nonimpaired readers on their development of eight precursor and reading‐related skills to evaluate developmental differences prior to students’ identification as reading disabled. Results indicated no evidence for differences between the two groups of poor readers in the development of the eight skills, with three exceptions. Students in the IQ‐discrepant group demonstrated greater growth in letter sound knowledge, greater mean performance in visual‐motor integration at the beginning of first grade, and greater deceleration in rapid naming of letters. When compared to the nonimpaired group, low‐achieving readers demonstrated poorer performance and development in all skills, while the IQ‐discrepant readers demonstrated poorer performance and development in phonemic awareness, rapid naming of letters and objects, spelling, and word reading. The largely null results for comparisons between the two groups of poor readers challenges the validity of the two‐group classification of reading disabilities based on IQ‐discrepancy.