
The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of strength-endurance protocols using isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Twenty-eight participants (23.2 ± 4.9 years) completed two protocols across four testing sessions. Protocol one consisted of 10 maximal IMTP tests lasting 5 seconds each with 10 seconds rest between. Protocol two consisted of a prolonged 60 second maximal IMTP. Data from protocol 1 was analysed in two ways; (a) use of the highest peak value from the first three IMTP efforts, and the lowest peak value from the final three IMTP efforts, and (b) use of the mean peak force from the first three IMTP efforts and mean peak force from the final three IMTP efforts. Data from protocol two used the highest and lowest peak values in the first- and final-15 seconds. Analyses revealed excellent reliability for peak force across all four testing sessions (ICC = 0.94), as well as good test-retest reliability for strength-endurance for protocol 1 (a; ICC = 0.81, b; ICC = 0.79). Test-retest reliability for protocol 2 was poor (ICC = 0.305). Bland-Altman bias values were smaller for protocol 1(a = −8.8 Nm, b = 21.7 Nm) compared to protocol 2 = (119.3 Nm). Our data suggest that 10 maximal IMTP tests performed as described herein is a reliable method for exercise professionals to assess both peak force and strength-endurance in a single, time-efficient protocol.
Male, Adult, Anatomy and Physiology, QH301-705.5, R, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Thigh, Repetitions, Isometric Contraction, Strength testing, Physical Endurance, Exercise Test, Medicine, Humans, Female, Muscle Strength, Peak force, Biology (General), Muscle, Skeletal, Fatigue
Male, Adult, Anatomy and Physiology, QH301-705.5, R, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Thigh, Repetitions, Isometric Contraction, Strength testing, Physical Endurance, Exercise Test, Medicine, Humans, Female, Muscle Strength, Peak force, Biology (General), Muscle, Skeletal, Fatigue
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
