Between-Sessions Reliability and Magnitude Differences in the Isometric Midthigh Pull: Effects of Procedural and Analytical Variations

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of procedure, ranking method, and summarization method on between-sessions reliability and magnitude of force measures for the isometric midthigh pull. METHODS: Thirty-two national- and international-level athletes performed short (∼1 s) and traditional (3-5 s) isometric midthigh pull protocols during consecutive weeks. Net force at peak (PF) and net force at 50, 100 (NF100), 150, and 200 milliseconds were collected. Trials were ranked using PF and NF100, and 4 summarization methods were applied: mean, mean of best 3, mean of best 2, and best trial. Reliability statistics were calculated for the resulting data combinations, and linear mixed models were used to assess differences between the most reliable conditions for each procedure. RESULTS: For early force measures (≤200 milliseconds), the short procedure demonstrated superior reliability compared with traditional, specifically when trials were ranked on NF100 (traditional [mean]: intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .68-.82, coefficient of variation [CV] = 12.0%-16.0%; short [mean best 3, ranked on NF100]: ICC = .77-.91, CV = 8.2%-10.8%). For PF, all conditions exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC = .89-.97, CV = 4.7%-7.4%), but it was slightly better with traditional procedures. All early force measures were significantly greater (P < .001) using the short procedure, with mean differences of 15% to 28%. Conversely, PF was significantly lower (P < .001) using the short procedure (-9% on average), although individual differences varied. CONCLUSIONS: Ideally, both traditional and short procedures would be implemented to comprehensively assess peak and early force-generating capacity. However, the short procedure offers a time-effective and reliable alternative to assess both capacities more efficiently.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.