Within- and Between-Session Reliability of the Isometric Midthigh Pull in Young Female Athletes

• Autores: Sylvia Moeskops, Jon L. Oliver, Paul J. Read, John B. Cronin, Gregory D. Myer, G. Gregory Haff, Rhodri S. Lloyd
• Localización: Journal of strength and conditioning research: the research journal of the NSCA, ISSN 1064-8011, Vol. 32, Nº. 7, 2018, págs. 1892-1901
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • To investigate the within- and between-session reliability of the isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) in pre– and post–peak height velocity (PHV) female athletes. Nineteen pre- and 19 post-PHV athletes performed bilateral IMTPs using a custom-designed isometric testing system. Participants attended 3 separate testing sessions and performed 3 trials within each session. Peak force, relative peak force, force at 30, 50, 90, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms, rate of force development (RFD) within time-specific bands, time to peak force (TPF), and time to peak RFD were obtained for analysis. Within- and between-session reliability for each variable was calculated from repeated-measures analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and coefficients of variation (CV) with 95% confidence intervals. Within- and between-session measures of absolute and relative peak force were found to be reliable for both pre-PHV (CV <= 9.4%, ICC >= 0.87) and post-PHV (CV <= 7.3%, ICC >= 0.92), but systematic bias was evident between sessions in the pre-PHV group, from session 1 to 2. Analyses of force at the specific time points revealed CVs between 19–37% and 5–24% for pre-PHV and post-PHV athletes, respectively. Greater variability was evident in TPF, and all RFD-related variables for pre-PHV (CV >= 38%) and post-PHV (CV >= 27%) athletes, respectively. The IMTP appears a reliable and safe method for evaluating peak force in young female athletes. Overall, post-PHV athletes were more reliable than pre-PHV athletes, with pre-PHV athletes needing additional familiarization to minimize the influence of systematic bias.