Maximal strength measurement: A critical evaluation of common methods—a narrative review
Research output: Journal contributions › Scientific review articles › Research
Standard
In: Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, Vol. 5, 1105201, 17.02.2023.
Research output: Journal contributions › Scientific review articles › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Maximal strength measurement
T2 - A critical evaluation of common methods—a narrative review
AU - Warneke, Konstantin
AU - Wagner, Carl Maximilian
AU - Keiner, Michael
AU - Hillebrecht, Martin
AU - Schiemann, Stephan
AU - Behm, David George
AU - Wallot, Sebastian
AU - Wirth, Klaus
N1 - Publisher Copyright: 2023 Warneke, Wagner, Keiner, Hillebrecht, Schiemann, Behm, Wallot and Wirth.
PY - 2023/2/17
Y1 - 2023/2/17
N2 - Measuring maximal strength (MSt) is a very common performance diagnoses, especially in elite and competitive sports. The most popular procedure in test batteries is to test the one repetition maximum (1RM). Since testing maximum dynamic strength is very time consuming, it often suggested to use isometric testing conditions instead. This suggestion is based on the assumption that the high Pearson correlation coefficients of r ≥ 0.7 between isometric and dynamic conditions indicate that both tests would provide similar measures of MSt. However, calculating r provides information about the relationship between two parameters, but does not provide any statement about the agreement or concordance of two testing procedures. Hence, to assess replaceability, the concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) and the Bland-Altman analysis including the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) seem to be more appropriate. Therefore, an exemplary model based on r = 0.55 showed ρc = 0.53, A MAE of 413.58 N and a MAPE = 23.6% with a range of −1,000–800 N within 95% Confidence interval (95%CI), while r = 0.7 and 0.92 showed ρc = 0.68 with a MAE = 304.51N/MAPE = 17.4% with a range of −750 N–600 N within a 95% CI and ρc = 0.9 with a MAE = 139.99/MAPE = 7.1% with a range of −200–450 N within a 95% CI, respectively. This model illustrates the limited validity of correlation coefficients to evaluate the replaceability of two testing procedures. Interpretation and classification of ρc, MAE and MAPE seem to depend on expected changes of the measured parameter. A MAPE of about 17% between two testing procedures can be assumed to be intolerably high.
AB - Measuring maximal strength (MSt) is a very common performance diagnoses, especially in elite and competitive sports. The most popular procedure in test batteries is to test the one repetition maximum (1RM). Since testing maximum dynamic strength is very time consuming, it often suggested to use isometric testing conditions instead. This suggestion is based on the assumption that the high Pearson correlation coefficients of r ≥ 0.7 between isometric and dynamic conditions indicate that both tests would provide similar measures of MSt. However, calculating r provides information about the relationship between two parameters, but does not provide any statement about the agreement or concordance of two testing procedures. Hence, to assess replaceability, the concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) and the Bland-Altman analysis including the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) seem to be more appropriate. Therefore, an exemplary model based on r = 0.55 showed ρc = 0.53, A MAE of 413.58 N and a MAPE = 23.6% with a range of −1,000–800 N within 95% Confidence interval (95%CI), while r = 0.7 and 0.92 showed ρc = 0.68 with a MAE = 304.51N/MAPE = 17.4% with a range of −750 N–600 N within a 95% CI and ρc = 0.9 with a MAE = 139.99/MAPE = 7.1% with a range of −200–450 N within a 95% CI, respectively. This model illustrates the limited validity of correlation coefficients to evaluate the replaceability of two testing procedures. Interpretation and classification of ρc, MAE and MAPE seem to depend on expected changes of the measured parameter. A MAPE of about 17% between two testing procedures can be assumed to be intolerably high.
KW - 1RM
KW - agreement
KW - dynamic
KW - isometric
KW - isometric mid thigh pull
KW - maximal strength testing
KW - performance testing
KW - squat
KW - Physical education and sports
KW - Psychology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149668865&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/7a836dae-ef81-3768-bef2-71ba39b66735/
U2 - 10.3389/fspor.2023.1105201
DO - 10.3389/fspor.2023.1105201
M3 - Scientific review articles
C2 - 36873661
AN - SCOPUS:85149668865
VL - 5
JO - Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
JF - Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
SN - 2642-9367
M1 - 1105201
ER -