PubData Leuphana Repository: Maximal strength measurement: A critical evaluation of common methods

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.48548/pubdata-1418

Resource type	Journal Article
Title(s)	Maximal strength measurement: A critical evaluation of common methods - a narrative review
DOI	10.48548/pubdata-1418
Handle	20.500.14123/1487
Creator	Warneke, Konstantin 0000-0003-4964-2867 Wagner, Carl-Maximilian 0009-0003-7879-1287 Keiner, Michael 0000-0002-1817-1743 Hillebrecht, Martin 139928820 Schiemann, Stephan 0000-0002-0703-8509 131474332 Behm, David George 0000-0002-9406-6056 Wallot, Sebastian 0000-0002-3626-3940 Wirth, Klaus 0000-0001-9862-4951
Abstract	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.
Language	English
Keywords	Maximal Strength; Performance; Testing
Year of publication in PubData	2024
Publishing type	Parallel publication
Publication version	Published version
Date issued	2023-02-17
Creation context	Research
Notes	This publication was funded by the Open Access Publication Fund of Leuphana University Lüneburg.
Published by	Medien- und Informationszentrum, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Related resources	Relations of this publication Relations of this publication

Information regarding first publication

Field	Value
Resource type	Journal
Title of the resource type	Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
Identifier	DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1105201
Publication year	2023
Volume	5
Number	1105201
Number type	Article
Publisher	Frontiers