Cargando…
Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review
BACKGROUND: The test–retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test varies across different studies. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is, and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367986/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32681399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00260-z |
_version_ | 1783560525619134464 |
---|---|
author | Grgic, Jozo Lazinica, Bruno Schoenfeld, Brad J. Pedisic, Zeljko |
author_facet | Grgic, Jozo Lazinica, Bruno Schoenfeld, Brad J. Pedisic, Zeljko |
author_sort | Grgic, Jozo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The test–retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test varies across different studies. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is, and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection for the test, the number of familiarization trials and resistance training experience. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to review studies that investigated the reliability of the 1RM test of muscular strength and summarize their findings. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Searches for studies were conducted through eight databases. Studies that investigated test–retest reliability of the 1RM test and presented intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and/or coefficient of variation (CV) were included. The COSMIN checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: After reviewing 1024 search records, 32 studies (pooled n = 1595) on test–retest reliability of 1RM assessment were found. All the studies were of moderate or excellent methodological quality. Test–retest ICCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.99 (median ICC = 0.97), where 92% of ICCs were ≥ 0.90, and 97% of ICCs were ≥ 0.80. The CVs ranged from 0.5 to 12.1% (median CV = 4.2%). ICCs were generally high (≥ 0.90), and most CVs were low (< 10%) for 1RM tests: (1) among those without and for those with some resistance training experience, (2) conducted with or without familiarization sessions, (3) with single-joint or multi-joint exercises, (4) for upper- and lower-body strength assessment, (5) among females and males, and (6) among young to middle-aged adults and among older adults. Most studies did not find systematic changes in test results between the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this review, it can be concluded that the 1RM test generally has good to excellent test–retest reliability, regardless of resistance training experience, number of familiarization sessions, exercise selection, part of the body assessed (upper vs. lower body), and sex or age of participants. Researchers and practitioners, therefore, can use the 1RM test as a reliable test of muscular strength. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7367986 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73679862020-07-22 Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review Grgic, Jozo Lazinica, Bruno Schoenfeld, Brad J. Pedisic, Zeljko Sports Med Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: The test–retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test varies across different studies. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is, and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection for the test, the number of familiarization trials and resistance training experience. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to review studies that investigated the reliability of the 1RM test of muscular strength and summarize their findings. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Searches for studies were conducted through eight databases. Studies that investigated test–retest reliability of the 1RM test and presented intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and/or coefficient of variation (CV) were included. The COSMIN checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: After reviewing 1024 search records, 32 studies (pooled n = 1595) on test–retest reliability of 1RM assessment were found. All the studies were of moderate or excellent methodological quality. Test–retest ICCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.99 (median ICC = 0.97), where 92% of ICCs were ≥ 0.90, and 97% of ICCs were ≥ 0.80. The CVs ranged from 0.5 to 12.1% (median CV = 4.2%). ICCs were generally high (≥ 0.90), and most CVs were low (< 10%) for 1RM tests: (1) among those without and for those with some resistance training experience, (2) conducted with or without familiarization sessions, (3) with single-joint or multi-joint exercises, (4) for upper- and lower-body strength assessment, (5) among females and males, and (6) among young to middle-aged adults and among older adults. Most studies did not find systematic changes in test results between the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this review, it can be concluded that the 1RM test generally has good to excellent test–retest reliability, regardless of resistance training experience, number of familiarization sessions, exercise selection, part of the body assessed (upper vs. lower body), and sex or age of participants. Researchers and practitioners, therefore, can use the 1RM test as a reliable test of muscular strength. Springer International Publishing 2020-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7367986/ /pubmed/32681399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00260-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Grgic, Jozo Lazinica, Bruno Schoenfeld, Brad J. Pedisic, Zeljko Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review |
title | Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review |
title_full | Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review |
title_short | Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review |
title_sort | test–retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1rm) strength assessment: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367986/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32681399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00260-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT grgicjozo testretestreliabilityoftheonerepetitionmaximum1rmstrengthassessmentasystematicreview AT lazinicabruno testretestreliabilityoftheonerepetitionmaximum1rmstrengthassessmentasystematicreview AT schoenfeldbradj testretestreliabilityoftheonerepetitionmaximum1rmstrengthassessmentasystematicreview AT pedisiczeljko testretestreliabilityoftheonerepetitionmaximum1rmstrengthassessmentasystematicreview |