Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesThe aim of this paper was to review studies that investigated the reliability of the 1RM test of muscular strength and summarize their findings.MethodsThe 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.ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionsBased 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.

Highlights

  • Muscular strength can be defined as “the ability to exert a force on an external object or resistance” [1]

  • 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, and sex or age of participants

  • In the Seo et al [46] study, coefficient of variation (CV) was 0.5%, while in the Ribeiro et al [40] study, it was 12.1%. 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, number of familiarization trials, and resistance training experience

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Muscular strength can be defined as “the ability to exert a force on an external object or resistance” [1]. Higher levels of muscular strength may result in better performance in a range of sport-specific tasks and decrease the (2020) 6:31 risk of injuries in athletes [1]. Higher muscular strength is associated with a reduced risk of premature mortality [5]. Taking these factors into account, it is not surprising that organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend participating in muscular-strengthening activities on a regular basis [6, 7]. Investigating aspects of strength as a muscular quality in relation to performance in different exercise tasks is important from a sports performance perspective. Studying associations of strength with health outcomes, such as mortality risk, chronic disease, and quality of life, is important to advance public health. 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
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call