4.4 Article

Effect of Knee and Trunk Angle on Kinetic Variables During the Isometric Midthigh Pull: Test-Retest Reliability

Journal

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2014-0077

Keywords

peak force; impulse; rate of force development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) has been used to monitor changes in force, maximum rate of force development (mRFD), and impulse, with performance in this task being associated with performance in athletic tasks. Numerous postures have been adopted in the literature, which may affect the kinetic variables during the task; therefore, the aim of this investigation was to determine whether different knee-joint angles (120 degrees, 130 degrees, 140 degrees, and 150 degrees) and hip-joint angles (125 degrees and 145 degrees), including the subjects preferred posture, affect force, mRFD, and impulse during the IMTP. Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated high within-session reliability (r >= .870, P < .001) for all kinetic variables determined in all postures, excluding impulse measures during the 130 degrees knee-flexion, 125 degrees hip-flexion posture, which showed a low to moderate reliability (r = .666-.739, P < .001), while between-sessions testing demonstrated high reliability (r > .819, P < .001) for all. kinetic variables. There were no significant differences in peak force (P>.05, Cohen d = 0.037, power = .408), mRFD (P> .05, Cohen d = 0.037, power = .409), or impulse at 100 ms (P> .05, Cohen d = 0.056, power = .609), 200 ms (P> .05, Cohen d = 0.057, power = .624), or 300 ms (P> .05, Cohen d = 0.061, power = .656) across postures. Smallest detectable differences demonstrated that changes in performance of >1.3% in peak isometric force, >10.3% in mRFD, >5.3% in impulse at 100 ms, >4.4% in impulse at 200 ms, and >7.1% in impulse at 300 ms should be considered meaningful, irrespective of posture.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available