Reliability and differences between the classic and the impulse model of isometric testing in function of maximal and explosive strength: Pilot research

Abstract

The evaluation of maximal and explosive strength with isometric testing has a significant role in scientific and training practice, from which can be drawn needed information about the segment of the physical state of athletes. The aim of this research was to examine the reliability of the impulse model of isometric testing and to determine the quantitative differences in maximal and explosive strength in accordance to the classic and the impulse model of isometric testing. The laboratory method with tensiometric dynamometry was applied. The research was conducted on a sample of 28 adult and physically active participants. Tests for plantar flexors (PF), right handgrip (HGR), and left handgrip (HGL) were implemented, and all participants had three attempts for each test. Four variables were measured: maximal strength - Fmax, maximal explosive strength - RFDmax, time for maximal strength exertion - tFmax, time for maximal explosive strength exertion - tRFDmax for both models of testing for each test, implementing a standardized testing procedure. Performed data analysis included descriptive and correlation statistics, and a t-test for determining differences for dependent samples. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between Fmax,RFDmax, tFmax and tRFDmax in PF, HGR and HGL, except for tRFDmax between classic and impulse models of testing. Impulse model has excellent reliability (ICC = 0.909 - 0.989) for PF, HGR, and HGL tests. The initial results of this study implicate approval for correction of the isometric testing procedure in the next direction: for measuring maximal strength it is approved to use the classic model of isometric testing, while for measuring explosive strength it is approved to use the impulse model.

Keywords

• differences /testing
• measuring models
• contractile abilities