ArticleJournal of human kinetics2019
The Inter-Session Reliability of Isometric Force-Time Variables and the Effects of Filtering and Starting Force.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and Reliability of the G-Force System: Force Plate and Load Cell for the Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull in Physically Active Adults: A Repeated-Measures Method-Comparison Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Secondary Analysis to Evaluate Performance Expression Stability of Alternative Complex-Contrast Training Set Strategies.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of testing-parameter variability on force production in the isometric single-leg long-lever bridge: implications for training and testing rigor in sporting environments.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Rate of Force Development for Quadriceps in Older Patients with Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purposes of the present study were to assess the inter-session reliability of force-time variables recorded during isometric back squats and also to assess the effects of applying a filter to the data prior to analysis and assess the effects of different starting force thresholds on the force-time variables. Eleven resistance trained men (age: 22.5 ± 1.9 years; body mass: 90.3 ± 13.5 kg) attended two sessions where they performed isometric squats on force plates allowing the determination of force-time variables of maximal isometric force (Fmax) and different measures of the rate of force development (RFD). The force-time variables were calculated from both raw and filtered force signals. The start of the force application was determined using force thresholds of 1% or 5% of body mass (BM). Inter-session reliability for the force-time measures was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variation (CV) of the measures. The ICC and CV ranged from 0.03 to 0.96 and 4.6 to 168%, respectively. The application of the filter significantly reduced Fmax and peak RFD (p < 0.004) and increased the reliability of the peak RFD. The use of the 5% BM threshold increased the magnitude of many of the RFD measures (p < 0.004) and resulted in slight improvements in the reliability of these measures although the resulting temporal shift in the force-time signal would preclude accurate assessment of the early phase of the RFD (< 100 ms). The use of a 1% BM starting force threshold without a filter is recommended when using the isometric back squat protocol presented here. Furthermore, the RFD calculated within specific time intervals is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.