Test–retest reliability of the 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test: A systematic review

Grgić, Jozo; Lazinica, Bruno; Pedišić, Željko

doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2020.04.010

Cited by 33 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When calculated from the same data, one study demonstrated that six different types of ICC ranged from 0.51 to 0.87 [68]. This issue is not limited to the studies included herein as recent reviews that focused on the test-retest reliability of the Yo-Yo test and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15 IFT) also highlighted this as a limitation [69,70]. Even though not all studies reported the specific type of ICC types they used, 92% of all ICCs were still ≥ 0.90, suggesting that this limitation might not have had a profound impact on the findings of this review.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Players were told to complete as many stages as possible, and the test was ended when the players could not maintain the required running speed or could not reach the 3-m zone before the beep three consecutive times. The final velocity registered in the last stage determined the player’s V IFT score ( Buchheit et al, 2009 ; Grgic et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships Between Aerobic Performance, Hemoglobin Levels, and Training Load During Small-Sided Games: A Study in Professional Soccer Players

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this study were (1) to analyze between-session variations of external and internal load measures during small-sided games (SSGs) and (2) to test the relationships between the maximum speed reached (VIFT) during the last stage of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test, hemoglobin levels, and training load measures during SSG intervals among professional soccer players. Sixteen professional soccer players (mean ± SD; age 27.2 ± 3.4 years, height 174.2 ± 3.6 cm, body mass 69.1 ± 6.4 kg, and body fat 10.4 ± 4.1%) participated in this study. Hemoglobin and aerobic performance were first tested, and then a 3-week SSG program was applied using a 3 vs. 3 format. During those 3 weeks, internal and external load of entire sessions were also monitored for all training sessions. Trivial-to-small, standardized differences were observed between sessions for external and internal measures during SSGs. Total distance (TD) and mechanical work (MW) were the only variables that indicated small changes. Large-to-very-large relationships were found between VIFT and external loads: TD (r range: 0.69; 0.87), high-intensity running (HIR; r range: 0.66; 0.75), and MW (r range: 0.56; 0.68). Moderate-to-large negative relationships were found between hemoglobin levels and internal loads: Edwards’ TRIMP (r range: −0.36; −0.63), %HRmax (r range: −0.50; −0.61), and red zone (r range: −0.50; −0.61). VIFT had unclear relationships with overall internal loads, while hemoglobin levels presented unclear relationships with overall external loads. In conclusion, no meaningful changes were found between sessions considering the format of play used. Additionally, the detected relationships indicate that VIFT and hemoglobin levels are good indicators of the performance capacity and physiological profile of players during SSGs. Also, the use of SSGs protocols as a monitoring complement of the 30-15IFT is suggested.

show abstract

“…There are a number of monitoring tools and parameters to assist in this individualization process such as aerobic power (Milanez et al, 2011), the end speed of the 30-15 intermittent fitness tests (Malone et al, 2018a;Grgic et al, 2020), the anaerobic speed reserve (Buchheit and Mendez-Villanueva, 2014), muscle power (Loturco et al, 2019), heart rate variability (Rave et al, 2018(Rave et al, , 2019, countermovement jump performance (Claudino et al, 2012), the force-velocity profile (Mendiguchia et al, 2016), HR measures during specific drills (Lacome et al, 2018), wellbeing questionnaires (Malone et al, 2018b), or individualized training loads modeling (Bartlett et al, 2017) among others. Specific monitoring tools should be selected and adapted to each sport and setting while developing the athlete monitoring cycle (Gabbett et al, 2017).…”

Section: The Individualization Approach In Team Sportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do you Play or Do you Train? Insights From Individual Sports for Training Load and Injury Risk Management in Team Sports Based on Individualization

Boullosa

Casado

Claudino³

et al. 2020

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Test–retest reliability of the 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test: A systematic review

Abstract: Highlights The 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test has excellent test-retest reliability for maximal velocity. Excellent test-retest reliability was also noted for peak heart rate. This test may be used as a reliable measure of fitness in research and sports practice.

Cited by 33 publications

References 29 publications

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

Relationships Between Aerobic Performance, Hemoglobin Levels, and Training Load During Small-Sided Games: A Study in Professional Soccer Players

Do you Play or Do you Train? Insights From Individual Sports for Training Load and Injury Risk Management in Team Sports Based on Individualization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About