AUTHOR=Warneke Konstantin , Wagner Carl-Maximilian , Keiner Michael , Hillebrecht Martin , Schiemann Stephan , Behm David George , Wallot Sebastian , Wirth Klaus 

TITLE=Maximal strength measurement: A critical evaluation of common methods—a narrative review

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

VOLUME=5

YEAR=2023

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1105201

DOI=10.3389/fspor.2023.1105201

ISSN=2624-9367

ABSTRACT=<p>Measuring maximal strength (MSt) is a very common performance diagnoses, especially in elite and competitive sports. The most popular procedure in test batteries is to test the one repetition maximum (1RM). Since testing maximum dynamic strength is very time consuming, it often suggested to use isometric testing conditions instead. This suggestion is based on the assumption that the high Pearson correlation coefficients of <italic>r</italic> ≥ 0.7 between isometric and dynamic conditions indicate that both tests would provide similar measures of MSt. However, calculating r provides information about the relationship between two parameters, but does not provide any statement about the agreement or concordance of two testing procedures. Hence, to assess replaceability, the concordance correlation coefficient (<italic>ρ</italic><sub>c</sub>) and the Bland-Altman analysis including the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) seem to be more appropriate. Therefore, an exemplary model based on <italic>r</italic> = 0.55 showed <italic>ρ</italic><sub>c</sub> = 0.53, A MAE of 413.58 N and a MAPE = 23.6% with a range of −1,000–800 N within 95% Confidence interval (95%CI), while <italic>r</italic> = 0.7 and 0.92 showed <italic>ρ</italic><sub>c</sub> = 0.68 with a MAE = 304.51N/MAPE = 17.4% with a range of −750 N–600 N within a 95% CI and <italic>ρ</italic><sub>c</sub> = 0.9 with a MAE = 139.99/MAPE = 7.1% with a range of −200–450 N within a 95% CI, respectively. This model illustrates the limited validity of correlation coefficients to evaluate the replaceability of two testing procedures. Interpretation and classification of <italic>ρ</italic><sub>c</sub>, MAE and MAPE seem to depend on expected changes of the measured parameter. A MAPE of about 17% between two testing procedures can be assumed to be intolerably high.</p>