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

Abstract

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.

Test-Retest Reliability of Velocity and Power in the Deadlift and Squat Exercises Assessed by the GymAware PowerTool System

“…Significant differences were also found when comparing the second and third sessions, with higher values for peak velocity, mean velocity, and mean power at 30% of 1RM recorded in the second session. These results seem counterintuitive, as one might expect to observe a better performance in subsequent testing, as observed for weight lifted in the 1RM test (Grgic et al, 2020). Banyard et al (2017) demonstrated that there are changes in the force-velocity relationship and its ability to predict 1RM in the back squat exercise across a week of training, even though the actual 1RM stayed relatively stable.…”

Placebo Effect of Caffeine on Maximal Strength and Strength Endurance in Healthy Recreationally Trained Women Habituated to Caffeine

“…Since the 1RM test and the sets until muscular failure were not a usual practice for participants, 3 weeks before the onset of the experimental trials, two familiarization sessions separated by 1 week were performed, in order to restrict learning effects during the experiment and decrease the risk of injury [ 32 ]. In each familiarization session, participants arrived at the laboratory at the same time of day and performed a standardized warm-up.…”

Can the Cambered Bar Enhance Acute Performance in the Bench Press Exercise?

“…All repetitions were performed without bouncing the bar off the chest, without intentionally pausing at the transition between the negative and positive work, and without raising the hips off the bench. The 1RM test has goodto-excellent test-retest reliability (Grgic et al, 2020).…”