## 3 Results
### Between-Session Reliability in IMTP  
Between-session IMTP SEM, SWC0.2, and effect size (ES), are presented in Table 3. Similar to intra-session tests, PF and RPF demonstrated excellent reliability values (ICC = 0.96; 0.99) and acceptable variability (5.3-3.2%). Force at all its time points demonstrated good reliability (ICC = 0.77; 0.84) with variability values around 10.8-13.6%. For RFD, ICC values range from poor to excellent (0.33-0.94), with CV ranging from 10.1% to 42%. IMP 0-50 ms showed good reliability (ICC = 0.80) and met the acceptable variability criterion (CV = 8.7%), while other time windows showed good reliability (ICC = 0.78-0.79), with CV ranging from 10.3% to 11.8%. Paired \(t\)-tests showed no significant differences between test sessions for all kinetic variables (\(p>0.05\)). Additionally, RPF demonstrated good sensitivity to performance changes, with SWC0.2 scoring higher than SEM. For IMTP, the average bias for peak force (PF) was \(-\)36.47 N, with a bias SD of 210.9 N and 95% LoA \(-\)449.7 N and 376.8 N. For the body mass-relative measurement (PF/BM), IMTP showed an average bias of \(-\)0.2802 N/kg, with narrow LoA between \(-\)5.714 N/kg and 5.153 N/kg. Regarding the force at 50 ms, IMTP showed a bias of \(-\)29.23 N, with an SD of 169 N and LoA between \(-\)360.5 N and 302 N. In terms of RFD at 50 ms, IMTP presented an average bias of 531 N, with wide LoA between \(-\)4053 N and 5115 N. At 150 ms, the force showed a bias of \(-\)43.65 N, with LoA between \(-\)602.3 N and 515 N. The RFD at 150 ms showed a bias of \(-\)96.52 N, with LoA ranging from \(-\)2621 N to 2428 N. For impulse at 150 ms, IMTP showed a bias of \(-\)5700 N-ms, with extremely wide LoA ranging from \(-\)63,908 N-ms to 52,508 N-ms. At 250 ms, the force showed a positive bias of 33.57 N, with LoA between \(-\)629 N and 696.1 N. The RFD at 250 ms showed a bias of 234 N, with LoA ranging from \(-\)1033 N to 1501 N. For impulse at 250 ms, IMTP presented a bias of 593.1 N-ms, with LoA ranging from \(-\)140,137 N-ms to 141,323 N-ms. All these data are displayed in Figures 3-6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **CV\% (95\%C)** & **ICC (95\%C)** & **SEM (95\%C)** & **SWC 0.2 (95\%C)** & **\(p\) Value** & **ES (g) (95\%C)** \\ \hline Peak force (N) & 5.3 & 0.96 & 158.8 & 148.4 & 0.737 & \(-\)0.02 \\  & (4.1–7.7) & (0.90–0.98) & (121.5–229.3) & (113.6–214.4) & 0.737 & (\(-\)0.65 to 0  
Figure 3: Bland–Altman plots of peak force and peak force relative to body weight in the isometric mid- thigh pull (IMTP) and isometric belt squat test (IBSqT). Dashed lines represent the value of zero and the limits of agreement for the test-retest evaluations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **CV\% (95\%CI)** & **ICC (95\%CI)** & **SEM (95\%CI)** & **SWC 0.2 (95\%CI)** & \(p\) **Value** & **ES (g) (95\%CI)** \\ \hline RFD 0–200 ms (N-s) & 16.5 & 0.91 & 1237.8 & 746.1 & & 0.12 \\  & (13.3–22.0) & (0.82–0.96) & (995.5–1650.9) & (441.7–969.0) & 0.273 & (–0.50 to 0.75) \\ \hline Impulse 0–200 ms (N-s) & 9.7 & 0.93 & 38,024.7 & 26,554.6 & & \(-\)0.01 \\  & (7.8–13.0) & (0.86–0.97) & (30,582.7–50.715.9) & (15,525.9–343.16.2) & 0.936 & (–0.64 to 0.61) \\ \hline Force at 250 ms (N) & 13.0 & 0.86 & 376.7 & 178.7 & & 0.06 \\  & (10.4–17.3) & (0.73–0.93) & (303.0–502.5) & (108.9–234.9) & 0.654 & (–0.57 to 0.68) \\ \hline RFD 0–250 ms (N-s) & 19.9 & 0.84 & 1387.2 & 606.9 & & 0.12 \\  & (16.0–26.5) & (0.69–0.92) & (1115.7–1850.2) & (374.4–801.9) & 0.113 & (–0.50 to 0.75) \\ \hline Impulse 0–250 ms (N-s) & 8.7 & 0.93 & 47,029.1 & 33,397.7 & & 0.01 \\  & (7.0–11.6) & (0.86–0.97) & (37,824.8–62,725.5) & (19,503.1–43,138.4) & 0.700 & (–0.62 to 0.63) \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{IMTP: Isometric Mid–Thigh Pull; SD: Standard Deviation; CV%: Coefficient of Variation; ICC: Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; SEM: Standard Error of Measurement; SWC: Smallest Worthwhile Change; N: Newton; N/kg: Newton per kilogram); N-s: Newton-second.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}