## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Retest**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cohen’s d**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ICC 095\% CD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SSE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RMSE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\% Error**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\% CV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SEM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MDCo**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SEE**} \\  & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(kg)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Average Force**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**S1–2**} & \(63.9\pm 12.4\) & \(69.1\pm 16.0\) & 0.22 & 0.36 & 0.31 (\(-\)017-0.67) & 5428.87 & 66.22 & 8.13 & 19.05 & 18.15 & 12.07 & \(-\)0.19 & 15.28 \\ \multicolumn{11}{c}{**S3–54**} & \(72.2\pm 15.8\) & \(72.9\pm 17.7\) & 0.73 & 0.04 & 0.87 (0.68-0.95) & 1363.95 & 16.63 & 4.07 & 6.63 & 8.70 & 6.31 & \(-\)0.02 & 8.91 \\ \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Dominant Leg Position**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Non-Dominant Leg Position**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**S1–2**} & \(78.4\pm 13.7\) & \(81.9\pm 14.0\) & 0.24 & 0.25 & 0.64 (0.26-0.85) & 2745.27 & 33.48 & 5.87 & 13.77 & 10.75 & 8.62 & \(-\)0.10 & 11.07 \\ \multicolumn{11}{c}{**S3–54**} & \(85.5\pm 17.3\) & \(86.7\pm 15.1\) & 0.53 & 0.07 & 0.89 (0.73-0.96) & 1130.45 & 13.79 & 3.71 & 5.54 & 6.61 & 5.70 & \(-\)0.03 & 6.99 \\ \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Non-Dominant Leg Position**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**S1–2**} & \(76.9\pm 15.1\) & \(82.1\pm 14.8\) & 0.14 & 0.35 & 0.58 (0.17-0.82) & 3898.28 & 47.54 & 6.89 & 11.67 & 12.59 & 10.01 & \(-\)0.16 & 12.33 \\ \multicolumn{11}{c}{**S3–54**} & \(88.5\pm 16.9\) & \(88.3\pm 15.5\) & 0.24 & 0.17 & 0.84 (0.62-0.94) & 1738.65 & 21.20 & 4.60 & 8.18 & 7.89 & 6.86 & \(-\)0.08 & 8.76 \\ \multicolumn{11}{c}{**No-Tow Class are presented as a non-5 SD–0 standard deviation, ICC = intrinsic correlation coefficient, CI = confidence interval; SSE = sum of squared errors; MSE = mean sum of squared errors; MSE = mean sum of squared errors; MSE = root mean sum of squared errors; MSE = percentage error; ’SEM = standard error of measurement; MDCo = minimal detectable change in 0% of participants; CV = percentage coefficient of variance; SEE standard error of estimate.** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._The values from session three and session four (intersession reliability) were used to compare the CVs through the CVratio, and it revealed that the peak force was able to determine the outcomes of the bilateral position with higher reliability than the mean force. There are no significant differences in reliability between the peak force and the average force for the dominant position and the non-dominant position (Figure 4A). Furthermore, the dominant is the most reliable position for assessing the starting blocks with both the peak force and the mean force variable (Figure 4B). The mean values from tests five and six and tests seven and eight (intrasession reliability) were used to compare the CVs through the CVratio, and only the dominant position presented significant differences in reliability (CVratio > 1.15), being the average force with more reliability (Figure 4C). When the three positions were compared, there were significant differences between bilateral and dominant and non-dominant in peak and average force; however, no differences were found between bilateral and non-dominant positions in peak and average force (Figure 4D).