## 4 Discussion
\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 Force at 200 ms (N) & 15.1 & 0.81 & 403.1 & 176.0 & 0.650 & \(-\)0.06 \\  & (11.6–21.9) & (0.58–0.92) & (308.4–582.2) & (134.6–254.1) & 0.650 & (\(-\)0.69 to 0.56) \\ \hline RFD 0–200 ms (N-s) & 22.3 & 0.81 & 1624.3 & 719.7 & 0.447 & 0.11 \\  & (17.0–32.1) & (0.59–0.92) & (1242.7–2345.6) & (550.6–1039.3) & 0.447 & (\(-\)0.52 to 0.73) \\ \hline Impulse 0–200 ms (N-s) & 16.8 & 0.75 & 66,919.3 & 25,649.7 & 0.549 & \(-\)0.10 \\  & (12.9–24.3) & (0.47–0.89) & (51,197.2–96,636.1) & (19,623.5–37,039.9) & 0.549 & (\(-\)0.72 to 0.53) \\ \hline Force at 250 ms (N) & 14.7 & 0.77 & 425.8 & 171.1 & 0.836 & 0.03 \\  & (11.3–21.2) & (0.52–0.90) & (325.8–614.9) & (130.9–247.1) & 0.836 & (\(-\)0.59 to 0.66) \\ \hline RFD 0–250 ms (N-s) & 21.3 & 0.76 & 1435.2 & 564.5 & 0.269 & 0.17 \\  & (16.3–30.8) & (0.50–0.90) & (1089.2–0.272.5) & (431.9–815.2) & 0.269 & (\(-\)0.45 to 0.80) \\ \hline Impulse 0–250 ms (N-s) & 15.3 & 0.77 & 83,347.7 & 33,422.8 & 0.736 & \(-\)0.05 \\  & (01.1–22.1) & (0.51–0.90) & (63,765.9–120,359.8) & (25,570.4–48,264.9) & 0.736 & (\(-\)0.68 to 0.57) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **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} 
Table 4: _Cont._literature. RPF demonstrated good to excellent reliability for both tests with low variability between sessions. Both PF and RPF for IMTP and IBSqT are metrics that offer reliability and test-retest reproducibility. IMP 0-50 ms was found to be reliable between sessions. For RFD, only RFD 0-250 ms achieved acceptable reliability in IMTP, aligning with some studies where authors conclude that this metric is unreliable and excessively variable between sessions [44]. Reliable RFD data may require a high level of subject familiarity with such tests [45]. Another important contribution of this study is the confirmation that both IMTP and IBSqT are sensitive to performance changes. The SEM value indicates the range within which the true score of the subject in the test may fall, using the same unit of measurement as the test, and generally helps determine if there were significant performance changes [46] if this value is below the minimal detectable change (SDD); otherwise, it could be attributed to measurement error [39]. This study utilized SWC0.2, which, unlike SDD, provides information on whether the obtained value is not only significant but also clinically relevant for detecting performance changes. Coaches and sports science professionals can use SWC0.5 to provide a context of \"clinically relevant change\" to group analysis, as SWC0.2 may lack sensitivity [40,41]. However, when comparing the bias with previous studies, the results of this study reveal greater bias and variability in the IMTP force measurements, suggesting that factors such as technique, familiarity with the protocol, or individual participant characteristics may have influenced the higher dispersion observed. While the average bias is low and consistent with prior research, the wide limits of agreement (LoA) and the high standard deviation of the bias (224.6 N) indicate greater variability in the measurements within the conditions of this study. These findings are more pronounced when compared to studies that use highly standardized protocols, such as [PERSON] et al. (2015), which reported limits of agreement between \(-\)150 N and 150 N, much narrower than the \(\pm\)456.9 N observed in this study. This increase in variability could be related to differences in the protocol used (e.g., execution technique or warm-up) or the sample characteristics, as this study included athletes with varying strength levels.