Testing Consistency: Analyzing the Reliability of Two Lower Limb Isometric Force Measurements in Strength-Trained Athletes  
[PERSON]  
1 Strength Training and Neuromuscular (STreNigthP) Research Group, Faculty of Health Science, Camilo Jose Cela University, 28692 Madrid, Spain; [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (F.G.); marcosa.soriano@urjc-es (M.A.S. ); [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (V.P.-M.) 1  
[PERSON]  
1 Strength Training and Neuromuscular (STreNigthP) Research Group, Faculty of Health Science, Camilo Jose Cela University, 28692 Madrid, Spain; [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (F.G.); [PERSON]@urjc-es (M.A.S. ); [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (V.P.-M.) 1  
[PERSON]  
1 Strength Training and Neuromuscular (STreNigthP) Research Group, Faculty of Health Science, Camilo Jose Cela University, 28692 Madrid, Spain; [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (F.G.); marcosa.soriano@urjc-es (M.A.S. ); [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (V.P.-M.) 1  
[PERSON]  
1 Strength Training and Neuromuscular (STreNigthP) Research Group, Faculty of Health Science, Camilo Jose Cela University, 28692 Madrid, Spain; [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (F.G.); marcosa.soriano@urjc-es (M.A.S. ); [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (V.P.-M.) 1  
Footnote 1: [[https://doi.org/10.3390/app1501030](https://doi.org/10.3390/app1501030)]([https://doi.org/10.3390/app1501030](https://doi.org/10.3390/app1501030))  
Footnote 2: [[https://www.stsci.edu/~gmail/st](https://www.stsci.edu/~gmail/st)]([https://www.stsci.edu/~gmail/st](https://www.stsci.edu/~gmail/st))  
the coach [3; 4; 5]. It is important to select muscular strength evaluation tests that not only measure what they intend to measure (i.e., are valid) but can also do so consistently and with a certain degree of reproducibility (i.e., are reliable) [6]. The methods used to assess maximum force generation capacity are classified according to the nature of this expression of strength, such as dynamic or static evaluations [7; 8]. Maximum dynamic strength tests are used in the practical field, often evaluated using a one-repetition maximum (1 RM), which does not require sophisticated machinery, is reliable, and provides a valid method for determining maximum strength. However, some limitations must be considered, such as the subject's prior experience, the high neuromuscular demand, the fatigue that the test produces, and the time required to complete the test [9; 10]. On the other hand, maximum isometric force evaluations, which represent the method of static maximum strength evaluation, are time-efficient, especially with large groups of athletes. However, they are less accessible as they require specific equipment, such as force platforms and specific racks, to measure the kinetic variables produced by the athlete during evaluation [11; 12; 13]. In recent years, the isometric mid-high pull (IMTP) has been advantageous for coaches and physical trainers since it is a test that produces minimal fatigue and generally takes less time than one-repetition maximum (1 RM) evaluation, while also being considered safe with a very low incidence of injury [14]. Specifically, the IMTP is a test that involves multiple joints to assess the athlete's isometric force capacity [11; 15]. This test became popular for monitoring weightlifters, as the body position is meant to represent the second pull of the clean [16]. Additionally, maximal isometric force evaluation through the IMTP test has been shown to provide highly reliable and low-variable peak force (PF) results (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.89\(-\)0.99, coefficient of variation\" [CV] = 1.7-5%), and it is possible to determine the smallest detectable change (SDC) around \(\sim\)8.5% [13; 17]. Recent reviews have documented the relationship between IMTP variables and other dynamic strength evaluation methods [13; 18; 19], showing strong correlations (r = 0.64-0.97) with 1 RM in clean and jerk, snatch, squat, and deadlift [16; 20; 21]. Similarly, high correlations have been evidenced with other dynamic performance tasks such as changes of direction (r = 0.57-0.85) [22], sprint kinetics (r = 0.48-0.73), and vertical jump height (r = 0.59-0.82) [23; 24].