hh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Reliability and Validity of Conducting 1 RM Tests in the Quantum Machine
Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science.
2015 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Background: Within the world of sport, the improvement in technology is increasingon a day-to-day basis. As a result of these enhancements, we have seenimprovements in sports in addition to world records being broken. In order to find outwhat an individual’s maximal strength is in a desired exercise, a One Repetition Max(1RM) test is conducted. If the results of a test are to have any meaning, the newequipment/technology must be tested for its reliability and validity. The Swedishcompany 1080 motion have released a brand new product called the QuantumMotion 1080 (QM1080). However, this product has not been tested for its validity andits reliability in 1RM tests. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate whether theQM1080 is valid and reliable in order to assess an individual’s 1RM for the benchpress, backsquat and lat pulldown. Method: 25 subjects participated in this study.Each of the subjects was required to perform 1RM tests in the bench press,backsquat and lat pulldown. These tests were conducted on three occasions with 48hours separating them, two of which in the QM1080 and once with free weights (goldstandard). The maximum weight that was lifted was recorded upon completion ofthe protocol. Criterion validity was assessed by a Spearman’s correlation and anICC was used to calculate reliability. ≥0.9 was accepted as acceptable criterionvalidity with 95% CI. Results: The amount of weight that was lifted was higher whenusing free weights in comparison to the QM1080 machine in the bench press (p<0.001) and backsquat (p <0.001) whereas no difference was identified in the latpulldown trials (p 0.31). Based on the highest lifted value in the QM 1080, the benchpress and backsquat trials were narrowly found to not reach criterion validity (rs 0.89)whereas the lat pulldown clearly did not (rs 0.78). The lat pulldown, however wasfound to be reliable (ICC 0.95; 95%CI 0.89; 0.98) while the bench press andbacksquat did not meet acceptable reliability (ICC 0.87; 95%CI 0.70; 0.94 and 0.80;95%CI 0.48; 0.92 respectively). Conclusion: The 1RM tests performed in the benchpress, backsquat and lat pulldown did not assess criterion validity and reliability inthe QM1080. However the bench press exercise was the only exercise that was veryclose to meeting the requirements of being deemed valid and reliable.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. , p. 31
Keyword [en]
1RM, Validity, Reliability, Maximal Strength
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-28911OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hh-28911DiVA: diva2:831705
Subject / course
Biomedicine Targeting Physical Education
Presentation
2015-06-04, P221, Kristian IV:s väg 3, Halmstad, 12:42 (English)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2015-07-01 Created: 2015-06-30 Last updated: 2015-07-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

By organisation
School of Business, Engineering and Science
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 195 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf