CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70Sports Performance and TrainingSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsPhysical Education and Training Studies

Test-Retest Reliability of Barbell Velocity during the Free-Weight Bench-Press Exercise

Stock, Matt S, Beck, Travis W, DeFreitas, Jason M, Dillon, Michael A·2011·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318201bdf9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to calculate test-retest reliability statistics for peak barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise for loads corresponding to 10-90% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Twenty-one healthy, resistance-trained men (mean ± SD age = 23.5 ± 2.7 years; body mass = 90.5 ± 14.6 kg; 1RM bench press = 125.4 ± 18.4 kg) volunteered for this study. A minimum of 48 hours after a maximal strength testing and familiarization session, the subjects performed single repetitions of the free-weight bench-press exercise at each tenth percentile (10-90%) of the 1RM on 2 separate occasions. For each repetition, the subjects were instructed to press the barbell as rapidly as possible, and peak barbell velocity was measured with a Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (model 2,1) and corresponding standard errors of measurement (expressed as percentages of the mean barbell velocity values) were 0.717 (4.2%), 0.572 (5.0%), 0.805 (3.1%), 0.669 (4.7%), 0.790 (4.6%), 0.785 (4.8%), 0.811 (5.8%), 0.714 (10.3%), and 0.594 (12.6%) for the weights corresponding to 10-90% 1RM. There were no mean differences between the barbell velocity values from trials 1 and 2. These results indicated moderate to high test-retest reliability for barbell velocity from 10 to 70% 1RM but decreased consistency at 80 and 90% 1RM. When examining barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise, greater measurement error must be overcome at 80 and 90% 1RM to be confident that an observed change is meaningful.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318201bdf9

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stock, M. S., Beck, T. W., DeFreitas, J. M., & Dillon, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Oklahoma (US)
Corresponding author
Stock, Matt S
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2011-01
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
171-177
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1519/jsc.0b013e318201bdf9
OpenAlex
W1990943495
Cited by
70
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Training Studies
Keywords
test-retest reliability, barbell velocity, one-repetition maximum, resistance training, measurement error, intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Weight, Exercise Test, Humans, Male, Weight Lifting, Reproducibility of Results, Muscle, Skeletal, Upper Extremity, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review