Multi-joint rate of force development testing protocol affects reliability and the smallest detectible difference

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)
195 Downloads (Pure)


Isometric tests have been used to assess rate of force development (RFD), however variation in testing methodologies are known to affect performance outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the RFD in the isometric squat (ISqT) using two test protocols and two testing angles. Eleven participants (age: 26.8 ± 4.5 years, strength training experience: 7.1 ± 3.03 years) completed test and retest sessions one week apart, whereby two test protocols with respect to duration and instructions were compared. Isometric peak force (ISqTpeak) and isometric explosive force (ISqTexp) tests were assessed at two joint angles (knee flexion angle 100° and 125°). Force-time traces were sampled and subsequently analysed for RFD measures. Average and instantaneous RFD variables did not meet reliability minimum criteria in ISqTpeak at 100° or 125°. The ISqTexp test at 100° met reliability criteria in the RFD 0–200 and 0–250ms variables. The ISqTexp test at 125° met reliability criteria in the RFD 0–150, 0–200 and 0–250ms variables. Force-time characteristics were optimized at the higher knee joint angle. Average and instantaneous RFD measures obtained using a traditional peak force test do not meet basic reliability criteria. Researchers assessing multi-joint RFD should employ the explosive RFD test protocol as opposed to the traditional isometric peak force protocol.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1570-1581
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
Issue number14
Early online date27 Feb 2019
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 18 Jul 2019


  • Explosive force
  • maximal strength
  • stability reliability
  • neuromuscular


Dive into the research topics of 'Multi-joint rate of force development testing protocol affects reliability and the smallest detectible difference'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this