Barbell Hip-Thrust Exercise: Test-Retest Reliability and Correlation With Isokinetic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Dello Iacono, A, Padulo, J, Bešlija, T, and Halperin, I. Barbell hip-thrust exercise: Test-retest reliability and correlation with isokinetic performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 659-667, 2021-The barbell hip-thrust (BHT) exercise is growing in popularity as evident by the large increase in research outputs investigating its utility as a training intervention and a testing tool. The aim of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the BHT and its correlation with isokinetic performance. Test-retest reliability was established by correlating the peak force and power outcomes measured with the BHT force-velocity profile test of 20 handball athletes on 2 separate days. The peak force and power measured with the BHT force-velocity profile test of 49 handball athletes were correlated with peak concentric force of the knee flexors and hip extensors measured with an isokinetic device at 2 different velocities (60-180°·s-1). The correlation between the isokinetic testing scores and the BHT force-velocity profile tests were moderate to large (Pearson r ranges: 0.45-0.86, all p values <0.001). Test-retest reliability of the BHT force-velocity profile was very high as shown with intraclass correlations of 0.94 and 0.99 for peak force and 0.97 and 0.99 for peak power measures. The BHT force-velocity profile can serve as a tentative substitute in cases that athletes do not have access to an isokinetic device, given the moderate to large correlations between them. Moreover, the BHT force-velocity profile was shown to be very reliable, thus providing coaches and scientists a range of day-to-day performance variability in this exercise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".