You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Validity and Reliability of a Portable Isometric Mid-Thigh Clean Pull
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001201 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lachlan P. James, Llion A. Roberts, G. Gregory Haff, Vincent G. Kelly, Emma M. Beckman |
| Abstract |
James, LP, Roberts, LA, Haff, GG, Kelly, VG, and Beckman, EM. Validity and reliability of a portable isometric mid-thigh clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1378-1386, 2017-This study investigated the test-retest reliability and criterion validity of force-time curve variables collected through a portable isometric mid-thigh clean pull (IMTP) device equipped with a single-axial load cell. Fifteen males with ≥6 months of resistance training experience attended two testing sessions. In each session, participants performed an IMTP in 2 separate conditions in a randomized counterbalanced manner. The criterion condition consisted of a closed-chain IMTP configured with a force plate (IMTPf), whereas the experimental test was undertaken using a portable IMTP with data acquired through a single-axial load cell (IMTPl). A very high reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 3.10, 90% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-4.6%; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.96, 90% CI: 0.90-0.98) and acceptable validity (CV = 9.2, 90% CI: 7-14%; ICC = 0.88, 90% CI: 0.71-0.95) were found in the experimental condition for the measure of peak force. However, significant differences were present between the IMTPf and IMTPl (p < 0.0001). Alternate force-time curve variables did not reach acceptable levels of validity or reliability in the experimental condition. The IMTPl is a valid and highly reliable method for assessing peak force. This provides evidence supporting the use of an IMTPl as a cost-effective and portable alternative for those who wish to assess maximal force production in a similar fashion to a traditional IMTP. However, practitioners should be aware that these are slightly different tests. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 35% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 70% |
| Scientists | 4 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 206 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Professor | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 17% |
| Unknown | 52 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 103 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 65 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,760,095
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#2,153
of 6,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,370
of 324,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#45
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.