Randomized trial evaluates upper-body strength assessment methods in adults, suggesting practical field-based alternatives.
Kirk, BJC, Wills, JA, Glen, B, and Doyle, TLA. Isometric floor press: A valid, reliable, and practical field-based assessment of upper-body strength. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2026-There is currently no standardized method for assessing upper-body isometric strength using portable field-based equipment, limiting practitioners' ability to monitor upper-body strength in applied environments. This study evaluated the validity and reliability of 4 novel tests performed using only a force plate system and isometric midthigh pull rack: the isometric push-up (IPU) on knees and feet, and the isometric floor press at 90° (IFP90) and 135° (IFP135) elbow angles. Twenty recreationally trained adults (16 men, 4 women) completed a 1 repetition maximum bench press and familiarization session, followed by 2 isometric testing sessions, each separated by 7 days. Validity was assessed using Pearson correlation with 1 repetition maximum bench press. Within-day and between-day reliability were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV%). IFP90 showed the strongest validity (r = 0.887), followed by IFP135 (r = 0.724), IPU on knees (r = 0.711), and IPU on feet (r = 0.692). All tests demonstrated excellent within-day reliability (ICC = 0.923-0.983; CV% = 5.3-7.7%) and between-day reliability (ICC = 0.912-0.955; CV% = 6.4-12.3%). Supine configurations (IFP) generally showed greater measurement stability than prone push-up variations (IPU), with lower variability and higher ICCs. Results were consistent across a broad strength range (bench press = 65-140 kg), supporting their applicability to both athletic and general populations. These findings suggest that IFP90 offers a valid, reliable, and practical field-based alternative to traditional upper-body strength testing. These tests may be especially useful in settings where safety, measurement sensitivity, and fatigue minimization are priorities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kirk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: