Reliability of the Seated Unilateral Cable Row and Strength Differences Between Dominant and Non-Dominant Sides in Young Athletes
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Rodríguez Perea, Ángela; Vila, Helena; Ferragut, Carmen; Jerez Mayorga, Daniel Alejandro; Chirosa Ríos, Luis Javier; García-García, Óscar Darío; Serrano-Gómez, VirginiaEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Asymmetries Isokinetic Performance
Fecha
2025-10-07Referencia bibliográfica
Rodríguez-Perea, Á.; Vila, H.; Ferragut, C.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Chirosa Ríos, L.J.; García-García, O.; Serrano-Gómez, V. Reliability of the Seated Unilateral Cable Row and Strength Differences Between Dominant and Non-Dominant Sides in Young Athletes. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2025, 10, 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10040390
Resumen
Background: Muscle strength asymmetries between limbs are common in physically
active populations and may influence performance and injury risk. This study aimed
to: (i) analyze the reliability of the seated unilateral cable row exercise using a functional
electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) and to examine differences in reliability between
sides and contraction types; (ii) investigate the relationship between the dominant and
non-dominant sides, as well as between the dynamic and static force production of the
back muscles; and (iii) quantify force output and assess interlimb asymmetries. Methods:
Twenty-nine young physically active athletes completed two sets of four repetitions of
a seated unilateral cable row at 0.30 m·s
−1 using the FEMD, followed by a 6-s isometric
contraction. Two testing sessions were conducted seven days apart. Reliability was assessed
using paired t-tests, the effect size, the coefficient of variation (CV), the standard error of
measurement, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with 95% confidence intervals.
Results: Peak and average force values showed very high to extremely high relative
reliability (ICC = 0.86–0.96) and acceptable absolute reliability (CV ≈ 10%). Differences
between dominant and non-dominant sides varied depending on contraction type. While
group-level asymmetries did not exceed 10%, individual analysis revealed that 14%, 32%,
and 7% of participants had asymmetries greater than 15% in isometric, concentric, and
eccentric force, respectively. Conclusions: This test demonstrates strong reliability and
provides a practical method for assessing upper limb asymmetries in physically active
individuals, with potential applications in performance monitoring and injury prevention.





