Reliability of a 5 × 6-s maximal cycling repeated-sprint test in trained female team-sport athletes

The present study examined the reliability\ud of work and power measures during a 5 · 6-s cycle\ud ergometer test of repeated-sprint ability. Nine, welltrained,\ud female soccer players performed five, 5 · 6-s\ud repeated-sprint tests on a front-access cycle ergometer\ud on separate days. Sprints were separated by 24 s of\ud active recovery. Absolute measures of total work done\ud (Wtot), total peak power (PPtot), work done during\ud sprint 1 (W1) and peak power output during sprint 1\ud (PP1) were recorded. Decrement scores in work done\ud (Wdec) and peak power output (PPdec), and fatigue\ud indices for work done (FIW) and peak power (FIP),\ud were calculated. Significant improvements in all of the\ud work and power measures were observed between trial\ud 1 and subsequent trials (P < 0.05), but no significant\ud differences were identified between trials 2, 3, 4 and 5.\ud The same was true for increases in the decrement\ud scores. The coefficient of variation (CV) was established\ud to reflect within-subject reproducibility for each\ud variable. The CV was significantly improved by the\ud third trial for work done (Wtot CV: trials 1–2 = 5.5%;\ud trials 3–4 = 2.8%), peak power (PPtot CV: trials 1–\ud 2 = 5.1%; trials 3–4 = 2.7%) and performance decrement\ud scores (P < 0.05). The standard error of measurement\ud (SEM) and intraclass correlation coefficient\ud (ICC) were also calculated for each variable and expressed\ud within 95% confidence intervals. It was concluded\ud that two familiarisation trials are optimal for\ud collecting reliable data from a 5 · 6-s repeated-sprint\ud cycling test. Furthermore, due to the large variation\ud around performance decrement it was suggested that\ud decrement scores ought to be interpreted with caution