# Reliability of the Seated Unilateral Cable Row and Strength Differences Between Dominant and Non-Dominant Sides in Young Athletes

## TL;DR

This study shows that the seated unilateral cable row is a reliable way to measure strength differences between dominant and non-dominant sides in young athletes.

## Contribution

The study introduces a reliable method using a functional electromechanical dynamometer to assess upper limb asymmetries in athletes.

## Key findings

- Peak and average force values showed very high to extremely high relative reliability (ICC = 0.86–0.96).
- Individuals showed asymmetries greater than 15% in isometric, concentric, and eccentric force for some participants.
- Group-level asymmetries did not exceed 10%, but individual variability was notable.

## Abstract

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.