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