This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence on the reliability and validity of the 90° push-up test (90-PSU) test for assessing muscular endurance in children and adolescents. Four databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus) were searched from inception to March 2026 following PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine provided data for meta-analysis (16 subgroups; n = 884). The pooled results indicated high test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.909; 95% CI: 0.842–0.948), although substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 91.93%). Evidence regarding inter-rater and absolute reliability was scarce and inconsistent. Seven studies evaluated validity, but only one examined criterion validity against one-repetition maximum bench press, reporting a low association. Although the 90-PSU test shows high relative reliability, limited evidence on validity and measurement error restricts its interpretability and sensitivity to change in youth populations.
OrtegaFBRuizJRCastilloMJ, et al.Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: a powerful marker of health. Int J Obes2008; 32: 1–11.
2.
OrtegaFBZhangKJurakG, et al.The youth fitness international test (YFIT) battery for monitoring and surveillance among children and adolescents: a modified Delphi consensus project with 169 experts from 50 countries and territories. J Sport Health Sci2025; 14: 101012.
3.
Villa-GonzálezEBarranco-RuizYGarcía-HermosoA, et al.Efficacy of school-based interventions for improving muscular fitness outcomes in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci2023; 23: 444–459.
4.
PateRROriaMPillsburyL. Fitness measures and health outcomes in youth. 1st ed. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2012.
5.
SmithJJEatherNWeaverRG, et al.Behavioral correlates of muscular fitness in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Sports Med2019; 49: 887–904.
6.
BurnsRDBrusseauTA. Muscular strength and endurance and cardio-metabolic health in disadvantaged hispanic children from the U.S. Pred Med Rep2017; 5: 21–26.
7.
García-HermosoARamírez-CampilloRIzquierdoM. Is muscular fitness associated with future health benefits in children and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Sports Med2019; 49: 1079–1094.
8.
ChiangHChuangYChenY, et al.Physical fitness and risk of mental disorders in children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatr2024; 178: 595–607.
9.
de LimaTRMartinsPCMorenoYMF, et al.Muscular fitness and cardiometabolic variables in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Sports Med2022; 52: 1555–1575.
10.
AllenBAHannonJCBurnsRD, et al.Effect of a core conditioning intervention on tests of trunk muscular endurance in school-aged children. J Strength Cond Res2014; 28: 2063–2070.
11.
StoddenDSackoRNesbittD. A review of the promotion of fitness measures and health outcomes in youth. Am J Lifestyle Med2017; 11: 232–242.
12.
American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s health-related physical fitness assessment manual. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
13.
KnapikJJEastWB. History of United States army physical fitness and physical readiness testing. US Army Med Dep J2014; 1: 5–19.
14.
SuprakDNDawesJStephensonMD. The effect of position on the percentage of body mass supported during traditional and modified push-up variants. J Strength Cond Res2011; 25: 497–503.
15.
EspenschadeA. Fitness of fourth grade children. Res Q Am Assoc Health Phys Educ Recreat1958; 29: 274–278.
16.
PlowmanSASterlingCLCorbinCB, et al.The history of FITNESSGRAM. Phys Act Health2006; 3: 5.
17.
AjisafeT. Association between 90 O push-up and cardiorespiratory fitness: cross-sectional evidence of push-up as a tractable tool for physical fitness surveillance in youth. BMC Pediatr2019; 19: 58.
18.
González-DevesaDDiz-GómezJCSanchez-LastraMA, et al.Criterion-Related validity and reliability of the six-minute run walk test among children: findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2025; 29: 160–173.
19.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: 71.
ClarkRLockeMHillB, et al.Clinimetric properties of lower limb neurological impairment tests for children and young people with a neurological condition: a systematic review. PloS One2017; 12: e0180031.
22.
ZischkeCSimasVHingW, et al.The utility of physiotherapy assessments delivered by telehealth: a systematic review. J Glob Health2021; 11: 04072.
23.
KeoghJWLCoxAAndersonS, et al.Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: a systematic review. PLoS One2019; 14: e0215806.
24.
SuurmondRRheeHHakT. Introduction, comparison, and validation of meta-essentials: a free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods2017; 8: 537–553.
25.
LubansDRMorganPCallisterR, et al.Test-Retest reliability of a battery of field-based health-related fitness measures for adolescents. J Sports Sci2011; 29: 685–693.
26.
Henriques-NetoDMindericoCPeraltaM, et al.Test–retest reliability of physical fitness tests among young athletes: the FITescola® battery. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging2020; 40: 173–182.
27.
GogoiPBhattacharyyaNC. Interrater reliability of fitness gram test to be used as a reliable tool for assessing physical fitness for school children in Guwahati urban society of north-east India. Int J Res Med Sci2019; 8: 12.
28.
Bebich-PhilipMDThorntonALReidSL, et al.Adaptation of the resistance training skills battery for use in children across the motor proficiency spectrum. Pediatr Exerc Sci2016; 28: 473–480.
29.
ShermanTBarfieldJP. Equivalence reliability among the FITNESSGRAM® upper-body tests of muscular strength and endurance. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2006; 10: 241–254.
30.
O’KeeffeBTDonnellyAEMacDonnchaC. Test–retest reliability of student-administered health-related fitness tests in school settings. Pediatr Exerc Sci2020; 32: 48–57.
31.
Fernandez SantosJRuizJRGonzalez-MontesinosJL, et al.Reliability and validity of field-based tests to assess upper-body muscular strength in children aged 6-12 years. Pediatr Exerc Sci2016; 28: 331–340.
32.
McManisBGBaumgartnerTAWuestDA. Objectivity and reliability of the 90° push-up test. Meas Phys Educ Exerc2000; 4: 57–67.
33.
FurzerBJBebich-PhilipMDWrightKE, et al.Reliability and validity of the adapted resistance training skills battery for children. J Sci Med Sport2018; 21: 822–827.
34.
Saint RomainBMaharMT. Norm-Referenced and criterion-referenced reliability of the push-up and modified pull-up. Meas Phys Educ Exerc2001; 5: 67–80.
35.
Rajkovic VuleticPGilicBZenicN, et al.Analyzing the associations between facets of physical literacy, physical fitness, and physical activity levels: gender- and age-specific cross-sectional study in preadolescent children. Educ Sci2024; 14: 91.
36.
ZhaXLubansDSmithJ, et al.Cross-Cultural adaptation and validation of a resistance training skill battery for use in Chinese-speaking adolescents. PeerJ2025; 13: e20387.
37.
MorrowJRMartinSBJacksonAW. Reliability and validity of the FITNESSGRAM®: quality of teacher-collected health-related fitness surveillance data. Res Q Exerc Sport2010; 81: 24–30.
38.
HobayanKPattersonDShermanC, et al.Validity of alternative fitnessgram upper body tests of muscular strength and endurance among seventh and eighth grade males and females. Phys Educ2014; 71: 594.
39.
BelhaidasMBDahouneOEatherN, et al.Objectivity, reliability, and validity of the basketball throw test as a health-related measure of upper-body muscular strength in a sample of algerian primary school children. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2023; 27: –9.
40.
FawcettMDebelisoM. The validity and reliability of push-ups as a measure of upper body strength for 11-12 year-old females. J Fit Res2014; 3: 4–11.
41.
González-DevesaDVarelaSDiz-GómezJC, et al.Reliability and validity of the medicine ball throw test in children and adolescents. Kinesiology2025; 57: 122–135, https://ojs.srce.hr/kinesiology/article/view/36048.
42.
OjedaÁHMaliqueoSGBarahona-FuentesG. Validity and reliability of the muscular fitness test to evaluate body strength-resistance. Apunts Sports Med2020; 55: 128–136.
43.
DhahbiWChamariKChèzeL, et al.External responsiveness and intrasession reliability of the rope-climbing test. J Strength Cond Res2016; 30: 2952–2958.
44.
BeckhamGLishSKeeblerL, et al.The reliability of the seated medicine ball throw as assessed with accelerometer instrumentation. J Phys Act Res2019; 4: 131–136.
45.
FielitzLCoelhoJHorneT, et al.Inter-Rater reliability and intra-rater reliability of assessing the 2-Minute push-up test. Mil Med2016; 181: 167–172.
46.
BaumgartnerTAOhSChungH, et al.Objectivity, reliability, and validity for a revised push-up test protocol. Meas Phys Educ Exer2002; 6: 225–242.
47.
DhahbiWChaouachiACochraneJ, et al.Methodological issues associated with the use of force plates when assessing push-ups power. J Strength Cond Res2017; 31: 74.
48.
Martínez-LemosIOtero RodríguezADizJ, et al.Reliability and criterion-related validity of the cooper test in pre-adolescents and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci2024; 42: 222–236.
49.
BorgDNBachAJEO'BrienJL, et al.Calculating sample size for reliability studies. PM R2022; 14: 1018–1025.
50.
AtkinsonGNevillAM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med1998; 26: 217–238.
51.
HashimAMadonMS. Objectivity, reliability, and validity of the 90° push-ups test protocol among male and female students of sports science program. J Physic Educ Sport2012; 12: 103.
52.
ClemonsJ. Construct validity of two different methods of scoring and performing push-ups. J Strength Cond Res2019; 33: 2971–2980.
53.
AlizadehSRaynerMMahmoudMMI, et al.Push-Ups vs. bench press differences in repetitions and muscle activation between sexes. J Sports Sci Med2020; 19: 289–297.
54.
EbbenWPWurmBVanderZandenTL, et al.Kinetic analysis of several variations of push-ups. J Strength Cond Res2011; 25: 2891–2894.
55.
DhahbiW. Advancing biomechanics: enhancing sports performance, mitigating injury risks, and optimizing athlete rehabilitation. Front Sports Act Living2025; 7: 1556024.
56.
DhahbiWPaduloJRussoL, et al.4-6 repetition maximum (RM) and 1-RM prediction in free-weight bench press and smith machine squat based on body mass in male athletes. J Strength Cond Res2024; 38: 1366–1371.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
