Does a linear position transducer placed on a stick and belt provide sufficient validity and reliability of countermovement jump performance outcomes?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F22%3A10434641" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/22:10434641 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=6RxraO-9ip" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=6RxraO-9ip</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2022.104918" target="_blank" >10.5114/biolsport.2022.104918</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Does a linear position transducer placed on a stick and belt provide sufficient validity and reliability of countermovement jump performance outcomes?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Manufacturers recommend that linear position transducers (LPTs) should be placed on the side of a barbell (or wooden dowel) to measure countermovement jump (CMJ) height, but the validity and reliability of this placement have not been compared to other attachment sites. Since this recommended attachment site is far from the centre of mass, a belt attachment where the LPT is placed between the feet may increase the validity and reliability of CMJ data. Thirty-six physical education students participated in the study (24.6 +- 4.3 years; 177.0 +- 7.7 cm; 77.2 +- 9.0 kg). Parameters from the two LPT attachments (barbell and belt) were simultaneously validated to force plate data, where the nature of bias was analysed (systematic vs random). The within-session and between-session reliability of both attachment sites were compared to force plate data using a test-retest protocol of two sets of 5 CMJs separated by 7 days. The LPT provided highly reliable and valid measures of peak force, mean force, mean power, and jump height, where the bias was mostly systematic (r2 &gt; 0.7; ICC &gt; 0.9). Peak velocity, mean velocity, and peak power were in very good agreement with the force plate and were highly reliable (r2 &gt; 0.5; ICC &gt; 0.7). Therefore, both attachment sites produced similar results with a systematic bias compared to force plate data. Thus, both attachment sites seem to be valid for assessing CMJs when the measuring tool and site remain consistent across measurements. However, if LPT data are to be compared to force plate data, recalculation equations should be used.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Does a linear position transducer placed on a stick and belt provide sufficient validity and reliability of countermovement jump performance outcomes?

Popis výsledku anglicky

Manufacturers recommend that linear position transducers (LPTs) should be placed on the side of a barbell (or wooden dowel) to measure countermovement jump (CMJ) height, but the validity and reliability of this placement have not been compared to other attachment sites. Since this recommended attachment site is far from the centre of mass, a belt attachment where the LPT is placed between the feet may increase the validity and reliability of CMJ data. Thirty-six physical education students participated in the study (24.6 +- 4.3 years; 177.0 +- 7.7 cm; 77.2 +- 9.0 kg). Parameters from the two LPT attachments (barbell and belt) were simultaneously validated to force plate data, where the nature of bias was analysed (systematic vs random). The within-session and between-session reliability of both attachment sites were compared to force plate data using a test-retest protocol of two sets of 5 CMJs separated by 7 days. The LPT provided highly reliable and valid measures of peak force, mean force, mean power, and jump height, where the bias was mostly systematic (r2 &gt; 0.7; ICC &gt; 0.9). Peak velocity, mean velocity, and peak power were in very good agreement with the force plate and were highly reliable (r2 &gt; 0.5; ICC &gt; 0.7). Therefore, both attachment sites produced similar results with a systematic bias compared to force plate data. Thus, both attachment sites seem to be valid for assessing CMJs when the measuring tool and site remain consistent across measurements. However, if LPT data are to be compared to force plate data, recalculation equations should be used.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

BIOLOGY OF SPORT [online]

ISSN

2083-1862

e-ISSN

2083-1862

Svazek periodika

39

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

PL - Polská republika

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

341-348

Kód UT WoS článku

000759195200012

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85119931529