Validity and reliability of the WIMU inertial device for the assessment of the vertical jump.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pino-Ortega J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5933316 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Validity and reliability of the WIMU inertial device for the assessment of the vertical jump.
Pino-Ortega José J García-Rubio Javier J Ibáñez Sergio J SJ
PeerJ 20180430
The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the inertial device WIMU (Realtrack Systems SL, Almería, Spain) for the assessment of the vertical jump, counter movement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ). Fifteen soccer players were evaluated in two identical sessions separated by one week. In each session, participants performed three jumps of each type. The flight time was quantified by the inertial device WIMU and by a force platform (Twin Plates; Globus Sport and Health Techno ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:A decrease in ankle dorsiflexion causes changes in biomechanics, and different instruments have been used for ankle dorsiflexion testing under static conditions. Consequently, the industry of inertial sensors has developed easy-to-use devices, which measure dynamic ankle dorsiflexion and provide additional parameters such as velocity, acceleration, or movement deviation. Therefore, the aims of this study were to analyze the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of an inertial device for measuring dynamic weight-bearing ankle dorsiflexion. Sixteen participants were tested using an inertial device (WIMU) and a digital inclinometer. Ankle dorsiflexion from left and right ankle repetitions was used for validity analysis, whereas test-retest reliability was analyzed by comparing measurements from the first and second days. The standard error of the measurement (SEM) between the instruments was very low for both ankle measurements (SEM < 0.6°). No significant differences between instruments were found for the left ankle measurement (p > 0.05) even though a significant systematic bias (~1.77°) was found for the right ankle (d = 0.79). R2 was very close to 1 in the left and right ankles (R2 = 0.85-0.89) as well as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 0.95). Test-retest reliability analysis showed that systematic bias was below 1° for both instruments, even though a systematic bias (~1.50°) with small effect size was found in the right ankle (d = 0.49) with WIMU. The ICC was very close to 1 and the coefficient of variation (CV) was lower than 4% in both instruments. Thus, WIMU is a valid and reliable inertial device for measuring dynamic weight-bearing ankle dorsiflexion.
| S-EPMC7014375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background We investigated the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the Jumpo 2 and MyJump 2 apps for estimating jump height, and the mean values of force, velocity, and power produced during countermovement (CMJ) and squat jumps (SJ). Methods Physically active university aged men (n = 10, 20 ± 3 years, 176 ± 6 cm, 68 ± 9 kg) jumped on a force plate (i.e., criterion) while being recorded by a smartphone slow-motion camera. The videos were analyzed using Jumpo 2 and MyJump 2 using a Samsung Galaxy S7 powered by the Android system. Validity and reliability were determined by regression analysis, typical error of estimates and measurements, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results Both apps provided a reliable estimate of jump height and the mean values of force, velocity, and power. Furthermore, estimates of jump height for CMJ and SJ and the mean force of the CMJ were valid. However, the apps presented impractical or poor validity correlations for velocity and power. Compared with criterion, the apps underestimated the velocity of the CMJ. Conclusions Therefore, Jumpo 2 and MyJump 2 both provide a valid measure of jump height, but the remaining variables provided by these apps must be viewed with caution since the validity of force depends on jump type, while velocity (and as consequence power) could not be well estimated from the apps.
| S-EPMC9884043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElbow and wrist chronic conditions are very common among musculoskeletal problems. These painful conditions affect muscle function, which ultimately leads to a decrease in the joint's Range Of Motion (ROM). Due to their portability and ease of use, goniometers are still the most widespread tool for measuring ROM. Inertial sensors are emerging as a digital, low-cost and accurate alternative. However, whereas inertial sensors are commonly used in research studies, due to the lack of information about their validity and reliability, they are not widely used in the clinical practice. The goal of this study is to assess the validity and intra-inter-rater reliability of inertial sensors for measuring active ROM of the elbow and wrist.Materials and methodsMeasures were taken simultaneously with inertial sensors (Werium™ system) and a universal goniometer. The process involved two physiotherapists ("rater A" and "rater B") and an engineer responsible for the technical issues. Twenty-nine asymptomatic subjects were assessed individually in two sessions separated by 48 h. The procedure was repeated by rater A followed by rater B with random order. Three repetitions of each active movement (elbow flexion, pronation, and supination; and wrist flexion, extension, radial deviation and ulnar deviation) were executed starting from the neutral position until the ROM end-feel; that is, until ROM reached its maximum due to be stopped by the anatomy. The coefficient of determination (r 2) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were calculated to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. The Standard Error of the Measurement and the Minimum Detectable Change and a Bland-Altman plots were also calculated.ResultsSimilar ROM values when measured with both instruments were obtained for the elbow (maximum difference of 3° for all the movements) and wrist (maximum difference of 1° for all the movements). These values were within the normal range when compared to literature studies. The concurrent validity analysis for all the movements yielded ICC values ≥0.78 for the elbow and ≥0.95 for the wrist. Concerning reliability, the ICC values denoted a high reliability of inertial sensors for all the different movements. In the case of the elbow, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability ICC values range from 0.83 to 0.96 and from 0.94 to 0.97, respectively. Intra-rater analysis of the wrist yielded ICC values between 0.81 and 0.93, while the ICC values for the inter-rater analysis range from 0.93 to 0.99.ConclusionsInertial sensors are a valid and reliable tool for measuring elbow and wrist active ROM. Particularly noteworthy is their high inter-rater reliability, often questioned in measurement tools. The lowest reliability is observed in elbow prono-supination, probably due to skin artifacts. Based on these results and their advantages, inertial sensors can be considered a valid assessment tool for wrist and elbow ROM.
| S-EPMC7427560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The vertical jump is used to estimate sports performance capabilities and physical fitness in children, elderly, non-athletic and injured individuals. Different jump techniques and measurement tools are available to assess vertical jump height and peak power; however, their use is limited by access to laboratory settings, excessive cost and/or time constraints thus making these tools oftentimes unsuitable for field assessment. A popular field test uses the Vertec and the Sargent vertical jump with countermovement; however, new low cost, easy to use tools are becoming available, including the My Jump iOS mobile application (app). The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of the My Jump relative to values obtained by the Vertec for the Sargent stand and reach vertical jump (VJ) test. Methods:One hundred and thirty-five healthy participants aged 18-39 years (94 males, 41 females) completed three maximal Sargent VJ with countermovement that were simultaneously measured using the Vertec and the My Jump. Jump heights were quantified for each jump and peak power was calculated using the Sayers equation. Four separate ICC estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess reliability. Two analyses (with jump height and calculated peak power as the dependent variables, respectively) were based on a single rater, consistency, two-way mixed-effects model, while two others (with jump height and calculated peak power as the dependent variables, respectively) were based on a single rater, absolute agreement, two-way mixed-effects model. Results:Moderate to excellent reliability relative to the degree of consistency between the Vertec and My Jump values was found for jump height (ICC = 0.813; 95% CI [0.747-0.863]) and calculated peak power (ICC = 0.926; 95% CI [0.897-0.947]). However, poor to good reliability relative to absolute agreement for VJ height (ICC = 0.665; 95% CI [0.050-0.859]) and poor to excellent reliability relative to absolute agreement for peak power (ICC = 0.851; 95% CI [0.272-0.946]) between the Vertec and My Jump values were found; Vertec VJ height, and thus, Vertec calculated peak power values, were significantly higher than those calculated from My Jump values (p < 0.0001). Discussion:The My Jump app may provide a reliable measure of vertical jump height and calculated peak power in multiple field and laboratory settings without the need of costly equipment such as force plates or Vertec. The reliability relative to degree of consistency between the Vertec and My Jump app was moderate to excellent. However, the reliability relative to absolute agreement between Vertec and My Jump values contained significant variation (based on CI values), thus, it is recommended that either the My Jump or the Vertec be used to assess VJ height in repeated measures within subjects' designs; these measurement tools should not be considered interchangeable within subjects or in group measurement designs.
| S-EPMC5912202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a linear position transducer (LPT) for the squat jump (SJ) and counter-movement jump (CMJ) height. Twenty-eight subjects (25.18 ± 7.1 years) performed three SJs followed by three CMJs using a force plate concurrently with the LPT to test validity. Subjects returned on a separate day, at least 48 h apart, to measure test-retest reliability. A t-test showed a significant difference between the two devices for both SJ (p < 0.001) and CMJ (p < 0.001) while Bland?Altman analysis for validity revealed that the LPT overestimated jump height for both SJ (mean difference (MD) = 8.01 ± 2.93 cm) and CMJ (MD = 8.68 ± 2.99 cm). With regards to reliability of the LPT, mean intraclass correlation (ICC) for both SJ (ICC = 0.84) and CMJ (ICC = 0.95) were high, and Bland?Altman analysis showed mean differences lower than minimal detectable change (MDC) between the days for both SJ (MD = 1.89 ± 4.16 cm vs. MDC = 2.72 cm) and CMJ (MD = 0.47 ± 3.23 cm vs. MDC = 2.11 cm). Additionally, there was a low coefficient of variation (CV) between days for both SJ (CV = 3.25%) and CMJ (CV = 0.74%). Therefore, while the LPT overestimates jump height, it is a reliable tool for tracking changes in jump height to measure performance improvement and monitor fatigue.
| S-EPMC6316460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ability to jump has been related to muscle strength and power, speed and amplitude of the lower limbs movements, and specifically for the elderly, the vertical jump has been shown to be a good predictor of functional capacity and risk of falling. The use of a mobile application (App) which can measure the vertical jump (i.e., iPhone App My Jump) has recently emerged as a simple, cheap and very practical tool for evaluation of jump ability. However, the validity of this tool for the elderly population has not been tested yet. The elderly usually perform very low jumps and therefore the signal-to-noise ratio may compromise the validity and reliability of this method. Thus, the aim of the current study was to verify the validity and reliability of the iPhone App "My Jump" for the evaluation of countermovement jump (CMJ) height within an elderly population.MethodsAfter familiarization, 41 participants performed three CMJs assessed via a contact mat and the My Jump App. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to verify the relative reliability, while the coefficient of variation (CV%) and the typical error of measurement (TEM) were used to verify the absolute reliability. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to verify the strength of the relationship between methods (i.e., concurrent validity), a Bland-Altman plot to show their agreement, and the Student's t-test to identify systematic bias between them. For reliability analyses, all jumps were considered (i.e., 123). All jumps (i.e., 123), the average height of each attempt (i.e., 41), and the highest jump, were considered for validity analyses.ResultsThe CMJ height of the highest jump was 10.78 ± 5.23 cm with contact mat, and 10.87 ± 5.32 with My Jump App, with an identified systematic bias of 0.096 cm (P = 0.007). There was a nearly perfect correlation between methods (r = 0.999; P = 0.000, in all cases) with a very good agreement observed (0.3255 to -0.5177 cm, 0.2797 to -0.5594 cm, and 0.3466 to -0.6264 cm, for highest jump height, average jump height, and all jump heights, respectively). The ICC of the My Jump App was 0.948, the TEM was 1.150 cm, and the CV was 10.10%.ConclusionOur results suggest that the My Jump App is a valid and reliable tool compared to the contact mat for evaluating vertical jump performance in the elderly. Therefore, it allows a simple and practical assessment of lower limbs' power in this population. For the elderly, as well as for other populations with low jumping heights, the highest jump height and the average jump height could be used indistinctly.
| S-EPMC6193468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Regularly assessing anaerobic power is important for athletes from sports with an explosive strength component. Understanding the differences and overlap between different assessment methods might help coaches or smaller-scale testing facilities maximize financial and temporal resources. Therefore, this study investigated the degree to which cycling sprint and vertical jump tests are interchangeable for determining peak mechanical leg power output in strength-trained athletes. Professional skiers (n = 19) performed unloaded squat jumps (SJ) and other jump forms on a force plate and a six-second cycling sprint (6sCS) test on an ergometer on six occasions over two years. Along with cross-sectional correlations between cycling and jumping power, correlations between longitudinal percent changes and agreement between magnitude-based inferences about individual changes were assessed. Among the tested jump forms, SJ reflected 6sCS best. However, despite extremely large cross-sectional correlation coefficients (0.92) between 6sCS and SJ, and moderate (Pearson's r = 0.32 for 6sCS with SJ over one-year time spans) to large (r = 0.68 over shorter time spans) correlation coefficients on percent changes, magnitude-based inferences agreed in only around 50% of cases. Thus, for making qualitative assessments about the development of anaerobic power over time in athletes, cycling sprint and squat jump tests are not interchangeable. Rather, we recommend employing the test form that best reflects athletes' strength and conditioning training.
| S-EPMC7281183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to determine the intra- and inter-device accuracy and reliability of wearable athletic tracking devices, under controlled laboratory conditions. A total of nineteen portable accelerometers (Catapult OptimEye S5) were mounted to an aluminum bracket, bolted directly to an Unholtz Dickie 20K electrodynamic shaker table, and subjected to a series of oscillations in each of three orthogonal directions (front-back, side to side, and up-down), at four levels of peak acceleration (0.1g, 0.5g, 1.0g, and 3.0g), each repeated five times resulting in a total of 60 tests per unit, for a total of 1140 records. Data from each accelerometer was recorded at a sampling frequency of 100Hz. Peak accelerations recorded by the devices, Catapult PlayerLoad™, and calculated player load (using Catapult's Cartesian formula) were used for the analysis. The devices demonstrated excellent intradevice reliability and mixed interdevice reliability. Differences were found between devices for mean peak accelerations and PlayerLoad™ for each direction and level of acceleration. Interdevice effect sizes ranged from a mean of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.34-0.74) (small) to 1.20 (95% CI: 1.08-1.30) (large) and ICCs ranged from 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.89) (very large) to 1.0 (95% CI: 0.99-1.0) (nearly perfect) depending upon the magnitude and direction of the applied motion. When compared to the player load determined using the Cartesian formula, the Catapult reported PlayerLoad™ was consistently lower by approximately 15%. These results emphasize the need for industry wide standards in reporting validity, reliability and the magnitude of measurement errors. It is recommended that device reliability and accuracy are periodically quantified.
| S-EPMC5805236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) for the assessment of craniocervical range of motion (ROM) in patients with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS:twenty-three subjects with CP and 23 controls, aged between 4 and 14 years, were evaluated on two occasions, separated by 3 to 5 days. An IMU and a Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM) were used to assess craniocervical ROM in the three spatial planes. Validity was assessed by comparing IMU and CROM data using the Pearson correlation coefficient, the paired t-test and Bland-Altman plots. Intra-day and inter-day relative reliability were determined using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and the Minimum Detectable Change at a 90% confidence level (MDC90) were obtained for absolute reliability. RESULTS:High correlations were detected between methods in both groups on the sagittal and frontal planes (r > 0.9), although this was reduced in the case of the transverse plane. Bland-Altman plots indicated bias below 5º, although for the range of cervical rotation in the CP group, this was 8.2º. The distance between the limits of agreement was over 23.5º in both groups, except for the range of flexion-extension in the control group. ICCs were higher than 0.8 for both comparisons and groups, except for inter-day comparisons of rotational range in the CP group. Absolute reliability showed high variability, with most SEM below 8.5º, although with worse inter-day results, mainly in CP subjects, with the MDC90 of rotational range achieving more than 20º. CONCLUSIONS:IMU application is highly correlated with CROM for the assessment of craniocervical movement in CP and healthy subjects; however, both methods are not interchangeable. The IMU error of measurement can be considered clinically acceptable; however, caution should be taken when this is used as a reference measure for interventions.
| S-EPMC7168926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Running is the basis of many sports and has highly beneficial effects on health. To increase the understanding of running, DSPro® insoles were developed to collect running parameters during tasks. However, no validation has been carried out for running gait analysis. The aims of this study were to assess the test-retest reliability and criterion validity of running gait parameters from DSPro® insoles compared to a motion-capture system. Equipped with DSPro® insoles, a running gait analysis was performed on 30 healthy participants during overground and treadmill running using a motion-capture system. Using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the criterion validity and test-retest reliability of spatiotemporal parameters were calculated. The test-retest reliability shows moderate to excellent ICC values (ICC > 0.50) except for propulsion time during overground running at a fast speed with the motion-capture system. The criterion validity highlights a validation of running parameters regardless of speeds (ICC > 0.70). This present study validates the good criterion validity and test-retest reliability of DSPro® insoles for measuring spatiotemporal running gait parameters. Without the constraints of a 3D motion-capture system, such insoles seem to be helpful and relevant for improving the care management of active patients or following running performance in sports contexts.
| S-EPMC11359420 | biostudies-literature