Dataset Information

Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei.

ABSTRACT: The Assess2Perform Bar Sensei is a device used to measure barbell velocity for velocity-based training that has not yet been validated. The purpose of this study was to determine criterion validity and reliability of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei in barbell back squats by comparing it against the GymAware PowerTool, a previously validated instrument. Sixteen injury-free, resistance-trained subjects (eleven males and five females) were recruited. Subjects were tested for their back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Then, on two separate days, subjects performed two sets of three repetitions at loads of 45%, 60% and 75% 1RM. The GymAware PowerTool and Bar Sensei were attached to the barbell in similar locations for concurrent collection of mean concentric velocity (MCV) and peak concentric velocity (PCV). The Bar Sensei and PowerTool showed generally fair to poor agreement for MCV and PCV when subjects lifted 45% of 1RM (intraclass correlation;ICC 0.4-0.59), and they showed poor agreement when subjects lifted 60% and 75% of 1RM (ICC 0.3-0.4). Inter-repetition/within-set reliability for the Bar Sensei ranged between ICC = 0.273-0.451 for MCV and PCV compared to the far more reliable PowerTool (ICC = 0.651-0.793). Currently, the Bar Sensei is not a reliable or valid tool for measuring barbell velocity in back squats.

SUBMITTER: Beckham GK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6915617 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei.

Beckham George K GK Layne Danielle K DK Kim Steven B SB Martin Eric A EA Perez Benjamin G BG Adams Kent J KJ

Sports (Basel, Switzerland) 20191107 11

The Assess2Perform Bar Sensei is a device used to measure barbell velocity for velocity-based training that has not yet been validated. The purpose of this study was to determine criterion validity and reliability of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei in barbell back squats by comparing it against the GymAware PowerTool, a previously validated instrument. Sixteen injury-free, resistance-trained subjects (eleven males and five females) were recruited. Subjects were tested for their back squat one repe ...[more]

PMID: 31703335

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn Mali and Senegal, over 1% of women die giving birth in hospital. At some hospitals, over a third of infants are stillborn. Many deaths are due to substandard medical practices. Criterion-based clinical audits (CBCA) are increasingly used to measure and improve obstetrical care in resource-limited settings, but their measurement properties have not been formally evaluated. In 2011, we published a systematic review of obstetrical CBCA highlighting insufficient considerations of validity and reliability. The objective of this study is to develop an obstetrical CBCA adapted to the West African context and assess its reliability and validity. This work was conducted as a sub-study within a cluster randomized trial known as QUARITE.MethodsCriteria were selected based on extensive literature review and expert opinion. Early 2010, two auditors applied the CBCA to identical samples at 8 sites in Mali and Senegal (n = 185) to evaluate inter-rater reliability. In 2010-11, we conducted CBCA at 32 hospitals to assess construct validity (n = 633 patients). We correlated hospital characteristics (resource availability, facility perinatal and maternal mortality) with mean hospital CBCA scores. We used generalized estimating equations to assess whether patient CBCA scores were associated with perinatal mortality.ResultsResults demonstrate substantial (ICC = 0.67, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) to elevated inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.84, 95% CI 0.77; 0.89) in Senegal and Mali, respectively. Resource availability positively correlated with mean hospital CBCA scores and maternal and perinatal mortality were inversely correlated with hospital CBCA scores. Poor CBCA scores, adjusted for hospital and patient characteristics, were significantly associated with perinatal mortality (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.01-3.34).ConclusionOur CBCA has substantial inter-rater reliability and there is compelling evidence of its validity as the tool performs according to theory.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN46950658.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prevention of multi-morbidities following non-communicable diseases requires a systematic registration of adverse modifiable risk factors, including low physical fitness. The aim of the study was to establish criterion validity and reliability of a smartphone app (InterWalk) delivered fitness test in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS:Patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 27, mean (SD) age 64.2 (5.9) years, BMI 30.0 (5.1) kg/m2, (30 % male)) completed a 7-min progressive walking protocol twice (with and without encouragement). VO2 during the test was assessed using indirect calorimetry and the acceleration (vector magnitude) from the smartphone was obtained. The vector magnitude was used to predict VO2peak along with the co-variates weight, height and sex. The validity of the algorithm was tested when the smartphone was placed in the right pocket of the pants or jacket. The algorithm was validated using leave-one-out cross validation. Test-retest reliability was tested in a subset of participants (N = 10). RESULTS:The overall VO2peak prediction of the algorithm (R2) was 0.60 and 0.45 when the smartphone was placed in the pockets of the pants and jacket, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean bias (limits of agreement) in the cross validation was-0.4 (38) % (pants) and-0.1 (46) % (jacket). When the smartphone was placed in the jacket a significant intensity dependent bias (r = 0.5, p = 0.02) was observed. The test-retest intraclass correlations were 0.85 and 0.86 (p < 0.001), for the pants and jacket, respectively. No effects of encouragement were observed on test performance. CONCLUSION:In conclusion, the InterWalk Fitness Test is accurate and reliable for persons with type 2 diabetes when the smartphone is placed in the side pocket of the pants for. The test could give a fair estimate of the CRF in absence of a progressive maximal test during standardized conditions with the appropriate equipment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clinicaltrials.org (NCT02089477), first registered (prospectively) on March 14th 2014.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. METHODS:For test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. RESULTS:A total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (-1.3%, 95% CI -19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (-2.1%, 95% CI -6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (-4.3%, 95 CI -18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (-5.5% vs -3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS:Test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity.

Project description:Background and aim: 'Reasoning 4 Change' (R4C) is a newly developed instrument, including four domains (D1-D4), to assess clinical practitioners' and students' clinical reasoning with a focus on clients' behaviour change in a physiotherapy context. To establish its use in education and research, its psychometric properties needed to be evaluated. The aim of the study was to generate criterion scores and evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a web-based version of the R4C instrument. Methods: Fourteen physiotherapy experts and 39 final-year physiotherapy students completed the R4C instrument and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). Twelve experts and 17 students completed the R4C instrument on a second occasion. The R4C instrument was evaluated with regard to: internal consistency (five subscales of D1); test-retest reliability (D1-D4); inter-rater reliability (D2-D4); and construct validity in terms of convergent validity (D1.4, D2, D4). Criterion scores were generated based on the experts' responses to identify the scores of qualified practitioners' clinical reasoning abilities. Results: For the expert and student samples, the analyses demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α range: 0.67-0.91), satisfactory test-retest reliability (ICC range: 0.46-0.94) except for D3 for the experts and D4 for the students. The inter-rater reliability demonstrated excellent agreement within the expert group (ICC range: 0.94-1.0). The correlations between the R4C instrument and PABS-PT (r range: 0.06-0.76) supported acceptable construct validity. Conclusions: The web-based R4C instrument shows satisfactory psychometric properties and could be useful in education and research. The use of the instrument may contribute to a deeper understanding of physiotherapists' and students' clinical reasoning, valuable for curriculum development and improvements of competencies in clinical reasoning related to clients' behavioural change.

Dataset Information

Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei.

Publications

Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets