Dataset Information

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of an Exercise-Specific Scale for the Perception of Velocity in the Back Squat.

ABSTRACT:

Background

the aim of the study was to develop and validate a specific perception velocity scale for the Back Squat exercise to discriminate the velocity of each repetition during a set.

Methods

31 resistance trained participants completed 3 evaluation sessions, consisting of 3 blinded loads (light, medium, heavy). For each repetition, barbell mean velocity (Vr) was measured with a linear position transducer while perceived velocity (Vp) was reported using the Squat Perception of Velocity (PV) Scale.

Results

Pearson correlation coefficients (r) showed very high values for each intensity in the 3 different days (range r = 0.73-0.83) and practically perfect correlation for all loads (range r = 0.97-0.98). The simple linear regression analysis between Vp and Vr revealed values ranging from R² = 0.53 to R² = 0.69 in the 3 intensities and values ranging from R² = 0.95 to R² = 0.97 considering all loads. The reliability (ICC₂_.1, SEM) of Vp was tested for light (0.85, 0.03), medium Please do not modify the format of the manuscript (type and size of font, margin size, paragraph spacing, etc.), only what is indicated with comments or highlighted, as it follows the standard style of MDPI. We would appreciate if you could mark all the modifications with the Track Changes tool and thoroughly address all the comments.(0.90, 0.03) and heavy loads (0.86, 0.03) and for all loads (0.99, 0.11). The delta score (ds = Vp - Vr) showed higher accuracy of the PV at heavy loads.

Conclusions

these results show that the PV Squat Scale is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to accurately quantify exercise intensity.

SUBMITTER: Romagnoli R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9517416 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of an Exercise-Specific Scale for the Perception of Velocity in the Back Squat.

Romagnoli Ruggero R Civitella Sergio S Minganti Carlo C Piacentini Maria Francesca MF

International journal of environmental research and public health 20220911 18

<h4>Background</h4>the aim of the study was to develop and validate a specific perception velocity scale for the Back Squat exercise to discriminate the velocity of each repetition during a set.<h4>Methods</h4>31 resistance trained participants completed 3 evaluation sessions, consisting of 3 blinded loads (light, medium, heavy). For each repetition, barbell mean velocity (Vr) was measured with a linear position transducer while perceived velocity (Vp) was reported using the Squat Perception of ...[more]

PMID: 36141713

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe correlation between the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2) has not previously been assessed in Norwegian infants. Our purpose was to investigate the concurrent validity of the AIMS and the PDMS-2 in a group of high-risk infants, and to investigate the predictive validity of the two tests for atypical motor function at 24 months post term age (PTA).MethodsThis is a retrospective study of the AIMS and the PDMS-2 administered to infants born preterm with gestational age ≤ 32 weeks (n = 139) who had participated in a randomized controlled trial of early parent-administered physiotherapy. The infants' motor development had been assessed using the AIMS and the PDMS-2 at 6- and 12-months. The primary outcome was PDMS-2 at 24-months PTA. To explore the correlation between the two tests we used Spearman's rho. Bland Altman plots were used to detect if there were systematic differences between the measurements. Receiver-operating characteristics curves were used to calculate area under the curve as an estimate of diagnostic accuracy of the AIMS and the PDMS- with respect to motor outcome at 24 months.ResultsThe correlation between the AIMS and the PDMS-2 (total motor and locomotion subscale), at 6 months, was r = 0.44 and r = 0.76, and at 12 months r = 0.56 and r = 0.80 respectively. The predictive validity for atypical motor function at 24 months, assessed using the area under the curve at 6- and at 12- months, was for the AIMS 0.87 and 0.86, respectively, and for the PDMS-2 locomotion subscale 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.ConclusionThe correlation between the AIMS and the PDMS-2 locomotion subscale, at 6- and 12- months PTA, was good to excellent in a group of infants born preterm in Norway. And the AIMS and the locomotion subscale of the PDMS-2 were equally good predictors for atypical motor outcomes at 24 months PTA. These findings indicate that the AIMS and the locomotion subscale of the PDM-2, could be used interchangeable when assessing motor development in infants at 6- or 12 months of age.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01089296.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to adapt the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) into Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate its measurement properties, given as reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP).MethodsA total of 108 patients with a mean age of 46.62?years (SD?=?9.98) and CLBP participated in this longitudinal study. Participants were oriented on undertaking the prescribed exercises in the first session, and adherence behavior was assessed after 1?week, and finally reassessed after 2?weeks (test-retest reliability). Three weeks after the first assessment, they were invited again to full fill the EARS (responsiveness). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and Cronbach's ? were used to assess test-retest reliability and internal consistency, respectively. Spearman's correlation and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to assess construct validity, and the Receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to analyze responsiveness.ResultsThe one-factor EARS-Br (adherence behavior) structure with 6 items showed acceptable fit indexes (comparative fit index and goodness of fit index>?0.90 and root-mean-square error of approximation<?0.08). The EARS-Br scale showed acceptable internal consistency (??=?0.88) and excellent reliability (ICC?=?0.91 [95% CI 0.86-0.94]). Mild to moderate correlations were observed between EARS-Br total score vs. disability, pain catastrophizing, depression/anxiety, fear-avoidance and pain intensity. A Minimally Important Change (MIC) of 5.5 in the EARS-Br total score was considered as a meaningful change in the adherence behavior (AUC?=?0.82). Moderate accuracy (AUC?=?0.89) was obtained for a 17/24 total EARS cutoff score after home exercise was prescribed. The sensitivity and specificity were also acceptable (greater than 80%).ConclusionOur results demonstrated acceptable EARS-Br reliability, validity, and responsiveness for patients with CLBP. A final score of 17/24 on EARS after the prescription of home-exercise could be used as a cut-off for an acceptable adherence behavior associated with improvement in patient outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the predictive validity of the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) tool for classifying people with back pain into categories of low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling back pain in U.S. primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of data from participants receiving usual care in a randomized clinical trial.SettingPrimary care clinics.ParticipantsAdults (N = 1109) ≥18 years of age with back pain. Those with specific causes of back pain (pregnancy, disc herniation, vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis) and work-related injuries were not included.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresThe original 9-item version of the STarT Back tool, administered at baseline, stratified patients by their risk (low, medium, high) of persistent disabling back pain (STarT Back risk group). Persistent disabling back pain was defined as Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of ≥7 at 6-month follow-up.ResultsThe STarT Back risk group was a significant predictor of persistent disabling back pain (P<.0001) at 6-month follow-up. The proportion of individuals with persistent disabling back pain at follow-up was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25) in the low-risk group, 62% (95% CI 57-67) in the medium-risk group, and 80% (95% CI 75-85) in the high-risk group. The relative risk of persistent disabling back pain was 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.5) in the medium-risk group compared to the low-risk group, and 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) in the high-risk group.ConclusionsThe STarT Back risk groups successfully separated people with back pain into distinct categories of risk for persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up in U.S. primary care. These results were very similar to those in the original STarT Back validation study. This validation study is a necessary first step toward identifying whether the entire STarT Back approach, including matched/targeted treatment, can be effectively used for primary care in the United States.

Dataset Information

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of an Exercise-Specific Scale for the Perception of Velocity in the Back Squat.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of an Exercise-Specific Scale for the Perception of Velocity in the Back Squat.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets