Agreement and sensitivity of the acceleration–velocity profile derived via local positioning system

Sprint performance is commonly assessed via discrete sprint tests and analyzed through kinematic estimates modeled using a mono-exponential equation, including estimated maximal sprinting speed ((Formula presented.)), relative acceleration ((Formula presented.)), maximum acceleration ((Formula presented.)), and relative propulsive maximal power ((Formula presented.)). The acceleration–velocity profile (AVP) provides a simple summary of short sprint performance using two parameters: MSS and MAC, which are useful for simplifying descriptions of sprint performance, comparison between athletes and groups of athletes, and estimating changes in performance over time or due to training intervention. However, discrete testing poses logistical challenges and defines an athlete’s AVP exclusively from the performance achieved in an isolated testing environment. Recently, an in situ AVP (velocity–acceleration method) was proposed to estimate kinematic parameters from velocity and acceleration data obtained via global or local positioning systems (GPS/LPS) over multiple training sessions, plausibly improving the time efficiency of sprint monitoring and increasing the sample size that defines the athlete’s AVP. However, the validity and sensitivity of estimates derived from the velocity–acceleration method in relation to changes in criterion scores remain elusive. To assess the concurrent validity and sensitivity of kinematic measures from the velocity–acceleration method, 31 elite youth basketball athletes (23 males and 8 females) completed two maximal effort 30 m sprint trials. Performance was simultaneously measured by a laser gun and an LPS (Kinexon), with kinematic parameters estimated using the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Agreement ((Formula presented.)) between laser gun and LPS-derived estimates was within the practically significant magnitude ((Formula presented.) 5%), while confidence intervals for the percentage mean absolute difference ((Formula presented.)) overlapped practical significance for (Formula presented.), (Formula presented.), and (Formula presented.) using the velocity–acceleration method. Only the (Formula presented.) parameter showed a sensitivity ((Formula presented.)) within practical significance (<5%), with all other parameters showing unsatisfactory sensitivity (>10%) for both the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Thus, sports practitioners may be confident in the concurrent validity and sensitivity of (Formula presented.) estimates derived in situ using the velocity–acceleration method, while caution should be applied when using this method to infer an athlete’s maximal acceleration capabilities.