Validity and between-unit agreement of commercially-available linear position transducer and inertial sensor devices during loaded countermovement jumps

Matthew S. J. Tredrea, Anthea C. Clarke, Kane J. Middleton, Matthew N. Bourne, David L. Carey, Aaron T. Scanlan, Ben J. Dascombe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

To assess the validity and between-unit agreement of velocity monitoring devices during incrementally-loaded countermovement jumps (CMJ), 16 males (24.0 ± 3.5 yr) completed 12 CMJs on a force plate (FP). Performance variables were collected through two linear position transducers (GymAware [GA]) and four accelerometer-based devices (two PUSH units, two Bar Sensei units). Pearson correlations (r) and coefficients of variation (CV) demonstrated strong to very-strong relationships (r = 0.60–0.88) and poor agreement (CV = 11.7–25.3%) between FP and GA, and moderate to very-strong relationships (r = 0.31–0.81) and poor agreement (CV = 10.1–24.2%) between FP and PUSH. Between-unit comparisons demonstrated moderate to very-strong relationships (r = 0.50–0.88) with poor agreement (CV = 10.8–26.6%) for GA, and very weak to very-strong relationships (r = 0.01–0.87) with moderate to poor agreement (CV = 9.1–24.1%) for PUSH. Bar Sensei units were excluded from analyses. Loaded CMJ data collected with either device displayed poor agreement with a FP. Velocity monitoring devices demonstrate poor validity across all loads; however, GA demonstrated strong between-unit agreement. A FP should be utilised to accurately assess CMJ performance at all times.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages16
JournalSports Biomechanics
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print (In Press) - 2022

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validity and between-unit agreement of commercially-available linear position transducer and inertial sensor devices during loaded countermovement jumps'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this