Validity and Reliability of Wearable Technology Devices during Simulated Pickleball Game Play

IF 2.2 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Sports Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.3390/sports12090234
James W. Navalta, Bryson Carrier, Matahn Blank, Setareh Zarei, Dustin W. Davis, Micah Craig, Olivia R. Perez, Jacob Baca, Thea S. Sweder, Tashari Carballo, Jamaal Bovell
{"title":"Validity and Reliability of Wearable Technology Devices during Simulated Pickleball Game Play","authors":"James W. Navalta, Bryson Carrier, Matahn Blank, Setareh Zarei, Dustin W. Davis, Micah Craig, Olivia R. Perez, Jacob Baca, Thea S. Sweder, Tashari Carballo, Jamaal Bovell","doi":"10.3390/sports12090234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pickleball is a popular sport. Also popular is wearable technology usage. Because the validity and reliability of wearable technology during pickleball is unknown, the purpose of this research was to evaluate the ability of common devices to return heart rate and estimated energy expenditure during pickleball activity. Twenty adult participants were outfitted with a portable metabolic unit and heart rate monitor (criterion measures). Experimental devices were a Garmin Instinct, Polar Vantage M2, Polar OH1, and Polar Verity Sense. Participants played simulated pickleball for 10 min. Validity measures included mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), whereas reliability measures included coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The heart rate returned lower than 10% MAPE across all devices (Instinct = 5.73–6.32%, Verity Sense = 2.92–2.97%, OH1 = 3.39–3.45%) and greater than 0.85 CCC (Instinct = 0.85–0.88, Verity Sense = 0.96–0.96, OH1 = 0.93–0.94). The CV was below 10% (Instinct = 9.30%, Verity Sense = 2.68%, OH1 = 5.01%), and ICC was above 0.7 (Instinct = 0.77, Verity Sense = 0.98, OH1 = 0.91). The energy expenditure MAPE was greater than 10% (Instinct = 27.67–28.08%, Vantage M2 = 18.87–23.38%) with CCC lower than 0.7 (Instinct = 0.47–0.49, Vantage M2 = 0.62–0.63). Reliability thresholds were met in the Vantage M2 (CV = 6%, ICC = 0.98) but not in the Instinct (CV = 15%, ICC = 0.86). The Instinct was neither valid nor reliable for estimated energy expenditure, while the Polar Vantage M2 was reliable but not valid. All devices returned valid and reliable heart rates during pickleball.","PeriodicalId":53303,"journal":{"name":"Sports","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/sports12090234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pickleball is a popular sport. Also popular is wearable technology usage. Because the validity and reliability of wearable technology during pickleball is unknown, the purpose of this research was to evaluate the ability of common devices to return heart rate and estimated energy expenditure during pickleball activity. Twenty adult participants were outfitted with a portable metabolic unit and heart rate monitor (criterion measures). Experimental devices were a Garmin Instinct, Polar Vantage M2, Polar OH1, and Polar Verity Sense. Participants played simulated pickleball for 10 min. Validity measures included mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), whereas reliability measures included coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The heart rate returned lower than 10% MAPE across all devices (Instinct = 5.73–6.32%, Verity Sense = 2.92–2.97%, OH1 = 3.39–3.45%) and greater than 0.85 CCC (Instinct = 0.85–0.88, Verity Sense = 0.96–0.96, OH1 = 0.93–0.94). The CV was below 10% (Instinct = 9.30%, Verity Sense = 2.68%, OH1 = 5.01%), and ICC was above 0.7 (Instinct = 0.77, Verity Sense = 0.98, OH1 = 0.91). The energy expenditure MAPE was greater than 10% (Instinct = 27.67–28.08%, Vantage M2 = 18.87–23.38%) with CCC lower than 0.7 (Instinct = 0.47–0.49, Vantage M2 = 0.62–0.63). Reliability thresholds were met in the Vantage M2 (CV = 6%, ICC = 0.98) but not in the Instinct (CV = 15%, ICC = 0.86). The Instinct was neither valid nor reliable for estimated energy expenditure, while the Polar Vantage M2 was reliable but not valid. All devices returned valid and reliable heart rates during pickleball.
可穿戴技术设备在模拟乒乓球比赛中的有效性和可靠性
皮克尔球是一项很受欢迎的运动。可穿戴技术的使用也很流行。由于可穿戴技术在皮球运动中的有效性和可靠性尚不清楚,本研究的目的是评估普通设备在皮球运动中返回心率和估计能量消耗的能力。20 名成年参与者配备了便携式新陈代谢装置和心率监测器(标准测量)。实验设备包括 Garmin Instinct、Polar Vantage M2、Polar OH1 和 Polar Verity Sense。参与者进行了 10 分钟的模拟皮球运动。有效性测量包括平均绝对百分误差(MAPE)和林氏一致性相关系数(CCC),可靠性测量包括变异系数(CV)和类内相关系数(ICC)。所有设备的心率 MAPE 均低于 10%(Instinct = 5.73-6.32%,Verity Sense = 2.92-2.97%,OH1 = 3.39-3.45%),CCC 均大于 0.85(Instinct = 0.85-0.88,Verity Sense = 0.96-0.96,OH1 = 0.93-0.94)。CV低于10%(Instinct = 9.30%, Verity Sense = 2.68%, OH1 = 5.01%),ICC高于0.7(Instinct = 0.77, Verity Sense = 0.98, OH1 = 0.91)。能量消耗 MAPE 超过 10%(Instinct = 27.67-28.08%,Vantage M2 = 18.87-23.38%),CCC 低于 0.7(Instinct = 0.47-0.49,Vantage M2 = 0.62-0.63)。Vantage M2(CV = 6%,ICC = 0.98)达到了可靠性阈值,但 Instinct(CV = 15%,ICC = 0.86)未达到可靠性阈值。在估计能量消耗方面,Instinct 既无效也不可靠,而 Polar Vantage M2 则可靠但无效。所有设备在皮球运动中的心率均有效可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sports
Sports SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.40%
发文量
167
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信