Validity of a Smartphone-Based Application for Determining Sprinting Performance.

Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-07-21 DOI:10.1155/2016/7476820
Robert Stanton, Melanie Hayman, Nyree Humphris, Hanna Borgelt, Jordan Fox, Luke Del Vecchio, Brendan Humphries
{"title":"Validity of a Smartphone-Based Application for Determining Sprinting Performance.","authors":"Robert Stanton,&nbsp;Melanie Hayman,&nbsp;Nyree Humphris,&nbsp;Hanna Borgelt,&nbsp;Jordan Fox,&nbsp;Luke Del Vecchio,&nbsp;Brendan Humphries","doi":"10.1155/2016/7476820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent innovations in smartphone technology have led to the development of a number of applications for the valid and reliable measurement of physical performance. Smartphone applications offer a number of advantages over laboratory based testing including cost, portability, and absence of postprocessing. However, smartphone applications for the measurement of running speed have not yet been validated. In the present study, the iOS smartphone application, SpeedClock, was compared to conventional timing lights during flying 10 m sprints in recreationally active women. Independent samples t-test showed no statistically significant difference between SpeedClock and timing lights (t(190) = 1.83, p = 0.07), while intraclass correlations showed excellent agreement between SpeedClock and timing lights (ICC (2,1) = 0.93, p = 0.00, 95% CI 0.64-0.97). Bland-Altman plots showed a small systematic bias (mean difference = 0.13 seconds) with SpeedClock giving slightly lower values compared to the timing lights. Our findings suggest SpeedClock for iOS devices is a low-cost, valid tool for the assessment of mean flying 10 m sprint velocity in recreationally active females. Systematic bias should be considered when interpreting the results from SpeedClock. </p>","PeriodicalId":73953,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"2016 ","pages":"7476820"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/7476820","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7476820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Recent innovations in smartphone technology have led to the development of a number of applications for the valid and reliable measurement of physical performance. Smartphone applications offer a number of advantages over laboratory based testing including cost, portability, and absence of postprocessing. However, smartphone applications for the measurement of running speed have not yet been validated. In the present study, the iOS smartphone application, SpeedClock, was compared to conventional timing lights during flying 10 m sprints in recreationally active women. Independent samples t-test showed no statistically significant difference between SpeedClock and timing lights (t(190) = 1.83, p = 0.07), while intraclass correlations showed excellent agreement between SpeedClock and timing lights (ICC (2,1) = 0.93, p = 0.00, 95% CI 0.64-0.97). Bland-Altman plots showed a small systematic bias (mean difference = 0.13 seconds) with SpeedClock giving slightly lower values compared to the timing lights. Our findings suggest SpeedClock for iOS devices is a low-cost, valid tool for the assessment of mean flying 10 m sprint velocity in recreationally active females. Systematic bias should be considered when interpreting the results from SpeedClock.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于智能手机的短跑成绩判定应用程序的有效性。
最近智能手机技术的创新导致了许多有效和可靠的物理性能测量应用程序的发展。与实验室测试相比,智能手机应用程序提供了许多优势,包括成本、便携性和缺乏后处理。然而,用于测量跑步速度的智能手机应用程序尚未得到验证。在目前的研究中,研究人员将iOS智能手机应用程序SpeedClock与传统的娱乐运动女性10米短跑时的计时灯进行了比较。独立样本t检验显示,SpeedClock与计时灯之间无统计学差异(t(190) = 1.83, p = 0.07),而类内相关性显示SpeedClock与计时灯之间具有良好的一致性(ICC (2,1) = 0.93, p = 0.00, 95% CI 0.64-0.97)。Bland-Altman图显示了一个小的系统偏差(平均差值= 0.13秒),与计时灯相比,SpeedClock给出的值略低。我们的研究结果表明,iOS设备上的SpeedClock是一种低成本、有效的工具,可用于评估娱乐活动女性的平均10米冲刺速度。在解释SpeedClock的结果时应考虑系统偏差。
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
×
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