Concurrent validity of Myotest for assessing explosive strength indicators in countermovement jump

IF 0.9 Q4 SPORT SCIENCES
Acta Gymnica Pub Date : 2018-10-16 DOI:10.5507/AG.2018.013
V. Hojka, J. Tufano, T. Malý, P. Stastny, R. Jebavy, Jan Feher, F. Zahálka, T. Gryc
{"title":"Concurrent validity of Myotest for assessing explosive strength indicators in countermovement jump","authors":"V. Hojka, J. Tufano, T. Malý, P. Stastny, R. Jebavy, Jan Feher, F. Zahálka, T. Gryc","doi":"10.5507/AG.2018.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Previous research has determined the validity and reliability of accelerometer-based devices, but the findings are not consistent. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of an accelerometer (Myotest PRO) for measuring explosive strength indicators (jump height, peak force, peak velocity, and peak power) during the countermovement jump. Methods: Thirty-three university students (22 males and 11 females; 178.6 ± 5.6 cm, 69.3 ± 6.5 kg, 21.8 ± 1.7 years) performed five individual countermovement jumps. Jump height was derived from an accelerometer (Myotest, frequency 200 Hz), optic timing system (Optojump) and from a force plate (Kistler, frequency 800 Hz) using both flight time and force impulse algorithms. Peak force, peak velocity, and peak power were calculated by the accelerometer and force plate. Results: The Myotest resulted in systematic bias, overestimating jump height by 8.0 ± 2.1 cm (p < .001) compared to force impulse algorithm; flight time algorithm by 5.5 ± 2.0 cm (p < .001) using the force plate and by 5.9 ± 2.0 cm (p < .001) using the Optojump. The Myotest also underestimated peak force by 167 ± 182 N (p < .001). Compared to force impulse algorithm, the Myotest displayed less agreement for peak velocity (r2 = .245) and peak power (r2 = .557). Conclusion: Accelerometers are valid and may be used consistently to evaluate countermovement jump height. However, they are not valid, and should neither be used to measure peak force, velocity, or power nor be compared against other methods due to a bias.","PeriodicalId":51894,"journal":{"name":"Acta Gymnica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Gymnica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5507/AG.2018.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Previous research has determined the validity and reliability of accelerometer-based devices, but the findings are not consistent. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of an accelerometer (Myotest PRO) for measuring explosive strength indicators (jump height, peak force, peak velocity, and peak power) during the countermovement jump. Methods: Thirty-three university students (22 males and 11 females; 178.6 ± 5.6 cm, 69.3 ± 6.5 kg, 21.8 ± 1.7 years) performed five individual countermovement jumps. Jump height was derived from an accelerometer (Myotest, frequency 200 Hz), optic timing system (Optojump) and from a force plate (Kistler, frequency 800 Hz) using both flight time and force impulse algorithms. Peak force, peak velocity, and peak power were calculated by the accelerometer and force plate. Results: The Myotest resulted in systematic bias, overestimating jump height by 8.0 ± 2.1 cm (p < .001) compared to force impulse algorithm; flight time algorithm by 5.5 ± 2.0 cm (p < .001) using the force plate and by 5.9 ± 2.0 cm (p < .001) using the Optojump. The Myotest also underestimated peak force by 167 ± 182 N (p < .001). Compared to force impulse algorithm, the Myotest displayed less agreement for peak velocity (r2 = .245) and peak power (r2 = .557). Conclusion: Accelerometers are valid and may be used consistently to evaluate countermovement jump height. However, they are not valid, and should neither be used to measure peak force, velocity, or power nor be compared against other methods due to a bias.
Myotest评估反跳爆发力指标的并行有效性
背景:先前的研究已经确定了基于加速度计的设备的有效性和可靠性,但研究结果并不一致。目的:本研究的目的是确定加速度计(Myotest PRO)在反动作跳跃过程中测量爆炸强度指标(跳跃高度、峰值力、峰值速度和峰值功率)的有效性。方法:33名大学生(男22名,女11名;178.6±5.6厘米,69.3±6.5公斤,21.8±1.7岁)进行了5次反跳。跳跃高度由加速度计(Myotest,频率200 Hz)、光学计时系统(Optojump)和力板(Kistler,频率800 Hz)使用飞行时间和力脉冲算法得出。通过加速度计和力板计算峰值力、峰值速度和峰值功率。结果:与力脉冲算法相比,Myotest导致了系统偏差,高估了跳跃高度8.0±2.1厘米(p<0.001);飞行时间算法使用力板增加5.5±2.0厘米(p<0.001),使用Optojump增加5.9±2.0 cm(p<.001)。Myotest还低估了峰值力167±182 N(p<0.001)。与力脉冲算法相比,Myotest在峰值速度(r2=.245)和峰值功率(r2=.557)方面表现出的一致性较差。结论:加速度计是有效的,可以一致地用于评估反动作跳跃高度。然而,它们是无效的,既不应用于测量峰值力、速度或功率,也不应由于偏差而与其他方法进行比较。
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
Acta Gymnica
Acta Gymnica SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal "Acta Gymnica" (ISSN 2336-4912 (Print); ISSN 2336-4920 (On-line)), published formerly as "Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica" (ISSN 1212-1185 (Print); ISSN 1213-8312 (On-line)), focuses on presenting results of research studies and theoretical studies from the field of kinanthropology. The scope of the journal covers topics related to biomechanics, exercise physiology, physiotherapy, somatometry, sports psychology, sports training, physical education, public health, etc. The journal also welcomes submissions that present results of interdisciplinary research.
×
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