Test–Retest and Between–Device Reliability of Vmaxpro IMU at Hip and Ankle for Vertical Jump Measurement

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/132106
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Título: Test–Retest and Between–Device Reliability of Vmaxpro IMU at Hip and Ankle for Vertical Jump Measurement
Autor/es: Villalón-Gasch, Lamberto | Jimenez-Olmedo, Jose Manuel | Olaya-Cuartero, Javier | Pueo, Basilio
Grupo/s de investigación o GITE: Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (HEALTH-TECH)
Centro, Departamento o Servicio: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Didáctica General y Didácticas Específicas
Palabras clave: Intra-session | Intersession | Between-session | Sensibility | Countermovement jump | CMJ | Agreement | Error
Fecha de publicación: 12-feb-2023
Editor: MDPI
Cita bibliográfica: Villalon-Gasch L, Jimenez-Olmedo JM, Olaya-Cuartero J, Pueo B. Test–Retest and Between–Device Reliability of Vmaxpro IMU at Hip and Ankle for Vertical Jump Measurement. Sensors. 2023; 23(4):2068. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042068
Resumen: The ability to generate force in the lower body can be considered a performance factor in sports. This study aims to analyze the test–retest and between-device reliability related to the location on the body of the inertial measurement unit Vmaxpro for the estimation of vertical jump. Eleven highly trained female athletes performed 220 countermovement jumps (CMJ). Data were simultaneously captured by two Vmaxpro units located between L4 and L5 vertebrae (hip method) and on top of the tibial malleolus (ankle method). Intrasession reliability was higher for ankle (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.93; SEM = 1.0 cm; CV = 4.64%) than hip (ICC = 0.91; CCC = 0.92; SEM = 3.4 cm; CV = 5.13%). In addition, sensitivity was higher for ankle (SWC = 0.28) than for the hip method (SWC = 0.40). The noise of the measurement (SEM) was higher than the worthwhile change (SWC), indicating lack of ability to detect meaningful changes. The agreement between methods was moderate (rs= 0.84; ICC = 0.77; CCC = 0.25; SEM = 1.47 cm). Significant differences were detected between methods (−8.5 cm, p < 0.05, ES = 2.2). In conclusion, the location of the device affects the measurement by underestimating CMJ on ankle. Despite the acceptable consistency of the instrument, the results of the reliability analysis reveal a significant magnitude of both random and systematic error. As such, the Vmaxpro should not be considered a reliable instrument for measuring CMJ.
Patrocinador/es: This work was supported by Generalitat Valenciana (grant number GV/2021/098).
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/132106
ISSN: 1424-8220
DOI: 10.3390/s23042068
Idioma: eng
Tipo: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Derechos: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Revisión científica: si
Versión del editor: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042068
Aparece en las colecciones:INV - HEALTH-TECH - Artículos de Revistas

Archivos en este ítem:
Archivos en este ítem:
Archivo Descripción TamañoFormato 
ThumbnailVillalon-Gasch_etal_2023_Sensors.pdf602,81 kBAdobe PDFAbrir Vista previa


Este ítem está licenciado bajo Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons