Reliability and concurrent validity of the PUSH Band™ 2.0 to measure barbell velocity during the free-weight and Smith machine squat exercises

2021 ◽  
pp. 175433712110240
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Luis Miguel Gijón-Nieto ◽  
Aitor Marcos-Blanco ◽  
Felipe García-Pinillos
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Velocity Transducer ◽  
Squat Exercise ◽  
Standard Linear ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Acceptable Reliability

The aim of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the PUSH Band™ 2.0 to measure barbell’s velocity during unconstrained (free-weights) and constrained (Smith machine) squat exercises. After an initial assessment of the Smith machine squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), 24 resistance-trained males completed one or two testing sessions separated by 7 days. In one session, the squat was performed with free-weights ( n = 22), while in another session, the Smith machine was used ( n = 16). Both testing sessions consisted of two blocks of eight repetitions (three repetitions at 45%1RM, three repetitions at 65%1RM, and two repetitions at 85%1RM). The mean velocity of the lifting phase was simultaneously recorded with the PUSH Band™ 2.0 and a gold-standard linear velocity transducer (T-Force® System). The PUSH Band™ 2.0 generally revealed an acceptable reliability (CVrange = 5.81%–13.14%), but the reliability was always greater for the T-Force® System (CVrange = 2.95%–7.86%). Regardless of the squat exercise, the concurrent validity of the PUSH Band™ 2.0 with respect to the T-Force® System was generally low at 45%1RM (ESrange = 0.18–0.33; rrange = 0.58–0.75; SEErange = 0.04–0.05 ms−1 and 4.2%–6.0%), 65%1RM (ESrange = 0.26–0.44; rrange = 0.63–0.82; SEErange = 0.04–0.06 ms−1 and 6.0%–9.2%), and 85%1RM (ESrange = 0.61–0.64; rrange = 0.66–0.82; SEErange = 0.05–0.07 ms−1 and 11.4%–16.0%). Taken together, these results suggest that the PUSH Band™ 2.0 is a reliable, but not valid, wearable technology to measure the barbell velocity during the free-weight and Smith machine squat exercises.

Validity and reliability of the WIMU® system to measure barbell velocity during the half-squat exercise

2019 ◽  
Vol 233 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe García-Pinillos ◽  
Pedro A Latorre-Román ◽  
Fernando Valdivieso-Ruano ◽  
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández ◽  
Juan A Párraga-Montilla
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Squat Exercise ◽  
The Mean

This study aimed at determining the reliability and concurrent validity of the WIMU® system when measuring barbell velocity during the half-squat exercise by comparing data with the gold standard. A total of 19 male competitive powerlifters performed an incremental loading test using the half-squat exercise. The mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity of all repetitions were recorded through both WIMU and T-Force systems. As a measure of reliability, coefficient of variations ranged from 6%–17% and standard error of means ranged from 0.02–0.11 m/s, showing very close reliability of data from both devices. Validity, in terms of coefficient of correlations and pairwise comparisons, was also tested. Except for some relative loads, the Pearson correlation analysis revealed significant correlations between both devices for mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity (r > 0.6, p < 0.05). The mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity were underestimated for the WIMU system compared to T-Force data at some points of the load–velocity relationship. The linear regression models performed revealed a strong load–velocity relationship in the half-squat exercise for each individual using mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity, regardless of the instrument used (R2 > 0.77 in all cases). Bland–Altman plots revealed low systematic bias (≤0.06 m s−1) and random error (≤0.07 m s−1) for the mean velocity and mean propulsive velocity obtained from the WIMU system as compared to the T-Force, while the maximum velocity resulted in an underestimation by the WIMU system (–0.16 m s−1) as compared to the linear position transducer system. The results indicate that the WIMU system is a reliable tool for tracking barbell velocity in the half squat, but these data also reveal some limitations regarding its concurrent validity as compared to the gold standard, with velocity measures slightly underestimated in the tested conditions.

Reliability and concurrent validity of the Velowin optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during the free-weight back squat

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 737-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Fernando Martín
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Body Height ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Single Session ◽  
Optoelectronic System ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Squat Exercise

The objective of this study was to explore the reliability and concurrent validity of the Velowin optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during the free-weight back squat exercise. Thirty-one men (age = 27.5 ± 3.2 years; body height = 1.76 ± 0.15 m; body mass: 78.3 ± 7.6 kg) were evaluated in a single session against five different loads (20, 40, 50, 60 and 70 kg) and three velocity variables (mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity) were recorded simultaneously by a linear velocity transducer (T-Force; gold-standard) and a camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin). The main findings revealed that (1) the three velocity variables were determined with a high and comparable reliability by both the T-Force and Velowin systems (median coefficient of variation of the five loads: T-Force: mean velocity = 4.25%, mean propulsive velocity = 4.49% and maximum velocity = 3.45%; Velowin: mean velocity = 4.29%, mean propulsive velocity = 4.60% and maximum velocity = 4.44%), (2) the maximum velocity was the most reliable variable when obtained by the T-force ( p < 0.05), but no significant differences in the reliability of the variables were observed for the Velowin ( p > 0.05) and (3) high correlations were observed for the values of mean velocity ( r = 0.976), mean propulsive velocity ( r = 0.965) and maximum velocity ( r = 0.977) between the T-Force and Velowin systems. Collectively, these results support the Velowin as a reliable and valid system for the measurement of movement velocity during the free-weight back squat exercise.

Prediction of the Maximum Number of Repetitions and Repetitions in Reserve From Barbell Velocity

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Torrejón ◽  
Belén Feriche ◽  
Antonio J. Morales-Artacho ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
General Equation ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Body Height ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Training Set ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Acceptable Reliability

Purpose: To provide 2 general equations to estimate the maximum possible number of repetitions (XRM) from the mean velocity (MV) of the barbell and the MV associated with a given number of repetitions in reserve, as well as to determine the between-sessions reliability of the MV associated with each XRM. Methods: After determination of the bench-press 1-repetition maximum (1RM; 1.15 ± 0.21 kg/kg body mass), 21 men (age 23.0 ± 2.7 y, body mass 72.7 ± 8.3 kg, body height 1.77 ± 0.07 m) completed 4 sets of as many repetitions as possible against relative loads of 60%1RM, 70%1RM, 80%1RM, and 90%1RM over 2 separate sessions. The different loads were tested in a randomized order with 10 min of rest between them. All repetitions were performed at the maximum intended velocity. Results: Both the general equation to predict the XRM from the fastest MV of the set (CV = 15.8–18.5%) and the general equation to predict MV associated with a given number of repetitions in reserve (CV = 14.6–28.8%) failed to provide data with acceptable between-subjects variability. However, a strong relationship (median r2 = .984) and acceptable reliability (CV < 10% and ICC > .85) were observed between the fastest MV of the set and the XRM when considering individual data. Conclusions: These results indicate that generalized group equations are not acceptable methods for estimating the XRM–MV relationship or the number of repetitions in reserve. When attempting to estimate the XRM–MV relationship, one must use individualized relationships to objectively estimate the exact number of repetitions that can be performed in a training set.

scholarly journals Intrarater Reliability of Chest Expansion using Cloth Tape Measure Technique

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram Mohan ◽  
Nurul Hafizah Dzulkifli ◽  
Maria Justine ◽  
Rohani Haron ◽  
Leonard Joseph H ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Anatomical Landmarks ◽  
Intrarater Reliability ◽  
Chest Expansion ◽  
Tape Measure ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Acceptable Reliability

Objective: The Objective of this study was to determine the intrarater reliability of chest expansion at three different anatomical landmarks using a cloth tape measure among healthy peoples. Materials and Methods: 120 healthy male and female volunteers were evaluated on two occasions in different days. The measures   consisted of chest expansion measurement at axilla, fourth intercostals and xiphoid levels. The measurements   were taken in the standing position with the arms hanging sideways at all the three different anatomical landmarks. The test-retest reliability of the measurements was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurements (SEMs). Results: An acceptable reliability was determined  by ICC values greater than than 0.85 and SEMs less than 5%. The mean age of the subjects was 21.93 years. ICC of all measures ranged between 0.95 to 0.97 and SEMs were 1.9%, 1.8%, 1.5% at the axillary, fourth intercostals and xiphoid level respectively. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggested that, the cloth   tape measurement was reliable at all the three different anatomical landmarks of the chest wall. Therefore, this measurement technique could be used as an outcome measure for chest expansion in the management   of cardiorespiratory conditions. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v11i4.12602 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol. 11 No. 04 Oct’12

Reliability and concurrent validity of a functional electromechanical dynamometer device for the assessment of movement velocity

2021 ◽  
pp. 175433712098488
Author(s):  
Ángela Rodriguez-Perea ◽  
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Dario Martínez-García ◽  
Luis J Chirosa Ríos
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Range Of Movement ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Linear Movement ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Acceptable Reliability

The aims of the study were (i) to determine the reliability and concurrent validity of a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) to measure different isokinetic velocities, and (ii) to identify the real range of isokinetic velocity reached by FEMD for different prescribed velocities. Mean velocities were collected simultaneously with FEMD and a linear velocity transducer (LVT) in two sessions that were identical, consisting of 15 trials at five isokinetic velocities (0.40, 0.60, 0.80, 1.00, and 1.20 m·s−1) over a range of movement of 40 cm. The results obtained using each method were compared using Paired samples t-tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient, while the reliability was determined using the standard error of measurement and coefficient of variation (CV). The results indicate that the mean velocity values collected with FEMD and LVT were practically perfect correlations ( r > 0.99) with low random errors (<0.06 m·s−1), while mean velocity values were systematically higher for FEMD ( p < 0.05). FEMD provided a high or acceptable reliability for mean velocity (CV ≤ 0.24%), time to reach the isokinetic velocity (CV range = 1.68%–9.70%) and time spent at the isokinetic velocity (CV range = 0.53%–8.94%). These results suggest that FEMD offers valid and reliable measurements of mean velocity during a fixed linear movement, as well as a consistent duration of the isokinetic phase. FEMD could be an appropriate device to evaluate movement velocity during linear movements. More studies are needed to confirm the reliability and validity of FEMD to measure different velocity metrics during more complex functional exercises.

scholarly journals Methods of 10-Meter Walk Test and Repercussions for Reliability Obtained in Typically Developing Children

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Cyntia R. J. A. de Baptista ◽  
Amanda M. Vicente ◽  
Mariana A. Souza ◽  
Juliana Cardoso ◽  
Vanessa M. Ramalho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Walk Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Fast Pace ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
10 Meter Walk Test

Introduction. Research and clinical settings use the 10-meter walk test (10MWT) to measure locomotor capacity with considerable methodological diversity. Comparison between healthy and disabled children is frequent; however, the reproducibility of 10MWT using different methods is unknown. Objectives. This study analysed intrasubject, test-retest reliability, and agreement of four methods of 10MWT, exploring the influence of pace, acceleration-deceleration phases, and anthropometric measurements when calculating mean velocity. Methods. This cross-sectional study evaluated 120 typical children, both sexes, aged 6, 8, 10, and 12 (n=30 for each age). The mean times and velocities of the path (10 m) and middle path (6 m) obtained at a self-selected and fast pace were analysed. Initial assessment and another after seven days recorded three measurements per method (sV6 = self-selected pace and 6 m; sV10 = self-selected pace and 10 m; fV6 = fast pace and 6 m; fV10 = fast pace and 10 m). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), multiple regression, and Snedecor-F test (5% significance level) were used. Results. The fV10 method had high intrasubject reliability for all tested ages (0.70<ICC>0.89); sV10 exhibited high intrasubject reliability for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.70<ICC>0.89) and moderate for age 10 (0.50<ICC<0.69).Test-retest reliability at sV6 and fV6 did not reach high ICC in any tested ages. The test-retest reliability at sV10 and fV10 was moderate for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.50<ICC>0.69) and poor for age 10 (0.25<ICC>0.49). There was no agreement between methods: sV6 versus sV10 (mean difference=0.91 m/s; SEM=0.036); fV6 versus fV10 (mean difference=1.70; SEM=0.046). The fV6 method versus fV10 overestimated the velocity (bias=1.70 m/s). Conclusions. For typical children, the method that ensured the highest intrasubject reliability used fast pace and 10 m. Moreover, test-retest reliability increased when adopting 10 m at both self-selected and fast pace. The methods were not equivalent but were related, and those that did not compute the entire pathway overestimated the results.

scholarly journals CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING SPEED OF MOVEMENT IN LEG PRESS EXERCISES

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-341
Author(s):  
Amanda Virgínia de Souza Lima Lopes ◽  
Sergio Rodrigues Moreira ◽  
Antônio Gonçalves do Santos Neto ◽  
Aline Rafaela Soares da Silva ◽  
Clécio Lima Lopes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Reliability Test ◽  
Dynamic Force ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Leg Press ◽  
The Mean

ABSTRACT Introduction Adequate measurement of movement velocity in strength exercises can assist in the prescription and evaluation of training effects. Objective The objectives of the present study were to analyze the reliability (test-retest) and concurrent validity of the movement velocity measured by means of the electrogoniometer and accelerometer during horizontal leg press exercise at different intensities (40, 60, 80% of a maximum repetition - 1RM). Methods Eighteen young women attended the laboratory on five occasions. After determining the maximum dynamic force, two visits (separated by 48-72 hours) were used to verify the reliability (test-retest) for different speed variables in the three intensities. Results The mean propulsive velocity obtained by the goniometer showed higher Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and lower coefficients of variation compared to the accelerometer. The same behavior was observed for both the mean velocity and the peak velocity. The propulsive time was more reproducible and with less variation for the accelerometer and bad CCI for both sensors were observed at 60% of 1RM. When the sensors are compared, the mean and average propulsive velocities presented moderate ratios with a large to very large standardized medium bias. Conclusion The potentiometer of the electrogoniometer can be used to estimate the velocity in the horizontal leg press exercise, especially for loads of 60 and 80%. The performance of the accelerometer was inferior to that of the potentiometer. Level of evidence II; Diagnostic studies.

scholarly journals Validity of the iLOAD® app for resistance training monitoring

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e7372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evandro Claudino de Sá ◽  
André Ricarte Medeiros ◽  
André Santana Ferreira ◽  
Amador García Ramos ◽  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Session ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Testing Session ◽  
Total Work ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Training Set ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Squat Exercise ◽  
Linear Encoder ◽  
The Mean

Background This study aimed (I) to assess the inter-rater agreement for measuring the mean velocity (MV) of the barbell with the iLOAD® app, and (II) to compare the magnitude of the MV and total work of a training session between the iLOAD® app and a linear encoder (reference method). Method Sixteen young healthy individuals (four women and 12 men) were tested in two sessions separated by 48 h. The 10 repetition maximum (RM) load was determined in the first testing session in the half squat exercise. The second testing session consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions during the half squat exercise performed against the 10RM load. Both the iLOAD® app and a linear encoder were used to calculate the MV and total work of each training set. MV was recorded with the iLOAD® app by two independent researchers to evaluate the inter-rater agreement. Results Trivial differences and nearly perfect correlations were observed between raters for the MV values collected under individual sets (effect size [ES] ≤ 0.02, r ≥ 0.987), as well as for the whole training session (ES = 0.01, r = 0.997). Trivial-small differences and nearly perfect correlations were observed between the iLOAD® app and the linear encoder (Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain) for MV (EV ≤ 0.25, r ≥ 0.903) and total work (ES ≤ 0.05, r ≥ 0.973). Bland-Altman plots did not reveal heteroscedasticity of the errors between the iLOAD® app and the linear encoder for MV (r2 = 0.010) and total work (r2 < 0.001). Conclusions iLOAD® is a valid smartphone app which can provide real-time feedback of the MV and total work completed in a set of multiple repetitions in the half squat exercise.

Comparison of the two most commonly used gold-standard velocity monitoring devices (GymAware and T-Force) to assess lifting velocity during the free-weight barbell back squat exercise

2021 ◽  
pp. 175433712110296
Author(s):  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Juan Luis Lamas-Cepero ◽  
Felipe García-Pinillos ◽  
Aitor Marcos-Blanco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Maximal Velocity ◽  
Force Coefficient ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Squat Exercise ◽  
The Right ◽  
Monitoring Devices ◽  
Overall Reliability

This study aimed to compare the reliability and agreement of mean velocity (MV) and maximal velocity (Vmax) between the two velocity monitoring devices (GymAware vs T-Force) most commonly used in the scientific literature. Twenty resistance-trained males completed two testing sessions. The free-weight barbell back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined in the first session (125.0 ± 24.2 kg; mean ± standard deviation). The second session consisted of two blocks of 16 repetitions (six repetitions at 45% 1RM and 65% 1RM, and four repetitions at 85% 1RM). Half of the repetitions were performed with the GymAware on the left side of the barbell and the other half of the repetitions were performed on the right side of the barbell (opposite placement for the T-Force). MV and Vmax were recorded simultaneously with the GymAware and T-Force. The overall reliability, which was calculated pooling together the data of three loads, did not differ between the T-Force (coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.28 ± 1.79%) and GymAware (CV = 5.79 ± 2.26%) (CVratio = 1.10), but the reliability was higher for Vmax (CV = 5.08 ± 1.79%) compared to MV (CV = 5.98 ± 2.73%) (CVratio = 1.18). MV was significantly higher for the T-Force ( p < 0.001, Δ = 4.42%), but no significant differences were detected between the devices for Vmax ( p = 0.455, Δ = 0.22%). These results support the use of both the GymAware and T-Force as gold-standards in studies designed to validate other velocity monitoring devices. However, systematic bias, albeit rather constant, exists for the magnitude of MV between the two devices.

scholarly journals Thai-version Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and factors predictive for migraine-related disability

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 139-150
Author(s):  
Thanin Asawavichienjinda ◽  
Warangkana Imruetaijaroenchoke ◽  
Kammant Phanthumchinda
Keyword(s):  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Disability Assessment ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Midas Questionnaire ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

AbstractBackgroundA Thai-version of the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ 2.1) is available, but a qualified questionnaire used specifically for disability assessment was not available. The most relevant practical disability assessment tested during this study was the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire.ObjectivesTo test the concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency of a Thai-version MIDAS questionnaire, and factors to predict disability in people with migraine.MethodsWe conducted the present prospective study at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Bangkok. The original English MIDAS Questionnaire was translated into Thai with back-translation into English and the language equivalence was assessed. The Thai-version MIDAS Questionnaire was tested for concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency, and factors including duration of migraine history, migraine characteristics, and comorbidity were assessed for the ability to predict migraine-related disability of migraineurs.ResultsOf the 58 participants, 31 were eligible to be included. The validity of the Thai-version questionnaire between the MIDAS total score and the mean headache severity (question B), the mean pain duration per attack, and the mean pain numerical rating scale (NRS) score were moderately correlated with a Spearman correlation coefficient range 0.42–0.58. The test–retest reliability of MIDAS grade had a weighted κ of 0.66, and for individual questions of the MIDAS total score, questions A and B assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients ranged 0.89–0.98. The internal consistency had a Cronbach α of 0.98. The mean pain NRS score in the past 3 months was an independent predictive factor for migraine-related disability.ConclusionThe Thai-version MIDAS Questionnaire has moderate concurrent validity, acceptable internal consistency, and excellent test–retest reliability. It would be helpful to assess clinical outcomes. Future study with a standardized translation process for the Thai-version questionnaire and a larger sample size is warranted to confirm internal consistency and determine all probable predictive factors for migraine-related disability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document