Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Validity and reliability of two field-based leg...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Validity and reliability of two field-based leg stiffness devices: Implications for practical use

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Validity and reliability of two field-based leg stiffness devices : Implications for practical use. / Ruggiero, Luca; Dewhurst, Susan; Bampouras, Theodoros M.

In: Journal of Applied Biomechanics, Vol. 32, No. 4, 01.08.2016, p. 415-419.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Ruggiero L, Dewhurst S, Bampouras TM. Validity and reliability of two field-based leg stiffness devices: Implications for practical use. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2016 Aug 1;32(4):415-419. doi: 10.1123/jab.2015-0297

Author

Ruggiero, Luca ; Dewhurst, Susan ; Bampouras, Theodoros M. / Validity and reliability of two field-based leg stiffness devices : Implications for practical use. In: Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2016 ; Vol. 32, No. 4. pp. 415-419.

Bibtex

@article{495fe4edacd241c9b1f86ba23d9cb445,
title = "Validity and reliability of two field-based leg stiffness devices: Implications for practical use",
abstract = "Leg stiffness is an important performance determinant in several sporting activities. This study evaluated the criterion-related validity and reliability of 2 field-based leg stiffness devices, Optojump Next{\textregistered} (Optojump) and Myotest Pro{\textregistered} (Myotest) in different testing approaches. Thirty-four males performed, on 2 separate sessions, 3 trials of 7 maximal hops, synchronously recorded from a force platform (FP), Optojump and Myotest. Validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r; relative mean bias; 95% limits of agreement, 95%LoA) and reliability (coefficient of variation, CV; intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC; standard error of measurement, SEM) were calculated for first attempt, maximal attempt, and average across 3 trials. For all 3 methods, Optojump correlated highly to the FP (range r =.98-.99) with small bias (range 0.91-0.92, 95%LoA 0.86-0.98). Myotest demonstrated high correlation to FP (range r =.81-.86) with larger bias (range 1.92-1.93, 95%LoA 1.63-2.23). Optojump yielded a low CV (range 5.9% to 6.8%), high ICC (range 0.82-0.86), and SEM ranging 1.8-2.1 kN/m. Myotest had a larger CV (range 8.9% to 13.0%), moderate ICC (range 0.64-0.79), and SEM ranging from 6.3 to 8.9 kN/m. The findings present important information for these devices and support the use of a time-efficient single trial to assess leg stiffness in the field.",
keywords = "Hopping test, Sensitivity, Test-retest, Vertical stiffness",
author = "Luca Ruggiero and Susan Dewhurst and Bampouras, {Theodoros M.}",
note = "Copyright Human Kinetics",
year = "2016",
month = aug,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1123/jab.2015-0297",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "415--419",
journal = "Journal of Applied Biomechanics",
issn = "1065-8483",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity and reliability of two field-based leg stiffness devices

T2 - Implications for practical use

AU - Ruggiero, Luca

AU - Dewhurst, Susan

AU - Bampouras, Theodoros M.

N1 - Copyright Human Kinetics

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Leg stiffness is an important performance determinant in several sporting activities. This study evaluated the criterion-related validity and reliability of 2 field-based leg stiffness devices, Optojump Next® (Optojump) and Myotest Pro® (Myotest) in different testing approaches. Thirty-four males performed, on 2 separate sessions, 3 trials of 7 maximal hops, synchronously recorded from a force platform (FP), Optojump and Myotest. Validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r; relative mean bias; 95% limits of agreement, 95%LoA) and reliability (coefficient of variation, CV; intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC; standard error of measurement, SEM) were calculated for first attempt, maximal attempt, and average across 3 trials. For all 3 methods, Optojump correlated highly to the FP (range r =.98-.99) with small bias (range 0.91-0.92, 95%LoA 0.86-0.98). Myotest demonstrated high correlation to FP (range r =.81-.86) with larger bias (range 1.92-1.93, 95%LoA 1.63-2.23). Optojump yielded a low CV (range 5.9% to 6.8%), high ICC (range 0.82-0.86), and SEM ranging 1.8-2.1 kN/m. Myotest had a larger CV (range 8.9% to 13.0%), moderate ICC (range 0.64-0.79), and SEM ranging from 6.3 to 8.9 kN/m. The findings present important information for these devices and support the use of a time-efficient single trial to assess leg stiffness in the field.

AB - Leg stiffness is an important performance determinant in several sporting activities. This study evaluated the criterion-related validity and reliability of 2 field-based leg stiffness devices, Optojump Next® (Optojump) and Myotest Pro® (Myotest) in different testing approaches. Thirty-four males performed, on 2 separate sessions, 3 trials of 7 maximal hops, synchronously recorded from a force platform (FP), Optojump and Myotest. Validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r; relative mean bias; 95% limits of agreement, 95%LoA) and reliability (coefficient of variation, CV; intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC; standard error of measurement, SEM) were calculated for first attempt, maximal attempt, and average across 3 trials. For all 3 methods, Optojump correlated highly to the FP (range r =.98-.99) with small bias (range 0.91-0.92, 95%LoA 0.86-0.98). Myotest demonstrated high correlation to FP (range r =.81-.86) with larger bias (range 1.92-1.93, 95%LoA 1.63-2.23). Optojump yielded a low CV (range 5.9% to 6.8%), high ICC (range 0.82-0.86), and SEM ranging 1.8-2.1 kN/m. Myotest had a larger CV (range 8.9% to 13.0%), moderate ICC (range 0.64-0.79), and SEM ranging from 6.3 to 8.9 kN/m. The findings present important information for these devices and support the use of a time-efficient single trial to assess leg stiffness in the field.

KW - Hopping test

KW - Sensitivity

KW - Test-retest

KW - Vertical stiffness

U2 - 10.1123/jab.2015-0297

DO - 10.1123/jab.2015-0297

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 26959196

AN - SCOPUS:84983604634

VL - 32

SP - 415

EP - 419

JO - Journal of Applied Biomechanics

JF - Journal of Applied Biomechanics

SN - 1065-8483

IS - 4

ER -