The purpose of this study was to compare the two main types of marker sets for human body representation based on rigid clusters of markers and skin surface markers for measuring kinematics during walking and running. Velocity, body segment, and joint angle were considered in the comparison of both protocols. Six male athletes were studied during treadmill gait at 1.4 and 5.5 m/s and recorded with 8 high speed video cameras. The subjects used simultaneously both protocols in the same walking and running cycles, in order to compare the variability in the determination of the joint centers' positions and the joint angles calculated from each protocol. The three-way ANOVA results showed that the variability of the inter-markers distance in the skin surface protocol was higher than that in the rigid clusters of markers, as reported in the literature. However, no statistical differences between the protocols were found in the variability of the determination of the joint centers' positions. Therefore no advantage was verified to rigid cluster protocols even for the upper body segments. Another conclusion is that increases in velocity produced increases in variability of the joint centers' distances and increases in the maximum differences between the joint angles.

(1): 25-34 • 25 Concordância e correlação entre três métodos distintos IntroduçãoConcordância e correlação entre três métodos distintos para quantifi cação da altura do salto vertical CDD. 20.ed. 796.023 796.325 http://dx

Gostaria de agradecer a todos do LIB que me auxiliaram na realização deste trabalho, em especial à Jerusa Petróvna Resende Lara.Agradeço também ao meu orientador Sergio Augusto Cunha, pela convivência e paciência.

Introduction: Sports coaches are guided by empirical evidence at the moment of planning the training loads, and, many times, these loads are not recorded for posterior analysis. A validated scientific instrument could help coaches to plan, register, and analyse sports training load. Aim: The study aimed to develop and assess the content validity of a catalog of exercises for speed track events. Methods: Through interviews, a group of expert coaches elaborated a catalog of exercises. Two groups of raters evaluated the content validity of these exercises, producing a coefficient of content validity (CCV) for such validity indicators as clarity of language, practical pertinence and theoretical relevance. Additionally, raters assessed the specificity level of each exercise by deciding if the exercise was general, special or specific to speed track events. Results: These CCV results confirmed the content validity of a 75-exercise catalog with satisfactory validity indicators, meaning the exercises are understandable for athletic coaches (CCVCL=0,93), pertinent for speed track training (CCVPP=0,84) and relevant (CCVRT=0,83). Conclusion: This catalog may help athletic coaches to plan, implement and analyze their players’ sports training loads.