Validity and Reliability of Kinematics Measured with PUSH Band vs. Linear Encoder in Bench Press and Push-Ups

Tillaar, Roland van den; Ball, Nick

doi:10.3390/sports7090207

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from the PUSH Band 2.0 were filtered using a fourth-order, zero-lag, Butterworth low-pass filter with a 12 Hz cut-off frequency. 22 The GymAware uses an adaptive sampling rate and filters the output to remove noise, and so additional filters were not used. 14,18 Mean peak (across five trials) and maximum peak (highest recorded) punching velocity from both the GymAware and PUSH Band 2.0 were recorded and exported into an excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel version 2016, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of a linear position transducer and commercially available accelerometer to measure punching velocity in junior boxing athletes

Harris

Caillaud

Khullar

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited evidence exists demonstrating reliability of using direct measures to quantify punching velocity. The aim of this study was to establish the intra- and inter-day reliability of a linear positional transducer (GymAware) and accelerometer (PUSH Band 2.0) for the quantification of peak punching velocity in trained junior boxing athletes. Eighteen males aged 16.7 years (±1.2) with at least two years of boxing experience participated in the study. On two separate days, participants performed five dominant-hand crosses with maximal effort. Ordinary least-products regression analysis was used to compare mean and maximum peak velocity scores between devices within each day of testing. Two-way mixed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) and Pearson’s r with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were also used to compare mean and maximum peak velocity within devices across days. Maximum peak (∼7.5 ms vs. ∼6.2 ms) and mean peak (∼7.0 ms vs. 5.4 ms) velocity was higher when measured via GymAware compared to PUSH Band 2.0 on both days (all P ≤ 0.012). The within-device mean (ICC3,1 = 0.871, 95%CI = 0.689, 0.950) and maximum (ICC3,1 = 0.853 95%CI = 0.650, 0.942) peak velocity scores for the GymAware across Days 1 and 2 demonstrated very high reliabilities. Mean (ICC3,1 = 0.309, 95%CI = –0.170, 0.670) and maximum (ICC3,1 = 0.227, 95%CI = –0.173, 0.637) peak velocity for PUSH Band 2.0 demonstrated weak reliabilities. Proportional bias was found for Day 2 mean and maximum peak velocity and when both days were pooled. Fixed bias was observed for mean (Day 1) and maximum peak velocity when both days were pooled. These results may provide useful information for professionals working with boxing or combat-sport athletes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of a linear position transducer and commercially available accelerometer to measure punching velocity in junior boxing athletes

Harris

Caillaud

Khullar

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The level of agreement between permutations of jump performance measured via Mo-Cap, G-Flight, and PUSH devices and the corresponding criterion force-plate measurement was made using Bland-Altman 95% LoA [ 26 ]. Typical error of measurement (TEM), which was measured by the average standard deviation per test session for each subject, was used to assess the typical error in the measurements and Bland–Altman plots to identify potential systematic bias, which was reported through mean-bias and standard deviations [ 27 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Three Ultra-Portable Vertical Jump Assessment Technologies

Watkins

Maunder

Tillaar

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vertical jump is a valuable training, testing, and readiness monitoring tool used across a multitude of sport settings. However, accurate field analysis has not always been readily available or affordable. For this study, two-dimensional motion capture (Mo-Cap), G-Flight micro-sensor, and PUSH accelerometer technologies were compared to a research-grade force-plate. Twelve healthy university students (7 males, 5 females) volunteered for this study. Each participant performed squat jumps, countermovement jumps, and drop jumps on three separate occasions. Between-device differences were determined using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Systematic bias was determined by limits of agreement using Bland–Altman analysis. Variability was examined via the coefficient of variation, interclass correlation coefficient, and typical error of measure. Dependent variables included jump height, contact-time, and reactive strength index (RSI). Mo-Cap held the greatest statistical similarity to force-plates, only overestimating contact-time (+12 ms). G-Flight (+1.3–4 cm) and PUSH (+4.1–4.5 cm) consistently overestimate jump height, while PUSH underestimates contact-time (−24 ms). Correspondingly, RSI was the most valid metric across all technologies. All technologies held small to moderate variably; however, variability was greatest with the G-Flight. While all technologies are practically implementable, practitioners may want to consider budget, athlete characteristics, exercise demands, set-up, and processing time before purchasing the most appropriate equipment.

show abstract

“…This can be observed when completing differing repetition and set structures (e.g., three sets of 10 repetitions vs. 10 sets of three repetitions with the same external load) or when stronger athletes are compared against weaker counterparts [3,4]. To circumvent these issues and support the accurate quantification of resistance training loads, a range of tools that assess kinetic and kinematic outputs have been developed [8][9][10][11]. By monitoring kinetic and kinematic outputs, changes in fatigue and proximity to concentric muscle failure can be closely monitored [6,12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices. Objective A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises. Results A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review. Conclusion Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

show abstract

Validity and Reliability of Kinematics Measured with PUSH Band vs. Linear Encoder in Bench Press and Push-Ups

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

The reliability of a linear position transducer and commercially available accelerometer to measure punching velocity in junior boxing athletes

The reliability of a linear position transducer and commercially available accelerometer to measure punching velocity in junior boxing athletes

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Three Ultra-Portable Vertical Jump Assessment Technologies

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About