Validity of Self-Reported Running Distance

Abstract

It is unclear whether there is a difference between subjective evaluation and objective global positioning systems (GPS) measurement of running distance. The purpose of this study was to investigate if such difference exists. A total of 100 participants (51% men; median age, 41.5; body mass, 78.1 kg ±13.8 SD) completed a run of free choice, then subjectively reported the distance in kilometer (km). This information was subsequently compared with the distance derived from a nondifferential GPS watch using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman's 95% limits of agreement. No significant difference was found between the mean paired differences between subjective evaluations and GPS measurements (1.86%, 95% confidence interval = -1.53%; 5.25%, p = 0.96). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement revealed considerable variation (lower limit = -28% and upper limit = 40%). Such variation exceeds the clinical error range of 10%. In conclusion, the mean running distance (km) is similar between self-reporting and GPS measurements. However, researchers should consider using GPS measurements in favor of subjective reporting of running distance because of considerable variation on an individual level.

A framework for the etiology of running‐related injuries

“…9 In situations where traditional participation-related variables have to be used, researchers should strive to collect objective data, particularly when it has been shown runners are unable to validly self-report running distance. 101 For decades, wearable technologies such as sports watches and fitness trackers have allowed runners to quantify time exposed to running. The recent development of these commercially available devices, 102,103 including insoles, 104 pedometers 105 and accelerometers, 106,107 as well as electronic health platforms, 108 now afford research teams the possibility of using new ways to collect data.…”

Training volume and previous injury as associated factors for running-related injuries by race distance: A cross-sectional study

“…Further prospective investigations should be conducted incorporating longer follow-up periods to better understand the contribution of training variables in the development of injuries during a race. Objective methods, such as mobile applications or global positioning satellite systems may be considered to enhance the accuracy of measurements, especially those related to weekly running volume (Diderisken, Soegaard, & Nielsen, 2016).…”

Quantifying exposure to running for meaningful insights into running-related injuries

“…Training diaries, including surveys, are the most obvious way to assess external training load, but self-report data compares poorly to the wide range of objective methods for measuring external training load. Results from one study of 100 recreational runners suggest that self-reported distance covered in a single training session can differ by −28% to +40% of the true distance 12. Because self-reported training volume can vary so drastically from the true value, drawing strong conclusions from self-report data alone is challenging.…”