The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability that a smartphone accelerometer (ACC) used by a mobile basic program (MBP) can provide to measure the mean velocity of a bench-press (BP) lift. Ten volunteers participated in the study (age 23.1 ± 2.5 years; mean ± SD). They had more than one year of resistance training experience in BP exercise. All performed three attempts with different loads: 70%, 90%, and 100% of the estimated value of the one-repetition maximum (1RM). In each repetition, the mean velocity was measured by a validated linear transducer and the ACC. The smartphone accelerometer used by the mobile basic program showed no significant differences between the mean velocities at 70% 1RM lifts (ACC = 0.52 ± 0.11 m/s; transducer = 0.54 ± 0.09 m/s, p > 0.05). However, significant differences were found in the mean velocities for 90% 1RM (ACC = 0.46 ± 0.09 m/s; transducer = 0.31 ± 0.03 m/s, p < 0.001), and 100% 1RM (ACC = 0.33 ± 0.21 m/s; transducer = 0.16 ± 0.04 m/s, p < 0.05). The accelerometer is sensitive enough to measure different lift velocities, but the algorithm must be correctly calibrated.
The main purpose of this study was to compare the validity of the take-off velocity method (TOV) measured with a force platform (FP) (gold standard) versus the flight time method (FT) in a vertical jump to measure jumping performance or neuromuscular fatigue-overload in professional female football players. For this purpose, we used a FP and a validated smartphone application (APP). A total of eight healthy professional female football players (aged 27.25 ± 6.48 years) participated in this study. All performed three valid trials of a countermovement jump and squat jump and were measured at the same time with the APP and the FP. The results show that there is a lack of validity and reliability between jump height (JH) calculated through the TOV method with the FP and the FT method with the FP (r = 0.028, p > 0.84, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = −0.026) and between the JH measured with the FP through the TOV method and the APP with the FT method (r = 0.116, p > 0.43, ICC = −0.094 (−0.314–0.157)). A significant difference between the JH measured through the TOV with the FP versus the APP (p < 0.05), and a trend between the JH obtained with the FP through the TOV and the FT (p = 0.052) is also shown. Finally, the JH with the FP through the FT and the APP did not differ (p > 0.05). The eta-squared of the one-way ANOVA was η2 = 0.085. It seems that only the TOV measured with a FP could guarantee the accuracy of the jump test in SJ+CMJ and SJ, so it is recommended that high-level sportswomen and men should be assessed with the FP through TOV as gold standard technology to ensure correct performance and/or fatigue-overload control during the sport season.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.