Do subjective assessments of running patterns reflect objective parameters?

Abstract

Running patterns are often categorized into subgroups according to common features before data analysis and interpretation. The Volodalen method is a simple field-based tool used to classify runners into aerial or terrestrial using a 5-item subjective rating scale. We aimed to validate the Volodalen method by quantifying the relationship between its subjective scores and 3D biomechanical measures. Fifty-four runners ran 30 s on a treadmill at 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 km h while their kinematics were assessed subjectively using the Volodalen method and objectively using 3D motion capture. For each runner and speed, two researchers scored the five Volodalen items on a 1-to-5 scale, which addressed vertical oscillation, upper-body motion, pelvis and foot position at ground contact, and footstrike pattern. Seven 3D biomechanical parameters reflecting the subjective items were also collected and correlated to the subjective scores. Twenty-eight runners were classified as aerial and 26 as terrestrial. Runner classification did not change with speed, but the relative contribution of the biomechanical parameters to the subjective classification was speed dependent. The magnitude of correlations between subjective and objective measures ranged from trivial to very large. Five of the seven objective parameters significantly differed between aerial and terrestrial runners, and these parameters demonstrated the strongest correlations to the subjective scores. Our results support the validity of the Volodalen method, whereby the visual appreciation of running gait reflected quantifiable objective parameters. Two minor modifications to the method are proposed to simplify its use and improve agreement between subjective and objective measures.

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

“…The DF, defined as the ratio of the ground contact time ( t c ) to the stride time (the sum of t c and swing time ( t s )), allows to rank runners using an objective temporal measure of the running form and can be used to classify runners in separate DF groups. The runners with a high DF (DF high ) in this particular study [10] reduced work against gravity to promote forward progression (longer t c ) and limit their t f , whereas those with a low DF (DF low ) had a more symmetrical running step and favored a shorter t c and longer t f. Moreover, we noted in these studies [7,8,9,10] 5% to 15% differences in t c depending on the running speed within their respective VOL and DF groups, again highlighting the potential ability of t c or t c reliant metrics to distinguish between the spontaneous running forms.…”

“…During the last minute of the 10-min run, a running coach with more than 5 years of experience using the Volodalen ® scale focused on the overall movement pattern of participants. The coach focused on five key elements—(A) vertical oscillation of the head, (B) antero-posterior motion of the elbows, (C) vertical pelvis position at ground contact, (D) antero-posterior foot position at ground contact, and (E) strike pattern [7,8]. Each element was scored from one to five, leading to a global subjective score (V ® score) that represents the spontaneous running form of participants.…”

“…Depending on speed, we have observed differences of 10% to 30% in t f of two different spontaneous running forms [7,8,9]. In these aforementioned studies, we have used a global subjective rating scale (named Volodalen ® scale) to classify runners into two main categories, based on scores along a continuum (V ® score).…”

The implications of time on the ground on running economy: less is not always better

“…Whole-body COM location was calculated from the parameters of all 15 segments. Running events were derived from the kinematic data using similar procedures to those previously reported in the literature (Lussiana et al, 2017b;Maiwald et al, 2009). More explicitly, a mid-foot landmark was generated midway between the heel and toe markers.…”

3D reconstruction of human movement in a single projection by dynamic marker scaling

“…As such, the need for objectivity when evaluating appears to be of great importance. However, more than often the assessment of such parameters is still more subjective than warranted, limited to a simple observation by the examiner of the movements performed and scoring the performance according to various clinical scales (e.g., [ 1 – 4 ]). To overcome this difficulty, various instruments exist that allow for more objective measurements.…”