Validity and reliability of the Myotest Pro wireless accelerometer in squat jumps

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Portable and cost-effective accelerometers can yield instantaneous results of force, power, and velocity, with minimum set-up time to assess muscle power. However, such devices must also produce both valid and reliable data. OBJECTIVE: The current study assessed the validity and reliability of the Myotest Pro wireless accelerometer (ACC). METHODS: Thirty physically active males performed two squat jump, on two separate sessions. The jump was recorded simultaneously by a force platform and ACC, which was attached to a barbell resting on the subjects' shoulders. Validity was determined using Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and t-test between the maximum force platform (FFP) and ACC (FACC) force. Between session reliability of FACC, power (PACC) and velocity (VACC) from the ACC were assessed with t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: FACC correlated highly to FFP (r = 0.815, p < 0.05), but there was a proportionate ratio bias of 0.81. There was no difference between sessions (p > 0.05) for any variable. High ICCs were found for all variables (FACC 0.90; PACC 0.80; VACC 0.84). Low CV was found for FACC (2.1%), PACC (3.3%) and VACC (3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: ACC is a valid and reliable tool to use for assessing barbell movement, but caution in power data interpretation is needed.

Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review

“…Twenty-one of the included articles tested validity of the IMU [ 23 , 24 , 27 , 34 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. Nineteen of the included articles tested the reliability of the IMU [ 23 , 24 , 27 , 34 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Six of the included articles compared the IMU with linear transducers [ 23 , 27 , 32 , 48 , 62 , 68 ].…”

“…Six of the included articles compared the IMU with linear transducers [ 23 , 27 , 32 , 48 , 62 , 68 ]. Five of the articles compared the IMU with contact platform [ 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 67 ], while one of the articles [ 69 ] compared the IMU with field computation method. Finally, six of the articles compared the IMU with motion capture system [ 24 , 61 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 70 ].…”

“…Among the included studies, 10 tested the back squat [ 23 , 34 , 46 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 68 ]; 9 the bench press [ 1 , 23 , 24 , 34 , 49 , 58 , 64 , 66 , 69 ], 1 the hip thrust [ 34 ]; 1 the bench throw [ 58 ], 1 the prone bench pull [ 23 ]; 2 the counter movement jump [ 60 , 67 ]; 1 the power snatch, clean, jerk [ 61 ]; and 1 the hexagonal barbell deadlift [ 48 ].…”

Concurrent validity of Myotest for assessing explosive strength indicators in countermovement jump

“…Additionally, the coefficient of determination value (r 2 = .727) supports the idea of less agreement between F ACC and F FP , meaning ACC should not be used to measure force during a CMJ. The accuracy of peak force estimation could be increased using the squat jump and place the accelerometer on the bar (Bampouras et al, 2013;Crewther et al, 2011;Mauch et al, 2014), where the accuracy of the ACC has been shown to increase with increasing loads (Crewther et al, 2011). Therefore, we recommend reconsidering the use of ACC to estimate peak force during unloaded vertical jumps.…”

“…Previous research has shown that accelerometers provide increasingly valid and reliable force and power output data as the external load of a movement increases (Bampouras, Relph, Orme, & Esformes, 2013;Comstock et al, 2011;Crewther et al, 2011), but there is a lack of research regarding the use of accelerometers during bodyweight movements such as the countermovement jump, which may be more appropriate for sports in which athletes do not have to provide force against an external resistance (e.g. athletics, soccer, basketball, tennis, etc.).…”