IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i11p5935-d1154275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot

Author

Listed:
  • Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo

    (Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain)

  • Alfonso Penichet-Tomas

    (Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain)

  • Basilio Pueo

    (Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain)

  • Lamberto Villalon-Gasch

    (Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain)

Abstract

The ability to detect small changes in a vertical jump is crucial when data are used by sports science specialists to monitor their athletes. This study aimed to analyze the intrasession reliability of the ADR jumping photocell and the reliability relative to the position of the transmitter when it is located facing the phalanges of the foot (forefoot) or the metatarsal area (midfoot). A total of 12 female volleyball players performed 240 countermovement jumps (CMJ), alternating both methods. The intersession reliability was higher for the forefoot method (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.95; SEM = 1.15 cm; CV = 4.11%) than for the midfoot method (ICC = 0.85; CCC = 0.81; SEM = 3.68 cm; CV = 8.75%). Similarly, the sensitivity values were better for the forefoot method (SWC = 0.32) than for the midfoot method (SWC = 1.04). Significant differences were found between the methods (13.5 cm, p < 0.05, ES = 2.1) with low agreement ( r s = 0.57; ICC = 0.49; CCC = 0.15; SEM = 4.7 cm) and heteroscedasticity was observed ( r 2 > 0.1). In conclusion, the ADR jumping photocell is shown to be a reliable tool for measuring CMJs. However, the reliability of the instrument can be influenced depending on the placement of the device. Comparing the two methods, the midfoot placement was less reliable as indicated by higher values of SEM and systematic error, and thus its use is not recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo & Alfonso Penichet-Tomas & Basilio Pueo & Lamberto Villalon-Gasch, 2023. "Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(11), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:11:p:5935-:d:1154275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/11/5935/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/11/5935/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo & Basilio Pueo & Jose M. Mossi & Lamberto Villalon-Gasch, 2022. "Reliability of My Jump 2 Derived from Crouching and Standing Observation Heights," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Lin L. & Hedayat A. S. & Sinha B. & Yang M., 2002. "Statistical Methods in Assessing Agreement: Models, Issues, and Tools," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 257-270, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liao Jason J. Z. & Capen Robert, 2011. "An Improved Bland-Altman Method for Concordance Assessment," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Hutson, Alan D., 2010. "A multi-rater nonparametric test of agreement and corresponding agreement plot," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 109-119, January.
    3. Masha Kocherginsky & Megan Huisingh-Scheetz & William Dale & Diane S Lauderdale & Linda Waite, 2017. "Measuring Physical Activity with Hip Accelerometry among U.S. Older Adults: How Many Days Are Enough?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Correndo, Adrian A. & Hefley, Trevor J. & Holzworth, Dean P. & Ciampitti, Ignacio A., 2021. "Revisiting linear regression to test agreement in continuous predicted-observed datasets," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Choudhary, Pankaj K., 2007. "Semiparametric regression for assessing agreement using tolerance bands," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6229-6241, August.
    6. Choudhary Pankaj K, 2010. "A Unified Approach for Nonparametric Evaluation of Agreement in Method Comparison Studies," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-26, June.
    7. Chen, Chia-Cheng & Barnhart, Huiman X., 2008. "Comparison of ICC and CCC for assessing agreement for data without and with replications," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 554-564, December.
    8. Jordan A. Carlson & Bo Liu & James F. Sallis & Jacqueline Kerr & J. Aaron Hipp & Vincent S. Staggs & Amy Papa & Kelsey Dean & Nuno M. Vasconcelos, 2017. "Automated Ecological Assessment of Physical Activity: Advancing Direct Observation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Dejian Lai & Shyang-Yun Pamela Shiao, 2005. "Comparing two clinical measurements: a linear mixed model approach," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 855-860.
    10. Li, Runze & Chow, Mosuk, 2005. "Evaluation of reproducibility for paired functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 81-101, March.
    11. Wei, Bo & Dai, Tian & Peng, Limin & Guo, Ying & Manatunga, Amita, 2020. "A new functional representation of broad sense agreement," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Gao, Jingjing & Pan, Yi & Haber, Michael, 2012. "Assessment of observer agreement for matched repeated binary measurements," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1052-1060.
    13. Lisa R. Goldberg & Saad Mouti, 2019. "Sustainable Investing and the Cross-Section of Returns and Maximum Drawdown," Papers 1905.05237, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:11:p:5935-:d:1154275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.