4.4 Article

Validity and Reliability of a New Device to Measure Type of Actions in Indoor Sports

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 253-258

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1244-9985

关键词

tracking system; change of direction; team sports; futsal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed the validity and reliability of intensity ranges, number of actions, and changes of direction measured by a commercial inertial measurement unit. The results showed good validity and reliability for high-intensity actions, as well as almost perfect validity for the number of different actions.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity and the reliability of the intensity ranges, number of actions and changes of direction measured by a commercial inertial measurement unit. Eleven elite youth futsal players performed a circuit with different type of displacements as sprinting, running at low-medium intensity, standing up and changes of direction. Data recorded by the Overtraq system were compared with video-analyzer during the six trials of each player. Standard error mean, Intraclass Correlation Coeficient and Coefficient of variation, were calculated to analyze the reliability of the device, as well as the Root Mean Square Error and Confidence Interval with correlation of Pearson for its validity. The results reported good validity for three intensity ranges (R2>0.7) with high reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coeficient: 0.8-0.9), especially for high intensity actions (Intraclass Correlation Coeficient: 0.95, Coefficient of Variation: 3.06%). Furthermore, the validity for the number of different actions was almost perfect (96.3-100%), with only small differences regarding changes of activity (mean error: 2.0%). The Overtraq system can be considered as a valid and reliable technology for measuring and monitoring actions at different intensities and changes of direction in futsal, likewise common actions for other indoor sports.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据