Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device

An increasing number of sprint-related studies have used motorized devices to provide resistance while sprinting. The aim of this study was to establish within-session reliability and criterion validity of sprint times obtained from a motorized resistance device. Seventeen elite, female, handball pl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Rakovic, Elvir, Paulsen, Gøran, Helland, Christian, Haugen, Thomas André, Eriksrud, Ola
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Rakovic, Elvir
Paulsen, Gøran
Helland, Christian
Haugen, Thomas André
Eriksrud, Ola
description An increasing number of sprint-related studies have used motorized devices to provide resistance while sprinting. The aim of this study was to establish within-session reliability and criterion validity of sprint times obtained from a motorized resistance device. Seventeen elite, female, handball players (22.9 ± 3.0 years; 176.5 ± 6.5 cm; 72.7 ± 5.5 kg; training volume 9.3 ± 0.7 hours per week) performed two 30-m sprints under 3 different resistance loading conditions (50, 80 and 110 N). Sprint times (t0–5m, t5–10m, t10–15m, t15–20m, t20–30m, and t0–30m) were assessed simultaneously by a 1080 Sprint motorized resistance device and a postprocessing timing system. The results showed that 1080 Sprint timing was equivalent to the postprocessing timing system within the limits of precision (±0.01 seconds). A systematic bias of approximately 0.34 ± 0.01 seconds was observed for t0–5m caused by different athlete location and velocity at triggering point between the systems. Coefficient of variation was approximately 2% for t0–5 and approximately 1% for the other time intervals, although standard error of measurement ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 seconds, depending on distance and phase of sprint. Intraclass correlation ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. In conclusion, the present study shows that the 1080 Sprint is valid and reliable for sprint performance monitoring purposes.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>cristin_3HK</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_cristin_nora_11250_3049136</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>11250_3049136</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-cristin_nora_11250_30491363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MjY21QUSFpwMDmGJOZkpmSWVCol5KQpBqTmZiUmZOSB-fppCooJvfkl-UWZVaopCcEFRZl4JUEVxZnFJYl5yqoJLallmcioPA2taYk5xKi-U5mZQdHMNcfbQTS4CKszMi8_LL0qMNzQ0MjWINzYwsTQ0NjMmRg0Au2oyZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device</title><source>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</source><creator>Rakovic, Elvir ; Paulsen, Gøran ; Helland, Christian ; Haugen, Thomas André ; Eriksrud, Ola</creator><creatorcontrib>Rakovic, Elvir ; Paulsen, Gøran ; Helland, Christian ; Haugen, Thomas André ; Eriksrud, Ola</creatorcontrib><description>An increasing number of sprint-related studies have used motorized devices to provide resistance while sprinting. The aim of this study was to establish within-session reliability and criterion validity of sprint times obtained from a motorized resistance device. Seventeen elite, female, handball players (22.9 ± 3.0 years; 176.5 ± 6.5 cm; 72.7 ± 5.5 kg; training volume 9.3 ± 0.7 hours per week) performed two 30-m sprints under 3 different resistance loading conditions (50, 80 and 110 N). Sprint times (t0–5m, t5–10m, t10–15m, t15–20m, t20–30m, and t0–30m) were assessed simultaneously by a 1080 Sprint motorized resistance device and a postprocessing timing system. The results showed that 1080 Sprint timing was equivalent to the postprocessing timing system within the limits of precision (±0.01 seconds). A systematic bias of approximately 0.34 ± 0.01 seconds was observed for t0–5m caused by different athlete location and velocity at triggering point between the systems. Coefficient of variation was approximately 2% for t0–5 and approximately 1% for the other time intervals, although standard error of measurement ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 seconds, depending on distance and phase of sprint. Intraclass correlation ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. In conclusion, the present study shows that the 1080 Sprint is valid and reliable for sprint performance monitoring purposes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2335-2338</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>medical ; photocells ; resisted sprinting ; spatiotemporal measurements ; sprint conditioning</subject><creationdate>2022</creationdate><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,780,885,26567</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/3049136$$EView_record_in_NORA$$FView_record_in_$$GNORA$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rakovic, Elvir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paulsen, Gøran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helland, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haugen, Thomas André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eriksrud, Ola</creatorcontrib><title>Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device</title><description>An increasing number of sprint-related studies have used motorized devices to provide resistance while sprinting. The aim of this study was to establish within-session reliability and criterion validity of sprint times obtained from a motorized resistance device. Seventeen elite, female, handball players (22.9 ± 3.0 years; 176.5 ± 6.5 cm; 72.7 ± 5.5 kg; training volume 9.3 ± 0.7 hours per week) performed two 30-m sprints under 3 different resistance loading conditions (50, 80 and 110 N). Sprint times (t0–5m, t5–10m, t10–15m, t15–20m, t20–30m, and t0–30m) were assessed simultaneously by a 1080 Sprint motorized resistance device and a postprocessing timing system. The results showed that 1080 Sprint timing was equivalent to the postprocessing timing system within the limits of precision (±0.01 seconds). A systematic bias of approximately 0.34 ± 0.01 seconds was observed for t0–5m caused by different athlete location and velocity at triggering point between the systems. Coefficient of variation was approximately 2% for t0–5 and approximately 1% for the other time intervals, although standard error of measurement ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 seconds, depending on distance and phase of sprint. Intraclass correlation ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. In conclusion, the present study shows that the 1080 Sprint is valid and reliable for sprint performance monitoring purposes.</description><subject>medical</subject><subject>photocells</subject><subject>resisted sprinting</subject><subject>spatiotemporal measurements</subject><subject>sprint conditioning</subject><issn>2335-2338</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>3HK</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MjY21QUSFpwMDmGJOZkpmSWVCol5KQpBqTmZiUmZOSB-fppCooJvfkl-UWZVaopCcEFRZl4JUEVxZnFJYl5yqoJLallmcioPA2taYk5xKi-U5mZQdHMNcfbQTS4CKszMi8_LL0qMNzQ0MjWINzYwsTQ0NjMmRg0Au2oyZQ</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>Rakovic, Elvir</creator><creator>Paulsen, Gøran</creator><creator>Helland, Christian</creator><creator>Haugen, Thomas André</creator><creator>Eriksrud, Ola</creator><scope>3HK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device</title><author>Rakovic, Elvir ; Paulsen, Gøran ; Helland, Christian ; Haugen, Thomas André ; Eriksrud, Ola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-cristin_nora_11250_30491363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>medical</topic><topic>photocells</topic><topic>resisted sprinting</topic><topic>spatiotemporal measurements</topic><topic>sprint conditioning</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rakovic, Elvir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paulsen, Gøran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helland, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haugen, Thomas André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eriksrud, Ola</creatorcontrib><collection>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rakovic, Elvir</au><au>Paulsen, Gøran</au><au>Helland, Christian</au><au>Haugen, Thomas André</au><au>Eriksrud, Ola</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device</atitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><issn>2335-2338</issn><abstract>An increasing number of sprint-related studies have used motorized devices to provide resistance while sprinting. The aim of this study was to establish within-session reliability and criterion validity of sprint times obtained from a motorized resistance device. Seventeen elite, female, handball players (22.9 ± 3.0 years; 176.5 ± 6.5 cm; 72.7 ± 5.5 kg; training volume 9.3 ± 0.7 hours per week) performed two 30-m sprints under 3 different resistance loading conditions (50, 80 and 110 N). Sprint times (t0–5m, t5–10m, t10–15m, t15–20m, t20–30m, and t0–30m) were assessed simultaneously by a 1080 Sprint motorized resistance device and a postprocessing timing system. The results showed that 1080 Sprint timing was equivalent to the postprocessing timing system within the limits of precision (±0.01 seconds). A systematic bias of approximately 0.34 ± 0.01 seconds was observed for t0–5m caused by different athlete location and velocity at triggering point between the systems. Coefficient of variation was approximately 2% for t0–5 and approximately 1% for the other time intervals, although standard error of measurement ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 seconds, depending on distance and phase of sprint. Intraclass correlation ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. In conclusion, the present study shows that the 1080 Sprint is valid and reliable for sprint performance monitoring purposes.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 2335-2338
ispartof
issn 2335-2338
language eng
recordid cdi_cristin_nora_11250_3049136
source NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
subjects medical
photocells
resisted sprinting
spatiotemporal measurements
sprint conditioning
title Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T22%3A28%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-cristin_3HK&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20and%20Reliability%20of%20a%20Motorized%20Sprint%20Resistance%20Device&rft.au=Rakovic,%20Elvir&rft.date=2022&rft.issn=2335-2338&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ccristin_3HK%3E11250_3049136%3C/cristin_3HK%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true