Title |
Concurrent validity of the Gyko inertial sensor system for the assessment of vertical jump height in female sub-elite youth soccer players
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, November 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13102-016-0061-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Melanie Lesinski, Thomas Muehlbauer, Urs Granacher |
Abstract |
The aim of the present study was to verify concurrent validity of the Gyko inertial sensor system for the assessment of vertical jump height. Nineteen female sub-elite youth soccer players (mean age: 14.7 ± 0.6 years) performed three trials of countermovement (CMJ) and squat jumps (SJ), respectively. Maximal vertical jump height was simultaneously quantified with the Gyko system, a Kistler force-plate (i.e., gold standard), and another criterion device that is frequently used in the field, the Optojump system. Compared to the force-plate, the Gyko system determined significant systematic bias for mean CMJ (-0.66 cm, p < 0.01, d = 1.41) and mean SJ (-0.91 cm, p < 0.01, d = 1.69) height. Random bias was ± 3.2 cm for CMJ and ± 4.0 cm for SJ height and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were "excellent" (ICC = 0.87 for CMJ and 0.81 for SJ). Compared to the Optojump device, the Gyko system detected a significant systematic bias for mean CMJ (0.55 cm, p < 0.05, d = 0.94) but not for mean SJ (0.39 cm) height. Random bias was ± 3.3 cm for CMJ and ± 4.2 cm for SJ height and ICC values were "excellent" (ICC = 0.86 for CMJ and 0.82 for SJ). Consequently, apparatus specific regression equations were provided to estimate true vertical jump height for the Kistler force-plate and the Optojump device from Gyko-derived data. Our findings indicate that the Gyko system cannot be used interchangeably with a Kistler force-plate and the Optojump device in trained individuals. It is suggested that practitioners apply the correction equations to estimate vertical jump height for the force-plate and the Optojump system from Gyko-derived data. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 25% |
United States | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
France | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 124 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 24 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
Researcher | 13 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 9% |
Other | 20 | 16% |
Unknown | 28 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 62 | 50% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 7% |
Engineering | 5 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 6% |
Unknown | 34 | 27% |