悬垂清洁拉伸过程中速度测量设备之间的可靠性、偏差、差异和一致性。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000005004
Cameron R Kissick, Baylee S Techmanski, Paul Comfort, Timothy J Suchomel
{"title":"悬垂清洁拉伸过程中速度测量设备之间的可靠性、偏差、差异和一致性。","authors":"Cameron R Kissick, Baylee S Techmanski, Paul Comfort, Timothy J Suchomel","doi":"10.1519/JSC.0000000000005004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Kissick, CR, Techmanski, BS, Comfort, P, and Suchomel, TJ. The reliability, bias, differences, and agreement between velocity measurement devices during the hang clean pull. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-This study examined the reliability, bias, differences, and agreement between the GymAware PowerTool (GA) and Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO) during the hang clean pull (HCP). Fourteen resistance-trained men performed HCP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of their 1 repetition maximum hang power clean (1RM HPC) with GA and TENDO devices attached to the barbell. Least-products regression was used to examine instances of proportional and fixed bias for mean barbell velocity (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) between devices. In addition, Hedge's g effect sizes were calculated to determine the magnitude of the differences between devices. Excellent reliability was displayed by the GA for all measurements. While excellent reliability for the TENDO was displayed for MBV across all loads, only moderate-good reliability was present for PBV at loads >80% 1RM. The TENDO displayed proportional bias for both MBV and PBV as well as fixed bias for PBV at 140% 1RM compared with the GA. Despite the small effect sizes that existed between devices for both MBV (g = 0.35-0.57) and PBV (g = 0.23-0.54), none of these differences were practically meaningful. The GA and TENDO are reliable devices that can measure MBV and PBV accurately during the HCP; however, practitioners should note that the TENDO may overestimate MBV and PBV to a small extent (3.7-6.8% and 1.8-2.9%).</p>","PeriodicalId":17129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Reliability, Bias, Differences, and Agreement Between Velocity Measurement Devices During the Hang Clean Pull.\",\"authors\":\"Cameron R Kissick, Baylee S Techmanski, Paul Comfort, Timothy J Suchomel\",\"doi\":\"10.1519/JSC.0000000000005004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Kissick, CR, Techmanski, BS, Comfort, P, and Suchomel, TJ. The reliability, bias, differences, and agreement between velocity measurement devices during the hang clean pull. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-This study examined the reliability, bias, differences, and agreement between the GymAware PowerTool (GA) and Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO) during the hang clean pull (HCP). Fourteen resistance-trained men performed HCP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of their 1 repetition maximum hang power clean (1RM HPC) with GA and TENDO devices attached to the barbell. Least-products regression was used to examine instances of proportional and fixed bias for mean barbell velocity (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) between devices. In addition, Hedge's g effect sizes were calculated to determine the magnitude of the differences between devices. Excellent reliability was displayed by the GA for all measurements. While excellent reliability for the TENDO was displayed for MBV across all loads, only moderate-good reliability was present for PBV at loads >80% 1RM. The TENDO displayed proportional bias for both MBV and PBV as well as fixed bias for PBV at 140% 1RM compared with the GA. Despite the small effect sizes that existed between devices for both MBV (g = 0.35-0.57) and PBV (g = 0.23-0.54), none of these differences were practically meaningful. The GA and TENDO are reliable devices that can measure MBV and PBV accurately during the HCP; however, practitioners should note that the TENDO may overestimate MBV and PBV to a small extent (3.7-6.8% and 1.8-2.9%).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000005004\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000005004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要: Kissick、CR、Techmanski、BS、Comfort、P 和 Suchomel、TJ。悬垂净拉时速度测量设备的可靠性、偏差、差异和一致性。J Strength Cond Res XX(X):000-000,2024-本研究考察了GymAware PowerTool(GA)和Tendo Power Analyzer(TENDO)在进行悬垂清拉力(HCP)时的可靠性、偏差、差异和一致性。14 名接受过阻力训练的男子分别用 20%、40%、60%、80%、100%、120% 和 140% 的单次最大悬垂力量清扫(1RM HPC)进行了 HCP 重复,GA 和 TENDO 设备均安装在杠铃上。我们使用最小乘积回归法来检查不同装置之间的平均杠铃速度(MBV)和峰值杠铃速度(PBV)的比例偏差和固定偏差。此外,还计算了 Hedge's g效应大小,以确定不同设备之间的差异程度。GA 在所有测量中都显示出极佳的可靠性。虽然 TENDO 在所有负荷下的 MBV 都显示出极佳的可靠性,但在负荷大于 80% 1RM 时,PBV 仅显示出中等水平的可靠性。与 GA 相比,TENDO 对 MBV 和 PBV 均显示出比例偏差,而对 140% 1RM 时的 PBV 则显示出固定偏差。尽管在 MBV(g = 0.35-0.57)和 PBV(g = 0.23-0.54)方面,设备之间存在较小的效应大小,但这些差异都没有实际意义。GA 和 TENDO 是可靠的设备,可以在 HCP 期间准确测量 MBV 和 PBV;但是,从业人员应该注意,TENDO 可能会在很小程度上高估 MBV 和 PBV(3.7-6.8% 和 1.8-2.9%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Reliability, Bias, Differences, and Agreement Between Velocity Measurement Devices During the Hang Clean Pull.

Abstract: Kissick, CR, Techmanski, BS, Comfort, P, and Suchomel, TJ. The reliability, bias, differences, and agreement between velocity measurement devices during the hang clean pull. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-This study examined the reliability, bias, differences, and agreement between the GymAware PowerTool (GA) and Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO) during the hang clean pull (HCP). Fourteen resistance-trained men performed HCP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of their 1 repetition maximum hang power clean (1RM HPC) with GA and TENDO devices attached to the barbell. Least-products regression was used to examine instances of proportional and fixed bias for mean barbell velocity (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) between devices. In addition, Hedge's g effect sizes were calculated to determine the magnitude of the differences between devices. Excellent reliability was displayed by the GA for all measurements. While excellent reliability for the TENDO was displayed for MBV across all loads, only moderate-good reliability was present for PBV at loads >80% 1RM. The TENDO displayed proportional bias for both MBV and PBV as well as fixed bias for PBV at 140% 1RM compared with the GA. Despite the small effect sizes that existed between devices for both MBV (g = 0.35-0.57) and PBV (g = 0.23-0.54), none of these differences were practically meaningful. The GA and TENDO are reliable devices that can measure MBV and PBV accurately during the HCP; however, practitioners should note that the TENDO may overestimate MBV and PBV to a small extent (3.7-6.8% and 1.8-2.9%).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The editorial mission of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (JSCR) is to advance the knowledge about strength and conditioning through research. A unique aspect of this journal is that it includes recommendations for the practical use of research findings. While the journal name identifies strength and conditioning as separate entities, strength is considered a part of conditioning. This journal wishes to promote the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts which add to our understanding of conditioning and sport through applied exercise science.
期刊最新文献
Comparison Between Eccentric vs. Concentric Muscle Actions On Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Linear and Multidirectional Speed Testing (On-Field and Off-Field) Protocols in Senior and Elite Female Football. Understanding Training Load in Golf: A Survey of Swing Coaches, Performance Practitioners, and Medical Staff. Self-Regulated Learning Assessment in Young Soccer Players: Beyond Competitive Levels. Ventilatory and Perceived Ergogenic Effects of Mandibular Forward Repositioning During Running at Maximal Oxygen Uptake Intensity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1