Validity and Reliability of the Ergomo®pro Powermeter

被引:14
|
作者
Kirkland, A. [3 ]
Coleman, D. [1 ]
Wiles, J. D. [1 ]
Hoper, J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Canterbury Christ Church Univ, Canterbury CT1 1QU, Kent, England
[2] Univ Kent, Ctr Sport Studies, Medway, England
[3] Scottish Inst Sport, Stirling, Scotland
关键词
bilateral; ergometry; reliability; SRM;
D O I
10.1055/s-2008-1038621
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
The aim of this investigation was to assess the validity and reliability of the Ergomo (R) pro powermeter. Nine participants completed trials on a Monark ergometer fitted with Ergomo (R) pro and SRM powermeters simultaneously recording power output. Each participant completed multiple trials at power Outputs ranging from 50 to 450 W. The work stages recorded were 60 s in duration and were repeated three times. Participants also completed a single trial on a cycle ergometer designed to assess bilateral contributions to work Output (Lode Excaliber Sport PFM). The power output during the trials was significantly different between all three systems, (p<0.01) 231.2 +/- 114.2W, 233.0 +/- 112.4W, 227.8 +/- 108.8W for the Monark, SRM and Ergomo (R) pro system, respectively. When the bilateral contributions were factored into the analysis, there were no significant differences between the powermeters (p = 0.58). The reliability of the Ergomo (R) pro system (CV%) was 2.31% (95% CI 2.13-2.52%) compared to 1.59% (95% CI 1.47 to 1.74%) for the Monark, and 1.37% (95% CI 1.26-1.50%) for the SRM powermeter. These results indicate that the Ergomo (R) pro system has acceptable accuracy under these conditions. However, based on the reliability data, the increased variability of the Ergomo (R) pro system and bilateral balance issues have to be considered when using this device.
引用
收藏
页码:913 / 916
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Reliability and validity of PRO-CTCAE® daily reporting with a 24-hour recall period
    M. K. Lee
    E. Basch
    S. A. Mitchell
    L. M. Minasian
    B. T. Langlais
    G. Thanarajasingam
    B. F. Ginos
    L. J. Rogak
    T. R. Mendoza
    A. V. Bennett
    D. Schrag
    G. L. Mazza
    A. C. Dueck
    Quality of Life Research, 2023, 32 : 2047 - 2058
  • [22] Adherence to hemophilia treatment in the Dutch pediatric population; reliability and validity of the VERITAS-Pro questionnaire
    Lock, J.
    Raat, H.
    Duncan, N. A.
    Shapiro, A. D.
    Peters, M.
    Tamminga, Y. J.
    Leebeek, F. W. G.
    Moll, H. A.
    Cnossen, M. H.
    JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, 2013, 11 : 801 - 801
  • [23] Reliability and validity of PRO-CTCAE daily reporting with a 24-hour recall period
    Lee, Minji
    Basch, Ethan
    Langlais, Blake
    Thanarajasingam, Gita
    Ginos, Brenda
    Rogak, Lauren
    Mendoza, Tito
    Bennett, Antonia
    Schrag, Deb
    Mazza, Gina
    Dueck, Amylou
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2022, 31 : S151 - S152
  • [24] On the validity and reliability of self-reported vote: Validity without reliability?
    Andersson, HE
    Granberg, D
    QUALITY & QUANTITY, 1997, 31 (02) : 127 - 140
  • [25] On the validity and reliability of self-reported vote: validity without reliability?
    Hans E. Andersson
    Donald Granberg
    Quality and Quantity, 1997, 31 : 127 - 140
  • [26] RELIABILITY OR VALIDITY - REPLY
    ROUSSEAU, DM
    ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1979, 24 (02) : 313 - 314
  • [27] Reliability and validity in a nutshell
    Bannigan, Katrina
    Watson, Roger
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2009, 18 (23) : 3237 - 3243
  • [28] The validity and reliability of the ADS
    Galvin, JE
    Roe, CM
    Xiong, CJ
    Morris, JC
    NEUROLOGY, 2006, 66 (05) : A351 - A351
  • [29] Validity versus Reliability
    Strong, Edward K., Jr.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1954, 38 (02) : 103 - 104
  • [30] Validity and reliability of Nike
    Tucker, Wesley J.
    Bhammar, Dharini M.
    Sawyer, Brandon J.
    Buman, Matthew P.
    Gaesser, Glenn A.
    BMC SPORTS SCIENCE MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2015, 7 (01):