Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorRakovic, Elvir
dc.contributor.authorPaulsen, Gøran
dc.contributor.authorHelland, Christian
dc.contributor.authorHaugen, Thomas André
dc.contributor.authorEriksrud, Ola
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-08T08:54:53Z
dc.date.available2023-02-08T08:54:53Z
dc.date.created2022-01-24T07:10:22Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2022, 36(8), 2335-2338.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1064-8011
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3049136
dc.descriptionI Brage finner du siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde ubetydelige forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på lww.com / In Brage you'll find the final text version of the article, and it may contain insignificant differences from the journal's pdf version. The definitive version is available at lww.com.en_US
dc.description.abstractAn 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectmedicalen_US
dc.subjectphotocellsen_US
dc.subjectresisted sprintingen_US
dc.subjectspatiotemporal measurementsen_US
dc.subjectsprint conditioningen_US
dc.titleValidity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Deviceen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber2335-2338en_US
dc.source.volume36en_US
dc.source.journalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Researchen_US
dc.source.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1519/JSC.0000000000003830
dc.identifier.cristin1988180
dc.description.localcodeInstitutt for fysisk prestasjonsevne / Department of Physical Performanceen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel