Jonathon Weakley1,2, Matthew Morrison3, Amador García-Ramos4,5, Rich Johnston3,6, Lachlan James7, Michael H Cole3. 1. School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Building 211.1.26, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Jonathon.weakley@acu.edu.au. 2. Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Institute of Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK. Jonathon.weakley@acu.edu.au. 3. School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Building 211.1.26, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 5. Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 6. Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Institute of Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK. 7. Sport and Exercise Science, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises. RESULTS: A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review. CONCLUSION: Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises. RESULTS: A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review. CONCLUSION: Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.
Authors: Jacob A Goldsmith; Cameron Trepeck; Jessica L Halle; Kristin M Mendez; Alex Klemp; Daniel M Cooke; Michael H Haischer; Ryan K Byrnes; Robert F Zoeller; Michael Whitehurst; Michael C Zourdos Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Juan José González-Badillo; David Rodríguez-Rosell; Luis Sánchez-Medina; Esteban M Gorostiaga; Fernando Pareja-Blanco Journal: Eur J Sport Sci Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 4.050
Authors: John F T Fernandes; Kevin L Lamb; Cain C T Clark; Jason Moran; Ben Drury; Amador Garcia-Ramos; Craig Twist Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.415
Authors: Joshua C Pelland; Zac P Robinson; Jacob F Remmert; Rebecca M Cerminaro; Brian Benitez; Thomas A John; Eric R Helms; Michael C Zourdos Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Alejandro Pérez-Castilla; Danica Janicijevic; Zeki Akyildiz; Deniz Senturk; Amador García-Ramos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Matthew Morrison; David T Martin; Scott Talpey; Aaron T Scanlan; Jace Delaney; Shona L Halson; Jonathon Weakley Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Ruggero Romagnoli; Sergio Civitella; Carlo Minganti; Maria Francesca Piacentini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Mateo Baena-Marín; Andrés Rojas-Jaramillo; Jhonatan González-Santamaría; David Rodríguez-Rosell; Jorge L Petro; Richard B Kreider; Diego A Bonilla Journal: Sports (Basel) Date: 2022-01-04