Balsalobre Runmatic JAB 16 PDF

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311449559
The Validity and Reliability of an iPhone App

for Measuring Running Mechanics
Article in Journal of applied biomechanics · December 2016

DOI: 10.1123/jab.2016-0104
CITATIONS READS
0 722
3 authors:
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández Hovannes Agopyan

European University of Madrid 3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
28 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Jean-Benoît Morin
University of Nice Sophia Antipolis
160 PUBLICATIONS 1,727 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
1. Performance analysis and training for explosiveness and maximal intensity (jumping, sprinting)
View project
Virtual Reality Reahbilitation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández on 07 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
“The Validity and Reliability of an iPhone App for Measuring Running Mechanics”
by Balsalobre-Fernández C, Agopyan H, Morin JB
Journal of Applied Biomechanics
© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of

the Journal of Applied Biomechanics. The article appears here
in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by the
submitting author. It has not been copyedited, proofread, or
formatted by the publisher.
Section: Technical Note
Article Title: The Validity and Reliability of an iPhone App for Measuring Running
Mechanics
Authors: Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández1, Hovannes Agopyan2, and Jean-Benoit Morin2
Affiliations: 1Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain.

2
Université Côte d'Azur, LAMHESS, Nice, France.
Journal: Journal of Applied Biomechanics
Acceptance Date: November 8, 2016
©2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jab.2016-0104
The validity and reliability of an iPhone app for measuring running mechanics
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández1, Hovannes Agopyan2, Jean-Benoit Morin2
1
Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain
2
Université Côte d'Azur, LAMHESS, Nice, France
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The first author of the article is the creator of the app
mentioned. To guarantee the objectivity of the results, the data from the app were obtained
from two independent observers not related to the app development.
Correspondence address:
Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain.
Address: C/Tajo SN – 28670 Madrid, Spain.
E-mail: carlos.balsalobre@icloud.com
Running title: iPhone app for measuring running mechanics

Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the validity of an iPhone application
(Runmatic) for measuring running mechanics. To do this, 96 steps from 12 different runs at
speeds ranging from 2.77-5.55 m·s-1 were recorded simultaneously with Runmatic as well as
with an opto-electronic device installed on a motorized treadmill to measure the contact and
aerial time of each step. Additionally, several running mechanics variables were calculated
using the contact and aerial times measured and previously validated equations. Several
statistics were computed to test the validity and reliability of Runmatic in comparison with
the opto-electronic device for the measurement of contact time, aerial time, vertical
oscillation, leg stiffness, maximum relative force, and step frequency. The running mechanics
values obtained with both the app and the opto-electronic device showed a high degree of
correlation (r = 0.94-0.99, p<0.001). Moreover, there was very close agreement between
instruments as revealed by the ICC (2,1) (ICC = 0.965-0.991). Finally, both Runmatic and the
opto-electronic device showed almost identical reliability levels when measuring each set of
8 steps for every run recorded. In conclusion, Runmatic has been proven to be a highly
reliable tool for measuring the running mechanics studied in this work.
Key words: biomechanics, stride, performance, smartphone
Word count: 2289

Introduction
There is a large body of research highlighting the importance of monitoring running

1–4
mechanics for both performance and injury-prevention purposes . From the performance
enhancement perspective, the measurement of leg stiffness, vertical oscillation of the center
of mass, and ground contact time is of great interest since these variables seems to play a key
1,5–7
role in running performance and could be used to detect neuromuscular fatigue 8. In the
context of injury prevention, several studies have proposed that stride variables such as leg
stiffness or leg asymmetry when running could be used as indicators for non-contact lower
limb injuries 3,9,10.
The instruments considered the gold standard for measuring running mechanics are
force platforms and instrumented treadmills 11,12. However, the fact that these are unavailable
in many performance centers and clinics (particularly those with fewer resources) may
prevent many coaches and athletes from using them, making running mechanics evaluation
and long-term follow-up impossible. For this reason, many researchers have looked at the
validation of more affordable and practical devices to measure running mechanics, mainly
based on opto-electronic devices and accelerometers 11,13,14. Among these, the Optojump Next
is probably the most widely used because of its high degree of validity and reliability
15,16
compared with force platforms . Moreover, contact and aerial times can be used to
calculate leg stiffness, vertical oscillation, step frequency and maximal force of each stride in
a very valid, reliable and accurate way using the mathematical model proposed by Morin et
al. 17–19. Meanwhile, recent studies have analyzed the validity and reliability of less expensive
11,13,20
field-based and easier-to-use accelerometers . However, while highly reliable, their
validity and accuracy in comparison with photoelectric systems are still low for clinical
purposes. For example, a recent study showed that the Myotest device overestimates stride
contact and aerial time by 35-103% compared with the Optojump next system 13 especially at
low running speeds. Thus, more research is needed to validate new methods for measuring
running mechanics in a practical, affordable but still highly valid and reliable way.
Previous studies have shown the high level of validity and reliability of an iPhone app
21,22
for measuring aerial time in jumping activities . The app calculates aerial time very
accurately thanks to the high-speed camera present on the latest iPhone models, which
precisely detects the contact and take-off of the jump. Thus, we hypothesize that the 240
frames per second camera available on the iPhone 6 and above enables the precise
identification of ground contact and aerial time in running. Therefore, the purpose of the
present study is to analyze the validity and reliability of an iOS application for measuring
contact time, aerial time, and the running mechanics that can be computed from these
variables (i.e., step frequency, vertical oscillation of the center of mass, maximal force and
leg stiffness) during running at different speeds.
Methods
Participants
Two healthy, non-injured male forefoot striker runners familiar with treadmill running
volunteered to participate. Since the aim of this study was the comparison of several
computations of time (i.e., contact and aerial times) measured with two devices, it was not
necessary to recruit more subjects. Similar analyses with low sample sizes have been used in
previous studies in which the computations are independent from subject’s characteristics 23
.
After being informed about experimental procedures, the participants provided written
consent for participating in the study. All the procedures were approved by an institutional
review board and were in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Instruments
The app Runmatic was developed ad hoc for this study using Xcode 7.2.1 for Mac OS
X 10.11.3 and the Swift 2.1.1 programming language (Apple Inc., USA). The AVFoundation
and AVKit frameworks (Apple Inc., USA) were used for capturing, importing and
manipulating high-speed videos. The final version of the app (i.e., Runmatic v.2.1) was
installed on an iPhone 6 running iOS 9.2.1 (Apple Inc., USA), which has a recording
frequency of 240 frames per second (fps) at a quality of 720p. The app was designed to use
the 240 fps high-speed recording capabilities of the iPhone in order to accurately detect the
contact and take-off frame of each step on the treadmill and to subsequently calculate the
contact and aerial time of each step. To do this, the app calculates the contact time as the time
between the first frame in which the foot contacts the treadmill and the first frame in which
the foot takes off. The aerial time is calculated as the time between the first frame in which
the foot takes off from the treadmill and the first frame in which the other foot makes contact
with the treadmill. Note that the user indicates to the app which these are by clicking on a
frame during a frame-by-frame visual inspection. Finally, the contact and aerial times
measured with both the app and the opto-electronic device are used to calculate vertical
oscillation, step frequency, relative maximum force, and leg stiffness of each step using the
equations validated in Morin et al.17, on the basis of the following data entered into the app:
subject’s body mass, height, and running speed. Specifically, maximal force (in N) was
𝜋 𝑡𝑎
calculated using the following equation: 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑚𝑔 ( + 1), with m being the body mass
2 𝑡𝑐
of the subject (in kg), ta the aerial time and tc the contact time. Then, leg stiffness (in kN/m)
was calculated as the ratio of the maximal force and the peak vertical displacement of the leg
spring, which was computed from the leg length of the subject (L = height -in m.- *0.53), the
running velocity, and the contact time. Finally, results from both instruments were compared.
Additionally, the Optojump Next single-meter kit (Microgate, Italy) was used as the
reference device for this study. This instrument, which has a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz
was mounted on a Gymrol S2500 motorized treadmill (HEF Tecmachine, Andrezieux-
Boutheon, France). The Optojump Next was connected to a PC running Windows 7 and the
Optojump Next v 1.9 software. Finally, contact and aerial times of 8 consecutive steps were
used to calculate running mechanics using the equations aforementioned, i.e., the same
equations used within Runmatic.
Procedures
After completing a standardized warm-up consisting of dynamic lower-limb stretches
and jogging, participants performed 6 different 30 s runs at a zero incline on a Gymrol S2500
motorized treadmill (HEF Tecmachine, Andrezieux-Boutheon, France) at 2.77, 3.33, 3.88,
4.44, 5 and 5.55 m·s-1 in a randomized order. One minute of passive rest was allowed
between each run. Eight steps of each run were analyzed simultaneously with Runmatic and
an Optojump Next opto-electronic device. To record the runs with the app, a researcher lay
prone on the ground, 30 cm from the back of the treadmill and held the iPhone in a vertical
position at the same level as the floor of the treadmill. This setup was used to closely record
the back of the participants’ feet (i.e., in the frontal plane), and was required to make the app
work properly (see Figure 1). It should be noted that, because this procedure is necessary, the
app is designed to be used with a treadmill and not during outdoor runs.
In order to allow participants to stabilize their running pattern at each speed, as well
as synchronize the iPhone app with the Optojump Next, the runners were told to drop onto the
treadmill with the right foot. Both systems then started recording at the 12th step (i.e., 6th left
step). Finally, the app calculated the running mechanics variables using the aforementioned
equations.
Statistical analyses
Several statistical analyses were performed in order to analyze the validity and
reliability of Runmatic in comparison with the criterion. First, to test the concurrent validity
of Runmatic, we used Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient, linear regression,
and the standard error of estimate (SEE). Second, to analyze the reliability of the app for the
measurement of contact and aerial time in comparison with the Optojump Next, we used the
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC-2,1-). Third, to test the reliability of both the app and
the Optojump Next for the measurement of the 8 consecutive steps of each run, Cronbach’s
alpha and the coefficient of variation (CV) were used. Fourth, in order to detect potential
systematic bias, we used the T-test for independent measures and one-way ANOVA that were
complemented with the analysis of the slope of the linear regression line and the SEE. The
level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. All calculations were performed using
IBM SPSS Statistics 22 for Mac (IBM Co., USA).
Results
When analyzing the whole dataset (i.e., 96 individual steps measured with both
instruments) Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a very high
relationship between Runmatic and the Optojump Next system (Contact time: r = 0.99,
p<0.001, SEE = 0.0056; Aerial time: r = 0.94, p<0.001, SEE = 0.0048) (see Figure 2).
Moreover, there was a very high agreement between instruments as revealed by the ICC (2,1)
(Contact time: ICC = 0.991, Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.987 to 0.994; Aerial time: ICC =
0.965, CI = 0.948 to 0.977).
When proceeding with an independent measures’ T-test, a systematic bias was
observed between Runmatic and the Optojump Next system for the aerial time (mean
difference: +0.006s in Runmatic, CI = 0.0017 to 0.01, p < 0.05) but not for the contact time
(mean difference: -0.006s in Runmatic, CI = -0.167 to 0.004, p = 0.229). Moreover, when
analyzing the difference between instruments across low (2.77 - 3.33 m/s), moderate (3.88 -
4.44 m/s) and high (5 – 5.5 m/s) running velocities a statistically significant difference, by
which lower velocities produced higher differences, was observed (p< 0.001) for both contact
and aerial time. Finally, when analyzing each set of 8 steps to test the reliability of the
instruments for measuring different steps of the same run, both Runmatic and the Optojump
Next system had almost identical, very high Cronbach’s alpha and low coefficients of
variation values (Contact time: Runmatic [CV = 2.82%, α = 0.996], Optojump Next [CV =
2.89%, α = 0.996]; Aerial time: Runmatic [CV = 5.2%, α = 0.993], Optojump Next [CV =
5.4%, α = 0.969]).
Finally, there were significant, very high correlations between Runmatic and the
Optojump Next for all the variables computed for the running mechanics analysis (r = 0.94-
0.99, CI = 0.91 to 0.99, p<0.001) (see Table 1).
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to analyze the validity and reliability of a newly
developed iOS application to measure several running mechanics variables. The results
showed very high levels of agreement between Runmatic and the criterion for the
measurement of contact and aerial times, with an ICC higher than 0.96 and a correlation
coefficient ranging from 0.94-0.99 in both variables. Also, the linear regression analyses
showed very high determination coefficients (R2 = 0.89-0.98) and slopes ranging from 0.82-
1.03, highlighting the ability of the app to obtain similar values to those measured with the
opto-electronic device. While the contact times measured with Runmatic did not differ
significantly from those obtained with the Optojump Next, a significant difference in aerial
time was observed between the instruments. This could be explained by the smaller values of
aerial time compared with contact time (0.113-0.119 vs. 0.228-0.234 seconds): the SEE and
the absolute mean difference between instruments ranged from 4-6 milliseconds for both
variables, but that value is proportionally higher for the aerial time making the difference
more noticeable in the T-test. Thus, despite being statistically significant for aerial time,
overall the magnitude of difference between the instruments was very low. Moreover, when
analyzing the difference between instruments across all the running velocities, a significant
difference was observed between low (2.77 - 3.33 m/s), moderate (3.88 - 4.44 m/s) and high
(5 – 5.5 m/s) velocities, where lower velocities produced greater differences (mean difference
for contact time: low velocities = 0.01 s, moderate velocities = 0.007 s, high velocities =
0.002 s; mean difference for aerial time: low velocities = -0.01 s, moderate velocities = -
0.006 s, high velocities = -0.001 s). It would therefore be interesting to test if these
differences are still small when running velocities other than those covered in this work are
studied.
However, since both instruments demonstrated almost identical levels of reliability
when measuring each set of 8 steps for the different runs and running velocities, the
aforementioned differences should be consistent and therefore, the app could be used to track
24
changes in performance over time. These results are in line with the study by Girard et al.
in which high levels of intra- and inter-day reliability were observed in the computation of
mechanical running parameters using the spring-mass model described in Morin et al. and an
instrumented treadmill 17. This could therefore be a useful technique for coaches or therapists
who wish to monitor running mechanics over time without advanced instruments.
Vertical oscillation, leg stiffness, maximum relative force, and step frequency values
also showed a very high level of correlation (r = 0.94-0.97) and small absolute mean
differences (2.2-6.5%) between the two instruments. Other studies have also aimed to test
more affordable devices than force platforms or opto-electronic devices. For example, while
the reliability of Myotest when measuring contact time, aerial time and step frequency was
high to very high (ICC = 0.835-0.999), its validity was not acceptable, with absolute mean
bias up to 103 % between devices 13. In conclusion, the app analyzed in the present study is
both a valid and reliable tool for measuring contact time, aerial time, vertical oscillation, leg
stiffness, maximum relative force and step frequency.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the participants and the observers for their involvement in the
present study.
References
1. Moore IS. Is There an Economical Running Technique? A Review of Modifiable

Biomechanical Factors Affecting Running Economy. Sport Med. 2016.
doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0474-4.
2. Santos-Concejero J, Tam N, Granados C, et al. Stride angle as a novel indicator of
running economy in well-trained runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(7):1889-
1895. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000325.
3. Butler RJ, Crowell HP, Davis IM. Lower extremity stiffness: Implications for
performance and injury. Clin Biomech. 2003;18(6):511-517. doi:10.1016/S0268-
0033(03)00071-8.
4. Pappas P, Paradisis G, Vagenas G. Leg and vertical stiffness (a)symmetry between
dominant and non-dominant legs in young male runners. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;40:273-
283. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.01.005.
5. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining
factors. Sport Med - Open. 2015;1(1):8. doi:10.1186/s40798-015-0007-y.
6. Santos-Concejero J, Olivan J, Mate-Munoz JL, et al. Gait Cycle Characteristics and
Running Economy in Elite Eritrean and European Runners. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2014. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0179.
7. Chapman RF, Laymon AS, Wilhite DP, McKenzie JM, Tanner DA, Stager JM.
Ground Contact Time as an Indicator of Metabolic Cost in Elite Distance Runners.
Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2012;44(5):917-925.
8. Buchheit M, Gray A, Morin J-B. Assessing Stride Variables and Vertical Stiffness
with GPS-Embedded Accelerometers: Preliminary Insights for the Monitoring of
Neuromuscular Fatigue on the Field. J Sport Sci Med. 2015;14:698-701.
9. Hewit J, Cronin J, Hume P. Multidirectional Leg Asymmetry Assessment in Sport.
Strength Cond J. 2012;34(1):82-86. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e31823e83db.
10. Fousekis K, Tsepis E, Poulmedis P, Athanasopoulos S, Vagenas G. Intrinsic risk
factors of non-contact quadriceps and hamstring strains in soccer: a prospective study
of 100 professional players. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(9):709-714.
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.077560.
11. Watari R, Hettinga B, Osis S, Ferber R. Validation of a Torso-Mounted
Accelerometer for Measures of Vertical Oscillation and Ground Contact Time During
Treadmill Running. J Appl Biomech. 2015;11(1):86-95. doi:10.1123/jab.2015-0200.
12. Bundle MW, Powell MO, Ryan LJ. Design and testing of a high-speed treadmill to
measure ground reaction forces at the limit of human gait. Med Eng Phys.
2015;37(9):892-897. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.04.009.
13. Gindre C, Lussiana T, Hebert-Losier K, Morin J-B. Reliability and validity of the
Myotest® for measuring running stride kinematics. J Sports Sci. 2015:1-7.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1068436.
14. Ammann R, Taube W, Wyss T. Accuracy of PARTwear inertial sensor and Optojump
optical measurement system for measuring ground contact time during running. J
Strength Cond Res. 2015:1. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001299.
15. Glatthorn JF, Gouge S, Nussbaumer S, Stauffacher S, Impellizzeri FM, Maffiuletti
NA. Validity and reliability of Optojump photoelectric cells for estimating vertical
jump height. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(2):556-560.
16. Ruggiero L, Dewhurst S, Bampouras TM. Validity and Reliability of Two Field-
Based Leg Stiffness Devices: Implications for Practical Use. J Appl Biomech. 2016.
doi:10.1123/jab.2015-0297.
17. Morin JB, Dalleau G, Kyröläinen H, Jeannin T, Belli A. A simple method for
measuring stiffness during running. J Appl Biomech. 2005;21(2):167-180.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318260edad.
18. Coleman DR, Cannavan D, Horne S, Blazevich AJ. Leg stiffness in human running:
Comparison of estimates derived from previously published models to direct
kinematic-kinetic measures. J Biomech. 2012;45(11):1987-1991.
doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.05.010.
19. Pappas P, Paradisis G, Tsolakis C, Smirniotou A, Morin J-B. Reliabilities of leg and
vertical stiffness during treadmill running. Sports Biomech. 2014;13(4):391-399.
doi:10.1080/14763141.2014.981853.
20. Gouttebarge V, Wolfard R, Griek N, de Ruiter CJ, Boschman JS, van Dieën JH.
Reproducibility and validity of the myotest for measuring step frequency and ground
contact time in recreational runners. J Hum Kinet. 2015;45:19-26. doi:10.1515/hukin-
2015-0003.
21. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Glaister M, Lockey RA. The validity and reliability of an
iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(15):1574-
1579. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.996184.
22. Gallardo-Fuentes F, Gallardo-Fuentes J, Ramírez-Campillo R, et al. Inter And Intra-
Session Reliability And Validity Of The My Jump App For Measuring Different
Jump Actions In Trained Male And Female Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2015.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001304.
23. Morin J-B, Belli A. A simple method for measurement of maximal downstroke power
on friction-loaded cycle ergometer. J Biomech. 2004;37(1):141-145.
doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00253-7.
24. Girard O, Brocherie F, Morin JB, Millet GP. Intra- and Inter-Session Reliability of
Running Mechanics During Treadmill Sprints. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015.
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0145.
Figure 1 — User interface of Runmatic, showing how a properly recorded video should
look.
Figure 2 — Linear relationship between Runmatic app and the opto-electronic device for the
measurement of (A) contact time and (B) aerial time at speeds ranging 2.77-5.55 m·s-1.
Table 1. Mean values  SD of the running mechanics computed using Runmatic and the
opto-electronic device, mean absolute bias between instruments and Pearson’s product-
moment correlation coefficient
Runmatic Optojump Absolute bias Pearson’s Slope of the linear Standard
Next (%) correlation regression line error of
coefficient (r) estimate
Contact time (s) 0.228  0.348 0.234  0.383 3.0 0.99 (0.98-0.99)** 0.9 0.0056
Aerial time (s) 0.119  0.144 0.113  0.165 5.9* 0.94 (0.91-0.96)** 0.82 0.0048
Vertical 0.059 0.008 0.059  0.009 2.2 0.97 (0.96-0.98)** 0.93 0.0019
oscillation (m)
Fmax (BW) 2.412  0.206 2.362 0.229 2.8 0.97 (0.96-0.98)** 0.88 0.0473
Leg stiffness 9.443 1.832 8.909  1.678 6.5* 0.94 (0.92-0.96)** 1.03 0.6259
(kN/m)
* Significant difference as revealed by the T-test for independent measures, p<0.05

**p<0.001
View publication stats

Balsalobre Runmatic JAB 16 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balsalobre Runmatic JAB 16 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

The Validity and Reliability of an iPhone App

Article in Journal of applied biomechanics · December 2016

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández Hovannes Agopyan

Virtual Reality Reahbilitation View project

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of

Section: Technical Note

Authors: Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández1, Hovannes Agopyan2, and Jean-Benoit Morin2

Affiliations: 1Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain.

Journal: Journal of Applied Biomechanics

Acceptance Date: November 8, 2016

©2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández1, Hovannes Agopyan2, Jean-Benoit Morin2

commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

from two independent observers not related to the app development.

Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain.

Address: C/Tajo SN – 28670 Madrid, Spain.

Running title: iPhone app for measuring running mechanics

Key words: biomechanics, stride, performance, smartphone

Word count: 2289

There is a large body of research highlighting the importance of monitoring running

limb injuries 3,9,10.

leg stiffness) during running at different speeds.

review board and were in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki.

was mounted on a Gymrol S2500 motorized treadmill (HEF Tecmachine, Andrezieux-

equations used within Runmatic.

After completing a standardized warm-up consisting of dynamic lower-limb stretches

motorized treadmill (HEF Tecmachine, Andrezieux-Boutheon, France) at 2.77, 3.33, 3.88,

of Runmatic, we used Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient, linear regression,

IBM SPSS Statistics 22 for Mac (IBM Co., USA).

instruments) Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a very high

0.965, CI = 0.948 to 0.977).

When proceeding with an independent measures’ T-test, a systematic bias was

(mean difference: -0.006s in Runmatic, CI = -0.167 to 0.004, p = 0.229). Moreover, when

0.99, CI = 0.91 to 0.99, p<0.001) (see Table 1).

However, since both instruments demonstrated almost identical levels of reliability

stiffness, maximum relative force and step frequency.

1. Moore IS. Is There an Economical Running Technique? A Review of Modifiable

Runmatic Optojump Absolute bias Pearson’s Slope of the linear Standard

Next (%) correlation regression line error of

coefficient (r) estimate

* Significant difference as revealed by the T-test for independent measures, p<0.05

View publication stats

You might also like