Title

Reliability and validity of the Zebris FDM-THQ instrumented treadmill during running trials

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Sports Biomechanics

Medical Subject Headings

Adult; Biomechanical Phenomena; Exercise Test; Gait; Humans; Kinetics; Male; Reproducibility of Results; Running; Shoes; Time Factors

ISSN

1752-6116

Volume

18

Issue

5

First Page

501

Last Page

514

PubMed ID

29785869

Publisher

Taylor and Francis

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences

Comments

Originally published as: Van Alsenoy, K., Thomson, A., & Burnett, A. (2019). Reliability and validity of the Zebris FDM-THQ instrumented treadmill during running trials. Sports Biomechanics, 18(5), 501-514.

Original article available here.

Abstract

Little is known about the reliability, validity and smallest detectable differences of selected kinetic and temporal variables recorded by the Zebris FDM-THQ instrumented treadmill especially during running. Twenty male participants (age = 31.9 years (±5.6), height = 1.81 m (±0.08), mass = 80.2 kg (±9.5), body mass index = 24.53 kg/m2 (±2.53)) walked (5 km/h) and ran (10 and 15 km/h) on an instrumented treadmill, wearing running shoes fitted with Pedar-X insoles. A test-double retest protocol was conducted over two consecutive days. Maximal vertical force (Fmax), contact time (CT) and flight time (FT) data from 10 consecutive steps were collected. Within- and between-day reliability, smallest detectable differences (SDD) and validity (95% limits of agreement (LOA)) were calculated. ICC values for the Zebris for Fmax were acceptable (ICC ≥ 0.7) while CT and FT reliability indices were predominantly good (ICC ≥ 0.8) to excellent (ICC ≥ 0.9). The Zebris significantly underestimated Fmax when compared with the Pedar-X. The 95% LOA increased with speed. SDD ranged between 96 N and 169 N for Fmax, 0.017s and 0.055s for CT and 0.021s and 0.026s for FT. In conclusion, Zebris reliability was acceptable to excellent for the variables examined, but inferior in comparison with Pedar-X. With increased running speeds, a bias effect (underestimation) existed for the Zebris compared with Pedar-X.

DOI

10.1080/14763141.2018.1452966

Share

 
COinS