Anda di halaman 1dari 17

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”
by Balsalobre-Fernández C, Agopyan H, Morin JB
Journal of Applied Biomechanics
© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.

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


“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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


“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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
“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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.


“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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.
“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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.
“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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
“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.

(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 =
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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
“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.

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
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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 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.

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.
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0
“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.

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-
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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.
“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.

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.
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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.
“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.
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

Figure 1 — User interface of Runmatic, showing how a properly recorded video should
look.
“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.
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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.
“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.

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)
Downloaded by University of Otago on 12/06/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0

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