The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Validity and Between-Unit Variability of GNSS Units (STATSports Apex 10 and 18 Hz) for Measuring Distance and Peak Speed in Team Sports
Open accessAbstract
The aims of this study were (i) to investigate the criterion validity (vs. gold standard measurements) of the 10 and 18 Hz STATSports Apex units for measuring distances and peak speed (Vpeak) outcomes; (ii) to investigate the between-unit variability. Twenty university students were enrolled in the study (age 21 ± 2 years, weight 72 ± 6 kg, height 1.76 ± 0.05 m). The criterion validity was tested by comparing the distances recorded by the units with ground truth reference (400-m trial, 128.5-m circuit and 20-m trial). Vpeak values were compared with those determined by a gold standard criterion device (Stalker ATS Radar Gun) during a linear 20-m sprint. The distance biases for the Apex 10 Hz in the 400-m trial, 128.5-m circuit and 20-m trial were 1.05 ± 0.87%, 2.3 ± 1.1%, and 1.11 ± 0.99%, respectively, while for the Apex 18 Hz the biases were 1.17 ± 0.73%, 2.11 ± 1.06%, and 1.15 ± 1.23%, respectively. Vpeak measured by the Apex 10 Hz and Apex 18 Hz were 26.5 ± 2.3 km.h-1 and 26.5 ± 2.6 km.h-1, respectively, with the criterion method reporting 26.3 ± 2.4. km.h-1, with a bias of 2.36 ± 1.67% and 2.02 ± 1.24%, respectively. This study is the first to validate and compare the STATSports Apex 10 Hz and 18 Hz. Between-analysis (t-test) for total distance and Vpeak reported non-significant differences. Apex units reported a small error of around 1-2% compared to the criterion distances during 400-m, 128.5-m circuit, 20-m trials and Vpeak. In conclusion, both units could be used with confidence to measure these variables during training and match play.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science
HOPKINS, W. G., MARSHALL, S. W., BATTERHAM, A. M., & HANIN, J. (2009) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31818cb278 · Cited by 9,128
Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science
Hopkins, W. G. (2000) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001 · Cited by 4,635
Things I have learned (so far).
Cohen, J. (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1304 · Cited by 1,781
Fatigue in soccer: A brief review
Mohr, M., Krustrup, P., & Bangsbo, J. (2005) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640410400021286 · Cited by 689
Monitoring Fatigue Status in Elite Team-Sport Athletes: Implications for Practice
Thorpe, R. T., Atkinson, G., Drust, B., & Gregson, W. (2017) · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0434 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Beato, M., Coratella, G., Stiff, A., & Iacono, A. D.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Physiology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2018-09-21
- Volume
- 9
- Pages
- 1288-1288
- ISSN
- 1664-042X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2891745871
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.