Validity, Reliability, and Sensitivity of Mobile Applications to Assess Change of Direction Speed
This study aimed to assess the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of mobile applications for assessing change-of-direction speed (CODS) performance. Thirty college athletes performed two Illinois CODS tests during one session. Assessments were carried out simultaneously using six devices (the CODTimer app, Seconds Count app, StopwatchCamera app, two analog stopwatches, and timing gates). Validity analyses included Pearson's product-moment correlation analysis, a linear regression model, and Bland-Altman plots. Reliability analyses included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the coefficient of variation (CV%), and the paired-sample t test. Sensitivity analyses included the typical error and smallest worthwhile change (SWC). The results showed that validity, reliability, and sensitivity values were higher for the CODTimer app (r = 0.99, R2 = 0.99, mean bias = −0.03 ± 0.10, CV% = 3.21, ICC = 0.89, SWC rating: good, p = 0.84) and the Seconds Count app (r = 0.99, R2 = 0.99, mean bias = −0.03 ± 0.08, CV% = 3.28, ICC = 0.88, SWC rating: good, p = 0.84) relative to the StopwatchCamera app (r = 0.98, R2 = 0.97, mean bias = −0.11 ± 0.22, CV% = 3.43, ICC = 0.86, SWC rating: marginal, p = 0.10), Analog Stopwatch 1 (r = 0.98, R2 = 0.96, mean bias = −0.09 ± 0.42, CV% = 2.95, ICC = 0.90, SWC rating: good, p = 0.91), and Analog Stopwatch 2 (r = 0.99, R2 = 0.97, mean bias = −0.12 ± 0.88, CV% = 3.51, ICC = 0.87, SWC rating: marginal, p = 0.96). In conclusion, compared to timing gates, the CODTimer app and Seconds Count app provided lower measurement bias and higher sensitivity for assessing CODS performance.
Athletic performance, Physical fitness, Athletes, Conditioning, Sports