LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RC1200
The aim of this investigation was to assess the validity and reliability of the Ergomopro powermeter. Nine participants completed trials on a Monark ergometer fitted with Ergomopro and SRM powermeters simultaneously recording power output. Each participant completed multiple trials at power outputs ranging from 50 to 450 W. The work stages recorded were 60 s in duration and were repeated three times. Participants also completed a single trial on a cycle ergometer designed to assess bilateral contributions to work output (Lode Excaliber Sport PFM). The power output during the trials was significantly different between all three systems, (p < 0.01) 231.2 +/- 114.2 W, 233.0 +/- 112.4 W, 227.8 +/- 108.8 W for the Monark, SRM and Ergomopro system, respectively. When the bilateral contributions were factored into the analysis, there were no significant differences between the powermeters (p = 0.58). The reliability of the Ergomopro system (CV%) was 2.31 % (95 % CI 2.13 - 2.52 %) compared to 1.59 % (95 % CI 1.47 to 1.74 %) for the Monark, and 1.37 % (95 % CI 1.26 - 1.50 %) for the SRM powermeter. These results indicate that the Ergomopro system has acceptable accuracy under these conditions. However, based on the reliability data, the increased variability of the Ergomopro system and bilateral balance issues have to be considered when using this device.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217 - 236
    • 2 Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Selected issues in the design and analysis of sport performance research. J Sports Sci 2001; 19: 811 - 827
    • 3 Balmer J, Bird S, Davison RC, Doherty M, Smith P. Mechanically braked Wingate powers agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement. J Sports Sci 2004; 22: 661 - 667
    • 4 Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerins V, Pernin JN, Gappe F. Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM Device. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: 868 - 873
    • 5 Carpes FP, Rossato M, Faria IE, Bolli Mota C. Bilateral pedaling asymmetry during a simulated 40-km cycling time-trial. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2007; 47: 51 - 57
    • 6 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum, 1988
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article