A1 Journal article (refereed)
Assessment of Ground Contact Time in the Field : Evaluation of Validity and Reliability (2024)

Weber, J. A., Hart, N. H., Rantalainen, T., Connick, M., & Newton, R. U. (2024). Assessment of Ground Contact Time in the Field : Evaluation of Validity and Reliability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(1), e34-e39. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000004682

JYU authors or editors

Publication details

All authors or editors: Weber, Jason A.; Hart, Nicolas H.; Rantalainen, Timo; Connick, Mark; Newton, Robert U.

Journal or series: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

ISSN: 1064-8011

eISSN: 1533-4287

Publication year: 2024

Volume: 38

Issue number: 1

Pages range: e34-e39

Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Publication country: United States

Publication language: English

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000004682

Publication open access: Not open

Publication channel open access: 

Additional information: Technical Reports

Abstract

Weber, JA, Hart, NH, Rantalainen, T, Connick, M, and Newton, RU. Assessment of ground contact time in the field: evaluation of validity and reliability. J Strength Cond Res 38(1): e34–e39, 2024—The capacity to measure the kinetic and kinematic components of running has been extensively investigated in laboratory settings. Many authors have produced work that is of high value to practitioners within sporting environments; however, the lack of field-based technology to assess features of running gait validly and reliably has prevented the application of these valuable works. This paper examines the validity and reliability of a practical field-based methodology for using commercial inertial measurement units (IMUs) to assess ground contact time (GCT). Validity was examined in the comparison of GCT measured from ground reaction force by a force plate and that determined by a lumbar mounted commercial IMU and analyzed using a commercially available system (SPEEDSIG). Reliability was assessed by a field-based examination of within and between-session variability in GCT measured using a commercially available system (SPEEDSIG). Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results for validity (intraclass correlation [ICC] 0.83) and reliability (ICC 0.91) confirm that the described field-based methodology is qualified for use to determine GCT in a practical setting. The implications of this study are important as they offer sport practitioners (S&C coaches, rehab specialists, and physios) a scalable method to assess GCT in the field to develop greater understanding of their athletes and improve performance, injury prevention, and rehabilitation interventions. Furthermore, these results provide the foundation for further work that could provide greater detail describing individual running gait in the field.

Keywords: running; biomechanics; field research; measuring methods; measuring instruments (devices); reliability (science); validity

Free keywords: performance; injury prevention; rehabilitation; technology

Contributing organizations

Related projects

Ministry reporting: Yes

Preliminary JUFO rating: 1