Accuracy and validity of commercially available kayak ergometers

Borges, TO; Bullock, N; Aitken, D; Coutts, AJ

Accuracy and validity of commercially available kayak ergometers

Borges, TO Bullock, N Aitken, D Coutts, AJ

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2017, 12 (9), pp. 1267 - 1270
Issue Date:: 2017-10-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	ContentServer (2).pdf	Published Version	636.88 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Borges, TO	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bullock, N	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Aitken, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Coutts, AJ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1782-7691	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-10-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2017, 12 (9), pp. 1267 - 1270	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1555-0265	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/123912
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Methods: This study compared 3 commercially available ergometers for within-And between-brands difference to a first-principle calibration rig. Results: All ergometers underestimated true mean power, with errors of 27.6% ± 3.7%, 4.5% ± 3.5%, and 22.5% ± 1.9% for the KayakPro, WEBA, and Dansprint, respectively. Within-brand ergometer power differences ranged from 17 ± 9 to 22 ± 11 W for the KayakPro, 3 ± 4 to 4 ± 4 W for the WEBA, and 5 ± 3 to 5 ± 4 W for the Dansprint. The linear-regression analysis showed that most kayak ergometers have a stable coefficient of variation (0.9-1.7%) with a moderate effect size. Conclusion: Taken collectively, these findings show that different ergometers present inconsistent outcomes. Therefore, we suggest that athlete testing be conducted on the same ergometer brand, preferably the same ergometer. Optimally, that ergometer should be calibrated using a first-principle device before any athlete testing block.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1123/ijspp.2016-0653	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Sport Sciences	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Calibration	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Linear Models	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Ergometry	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Water Sports	en_US
dc.title	Accuracy and validity of commercially available kayak ergometers	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	9	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	12	en_US
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	1116 Medical Physiology	en_US
utslib.for	1701 Psychology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Sports and Exercise Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHT - Health Technologies
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	9	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	12	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Methods: This study compared 3 commercially available ergometers for within-And between-brands difference to a first-principle calibration rig. Results: All ergometers underestimated true mean power, with errors of 27.6% ± 3.7%, 4.5% ± 3.5%, and 22.5% ± 1.9% for the KayakPro, WEBA, and Dansprint, respectively. Within-brand ergometer power differences ranged from 17 ± 9 to 22 ± 11 W for the KayakPro, 3 ± 4 to 4 ± 4 W for the WEBA, and 5 ± 3 to 5 ± 4 W for the Dansprint. The linear-regression analysis showed that most kayak ergometers have a stable coefficient of variation (0.9-1.7%) with a moderate effect size. Conclusion: Taken collectively, these findings show that different ergometers present inconsistent outcomes. Therefore, we suggest that athlete testing be conducted on the same ergometer brand, preferably the same ergometer. Optimally, that ergometer should be calibrated using a first-principle device before any athlete testing block.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/123912