This article was downloaded by: [Thibault Lussiana]

On: 15 July 2015, At: 22:05

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Reliability and validity of the Myotest® for measuring

running stride kinematics
a ab c d
Cyrille Gindre , Thibault Lussiana , Kim Hebert-Losier & Jean-Benoit Morin
a
Volodalen Compagny, Research and Development department, Chaveria, France
b
Research unit EA4660, Culture Sport Health Society and Exercise Performance Health
Innovation Platform, Franche-Comté University, Besançon, France
c
National Sports Institute of Malaysia, Kompleks Sukan Negara, Butik Jalil, Peti Surat 7102,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
d
Research Unit EA4338, Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, CHU Bellevue – Medicine of Sport
and Myology, University of Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France
Published online: 15 Jul 2015.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Cyrille Gindre, Thibault Lussiana, Kim Hebert-Losier & Jean-Benoit Morin (2015): Reliability and validity
of the Myotest® for measuring running stride kinematics, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1068436

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1068436

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1068436

Reliability and validity of the Myotest® for measuring running stride kinematics
Cyrille Gindre1, Thibault Lussiana1,2, Kim Hebert-Losier3 and Jean-Benoit Morin4
1
Volodalen Compagny, Research and Development department, Chaveria, France; 2Research unit EA4660, Culture Sport Health Society and
Exercise Performance Health Innovation Platform, Franche-Comté University, Besançon, France; 3National Sports Institute of Malaysia, Kompleks
Sukan Negara, Butik Jalil, Peti Surat 7102, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 4Research Unit EA4338, Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, CHU Bellevue –
Medicine of Sport and Myology, University of Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Accelerometer-based systems are often used to quantify human movement. This study’s aim was to Accepted 28 June 2015
assess the reliability and validity of the Myotest® accelerometer-based system for measuring running
KEYWORDS
stride kinematics. Twenty habitual runners ran two 60 m trials at 12, 15, 18 and 21 km·h−1. Contact time, Running; biomechanics;
aerial time and step frequency parameters from six consecutive running steps of each trial were technology; concurrent
extracted using Myotest® data. Between-trial reproducibility of measures was determined by comparing validity; reliability
kinematic parameters from the two runs performed at the same speed. Myotest® measures were
compared against photocell-based (Optojump Next®) and high-frequency video data to establish
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015

concurrent validity. The Myotest®-derived parameters were highly reproducible between trials at all
running speeds (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.886 to 0.974). Compared to the photo-cell and
high-speed video-based measures, the mean contact times from the Myotest® were 34% shorter and
aerial times were 64% longer. Only step frequency was comparable between systems and demon-
strated high between-system correlation (ICC ≥ 0.857). The Myotest® is a practical portable device that is
reliable for measuring contact time, aerial time and step frequency during running. In terms of validity,
it provides accurate step frequency measures but underestimates contact time and overestimates aerial
time compared to photocell- and optical-based systems.

Introduction measurements and their concurrent validity against gold stan-

dard methods, such as force platforms and high-frequency video
In running, the temporal aspects of the stride cycle (i.e. con-
cameras, are well established (Castagna et al., 2013; Glatthorn
tact time, aerial time and stride frequency) are often of interest
et al., 2011). One advantage of the Optojump Next® is the pos-
because these relate to running efficiency and performance.
sibility to serially connect several single-metre bars to measure
For instance, contact time has been related to both maximal
consecutive running cycles. Although this provides a better over-
running speed (r = −0.52, P < 0.01) and running economy
all representation of individuals’ stride kinematics given the
(r = 0.49, P < 0.05) in endurance runners (Nummela, Keränen,
redundancy of cycles, the set-up of such a long photocell-
& Mikkelsson, 2007). In sprinters, contact time and stride fre-
based measurement area is rather time-consuming and expen-
quency are suggested to be the most important kinematic
sive, limiting its practical use in a coaching environment.
parameters for generating differences between elite athletes
In contrast, the Myotest® (Myotest SA, Sion, Switzerland) is
(Coh, Milanović, & Kampmiller, 2001), with early studies by
a lightweight portable accelerometer that provides real-time
Mero and Komi (1986) indicating that maximal speeds are
kinematic feedback and can capture numerous movement
achieved primarily by increasing stride frequency rather than
cycles. Although reportedly valid for measuring force and
stride length. More recently, Weyand, Sandell, Prime, and
power production during squat and bench press exercises
Bundle (2010) concluded that the rates at which the lower
(Comstock et al., 2011), and accelerations during high-pull
extremities can apply forces in stance limit maximal running
manoeuvres (Sato, Smith, & Sands, 2009), its validity for mea-
speeds, with faster runners applying greater mass-specific
suring biomechanical parameters during squat, countermove-
ground-contact forces over a shorter period of time (Weyand
ment and repeated jumps has been questioned (Casartelli,
et al., 2010). As such, it appears important for coaches and
Müller, & Maffiuletti, 2010; Castagna et al., 2013; Houel, Dinu,
athletes to have access to portable user-friendly devices that
Faury, & Seyfried, 2011). For instance, during countermove-
are able to accurately quantify stride parameters.
ment jumps, the Myotest® overestimates aerial time by 7.2%
In recent years, light-based optical technologies such as the
(Castagna et al., 2013) and vertical jump height by approxi-
Optojump Next® (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) have become a clini-
mately 30% (Casartelli et al., 2010) in comparison to the
cally accessible and accurate means for computing ground-con-
Optojump Next®.
tact and aerial times during jumping, hopping and running
The between-system discrepancies are likely due to the
(Bosquet, Berryman, & Dupuy, 2009; Debaere, Jonkers, &
computational methods applied. The Optojump Next®
Delecluse, 2013). The reproducibility of photocell-based

CONTACT Thibault Lussiana thibault.lussiana@gmail.com University of Franche Comté, 31 chemin de l’Epitaphe, 25000 Besançon, France.
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2 C. GINDRE ET AL.
considers the contact time as the time during which the foot is
in contact with the ground and the aerial time as the time
elapsed from take-off to landing, as used with force platforms
(Bosco, Tarkka, & Komi, 1982). In contrast, the Myotest® defines
the contact time as the time during which the vertical force is
greater than body weight and the aerial time as the time
during which the vertical force is below body weight, named
the effective contact and flight times by Cavagna, Franzetti,
Heglund, and Willems (1988). To delineate these effective
times, the vertical force is calculated based on Newton’s sec-
ond law using the body weight of individuals and the vertical
acceleration data from the Myotest® device as inputs. The
duration of the contact and aerial times are determined
directly from the vertical acceleration signal processing, as
described by Flaction, Quievre, and Morin (2013).
Despite its mediocre validity and divergent results from
gold standard assessment methods, the high reliability of the
Myotest® system for measuring jump and strength training
parameters makes it a practical tool for intra- and inter-
individual comparisons. More specifically, when measures are
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015
taken at various time points of an athlete’s development,
these can be used to identify gains from training programmes
(Cook, Beaven, & Kilduff, 2013) or, on the contrary, detriments
from maladaptive responses to training (Kraemer et al., 2004).
Despite the array of studies examining the Myotest® device,
none has yet reported the reproducibility or validity of the
running stride parameters it acquires. Determining the psy-
chometric properties of the Myotest® for calculating running
stride characteristics could assist current users to interpret
their data, facilitate between-study comparison and aid poten-
tial users to estimate the cost–benefit of purchase of this
software for use in their practical environment. As such, our
aims were to assess the reproducibility of contact time, aerial
time and step frequency parameters acquired during running
using the Myotest® to determine its reliability and assess its
concurrent validity against a photocell- and a video-based
system. Considering the prior studies addressing its psycho-
metric properties (Bernard et al., 2012; Casartelli et al., 2010;
Comstock et al., 2011; Houel et al., 2011; Nuzzo, Anning, &
Scharfenberg, 2011; Ruben, Saffel, McCrory, Cormie, & Haff,
2011), we hypothesised that the Myotest® would be reliable
for measuring stride kinematics, but would overestimate aerial
time.
Methods
Twenty habitual male runners (age 31.6 ± 9.2 years, height
178 ± 5.4 cm, body mass 72.5 ± 9.8 kg) who ran on average
4.0 ± 2.1 h·wk−1 and had been for the last 10.1 ± 6.8 years
volunteered to participate. After a detailed explanation of the
study, participants provided their written informed consent.
The research protocol was approved by the local ethics com-
mittee and adhered to the latest amendments of the
Declaration of Helsinki.
Procedures
The experiment was held in an indoor facility on a flat cement
surface to maintain test conditions stable across participants,
with runners wearing their habitual running clothing and
shoes. The weight and height of participants on the day of
testing were recorded and entered into the Myotest® device.
After a 5 min running warm-up at a self-selected speed, parti-
cipants were familiarised with the testing protocol, running
60 m once at the four selected experimental speeds, which
enabled participants to become accustomed to the test
speeds.
For testing, participants were required to run 60 m from
stand-still twice at 12, 15, 18 and 21 km·h−1 separated by a 3
min rest period during which participants were permitted to
walk. The order of testing was held constant across partici-
pants to allow a gradual build-up in running speed during the
experimental protocol. During trials, participants were not
paced or provided with real-time feedback regarding their
running speeds. However, to monitor speed in quasi real
time, a timing-gate system (Racetime2, MicroGate, Timing
and Sport, Bolzano, Italy) was used and paired photoelectric
sensors were placed at the 20 and 40 m mark of the 60 m trial.
A running trial was repeated after 3 min of rest when partici-
pants ran at a speed of ±0.5 km·h−1 of the requested one, with
participants being told how much faster or slower than the
target speed they had ran so they could adjust their speed for
the subsequent trial. No participant expressed residual fatigue
from preceding procedures.
Equipment
During experimentation, the Myotest®, the Optojump Next®
and two high-speed video cameras (Casio High Speed EXILIM
EX-FH25®, CASIO Europe GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany)
sampled data simultaneously at 500, 1000 and 300 Hz, respec-
tively. The Myotest® device was fixed onto a neoprene belt,
fastened around the waist of participants, and placed level
with the navel following the manufacturer’s recommenda-
tions. The Myotest® was triggered at the start of each 60 m
run by participants pressing the start button.
The Optojump Next® system was placed in the middle of
the 60 m runway to sample data from 20 to 40 m by connect-
ing several single-metre bars in series. The Optojump Next®
therefore measured 20 m of data, with the transmitting and
receiving bars positioned 2 m apart.
For high-speed video analysis, one camera was positioned
on a 0.5 m high tripod at the 30 m mark perpendicular to the
running direction, 4 m to the side of participants, to capture
sagittal plane motion. A second camera was positioned on a 1
m high tripod 10 m from the end of the measuring area, in
front of participants, to capture frontal plane motion. This
configuration allowed six running steps to be measured for
all participants in the mid-part of each 60 m run. The same six
steps from all three systems were analysed using the video
camera as basis for synchronisation.
Parameters
Contact time (ms), aerial time (ms) and step frequency
(step·min−1) were computed and exported from the Myotest®
and Optojump Next® software, with step frequency being the
inverse of the duration of the summation of contact and aerial
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3

times. The data from the six defined running steps were sub-
sequently isolated. The same step parameters were computed
from the video data using Dartfish Pro Analysis Software v.5.5
(Dartfish Company, Fribourg, Switzerland). The mean value
from the six steps recorded from each individual and measur-
ing device was used for subsequent analyses.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were computed to summarise the data
from the 20 runners. All data were normally distributed on
the basis of Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Student’s t-test for
paired samples was employed to detect systematic bias
between trials performed at the same speed (Atkinson &
Nevill, 1998). To assess the relative between-trial reproduci-
bility of measurements, intra-class correlation coefficients
(ICCs) were computed. These coefficients were computed as
[ICC = 1 – (SEM/SD)2], where SEM is the standard error in
measurement and SD is the mean between-participant SD of
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015
On the basis of commonly used thresholds, the relative
reliability and validity of measures were considered poor,
fair and good when the corresponding ICC values were
<0.4, 0.4–0.75 and ≥0.75 (Portney & Watkins, 2009; Rosner,
2010). The absolute reliability and validity of measures were
considered adequate when the corresponding CV values
were equal to or lower than 10% (Hébert-Losier & Beaven,
2014; Holsgaard Larsen, Caserotti, Puggaard, & Aagaard,
2007; Stokes, 1985). All statistical analyses were performed
using SigmaStat for Windows 3.5 (Systat Software Inc., San
Jose, CA, USA) and Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp.,
Redmont, WA, USA) with a level of significance set at
α ≤ 0.05.
Results
Reliability
The stride parameters calculated for each running trial and

the two trials obtained by weighing the variances on the
basis of their degrees of freedom (Hopkins, 2007). The SEM
was computed as [SEM = SD (between-trial difference in
p
measures) / 2].
To quantify the absolute reliability, the between-trial differ-
ence in means was computed (in raw units and %) and the
SEM defined above was expressed as a coefficient of variation
(CV) on the basis of [CV = (SEM/mean)/100%], where the mean
takes into consideration all 20 participants and both trials at
the same speed (Atkinson & Nevill, 1998; Hopkins, 2000). The
SEM was expressed as a CV considering that the interest is not
in the uncertainty of a single mean, but rather that of an effect
involving comparisons of two means (Hopkins, Marshall,
Batterham, & Hanin, 2009).
Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the mean
of trials performed at the same speed between two systems.
Similar statistical measures than those used to assess reliability
were employed for concurrent validity. More precisely, we
computed Student’s t-test for paired samples (systematic
bias), ICC values (relative validity), between-system differences
in means (absolute validity in raw units and %) and CVs
(absolute validity in %).
the mean between-trial difference are reported in Table I for
the three systems. The between-trial differences in contact
time, aerial time and step frequency across running speeds
were 2.0 ± 0.6 ms, 1.1 ± 0.9 ms and 1.7 ± 1.7 step·min−1
for the Myotest®; 3.8 ± 1.9 ms, 1.4 ± 1.1 ms and
1.3 ± 0.4 step·min−1 for the Optojump Next®; and
2.1 ± 0.3 ms, 2.1 ± 1.9 ms and 0.9 ± 0.5 step·min−1 for the
high-speed video cameras.
The ICC and CV values specific to the reliability of each
stride parameter at the different test speeds are reported in
Table II for the three systems. The means of the ICCs were
0.932 ± 0.057 (range 0.82–0.99), 0.950 ± 0.034 (range 0.882–
0.985) and 0.908 ± 0.094 (range 0.718–0.986) for the
Myotest®, Optojump Next® and high-speed video cameras,
respectively. Their corresponding mean CV values were
5.6 ± 1.9 (range 3.9–9.9), 6.8 ± 3.6 (range 3.9–14.3) and
6.1 ± 2.7% (range 3.8–10.5). Overall, all three systems
demonstrated good relative and adequate absolute reliabil-
ity for all stride parameters, except for aerial times at speeds
of 12–18 km·h−1 for the Optojump Next® and 18 km·h−1 for
the high-speed video cameras, where absolute reliability
was inadequate (Table II).

Table I. Running stride parameters calculated using the Myotest®, Optojump Next® and high-speed video camera systems during 60 m running trials.
Myotest® Optojump Next® High-speed cameras
Parameter (unit) Trial 1 Trial 2 Δ (%) Trial 1 Trial 2 Δ (%) Trial 1 Trial 2 Δ (%)
Contact time (ms)
12 km·h−1 165 ± 16 167 ± 15 0.7 265 ± 19 272 ± 16 2.4 251 ± 19 253 ± 16 0.8
15 km·h−1 155 ± 15 153 ± 15 −1.2 238 ± 15 236 ± 16 −1.2 224 ± 14 222 ± 12 −0.8
18 km·h−1 137 ± 16 134 ± 16 −1.9 209 ± 15 207 ± 12 −1.0 199 ± 13 197 ± 11 −1.3
21 km·h−1 115 ± 17 117 ± 16 1.9 181 ± 16 184 ± 15 2.0 172 ± 13 174 ± 12 1.2
Aerial time (ms)
12 km·h−1 204 ± 14 205 ± 14 0.7 102 ± 20 99 ± 21 −2.4 117 ± 17 117 ± 18 −0.3
15 km·h−1 205 ± 14 202 ± 14 −1.1 120 ± 19 119 ± 21 −0.5 135 ± 18 133 ± 19 −1.4
−1
18 km·h 205 ± 15 205 ± 16 0.1 131 ± 18 131 ± 19 0.2 141 ± 17 145 ± 22 3.3
−1
21 km·h 202 ± 16 203 ± 15 0.3 136 ± 17 134 ± 18 −1.6 144 ± 18 143 ± 18 −1.1
Step frequency (step·min−1)
12 km·h−1 164 ± 9 163 ± 11 −0.1 164 ± 10 162 ± 9 −1.1 163 ± 9 163 ± 9 −0.4
15 km·h−1 166 ± 9 170 ± 10 −2.0 168 ± 10 170 ± 9 0.9 168 ± 9 169 ± 9 0.9
−1
18 km·h 176 ± 9 178 ± 11 1.6 177 ± 10 178 ± 10 0.5 177 ± 9 176 ± 12 −0.3
−1
21 km·h 188 ± 12 188 ± 10 −0.2 190 ± 13 189 ± 11 −0.5 190 ± 13 190 ± 11 −0.4
Note: The mean ± SD for each trial and test speed, and the difference between trials (Δ, in %), are reported.
 4 C. GINDRE ET AL.

Table II. The relative (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) and absolute (coef- Table IV. The relative (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) and absolute
ficient of variation, CV) reproducibility of running stride parameters calculated (coefficient of variation, CV) concurrent validity of running stride parameters
using the Myotest®, Optojump Next® and high-speed video camera systems calculated using the Myotest® against the Optojump Next® and high-speed
during 60 m running trials. video camera systems during 60 m running trials.
Myotest® Optojump Next® High-speed cameras Optojump Next® High-speed cameras
Parameter (unit) ICC CV (%) ICC CV (%) ICC CV (%) Parameter (unit) ICC CV (%) ICC CV (%)
Contact time (ms) Contact time (ms)
12 km·h−1 0.993 6.5 0.903 4.6 0.963 4.8 12 km·h−1 0.632 17.7 0.715 15.9
15 km·h−1 0.877 6.7 0.882 4.5 0.860 4.0 15 km·h−1 0.674 16.2 0.470 14.1
18 km·h−1 0.946 8.3 0.927 4.5 0.828 4.3 18 km·h−1 0.752 16.4 0.629 14.7
21 km·h−1 0.973 9.9 0.949 6.1 0.974 5.0 21 km·h−1 0.822 17.9 0.741 16.0
Aerial time (ms) Aerial time (ms)
12 km·h−1 0.936 4.6 0.963 14.3 0.967 10.5 12 km·h−1 0.672 24.7 0.689 20.5
15 km·h−1 0.951 4.8 0.970 11.7 0.986 9.7 15 km·h−1 0.717 19.8 0.655 16.3
18 km·h−1 0.983 5.2 0.981 10.0 0.718 9.7 18 km·h−1 0.781 17.1 0.656 14.8
21 km·h−1 0.978 5.2 0.982 9.1 0.981 8.7 21 km·h−1 0.817 15.3 0.771 13.7
Step frequency (step·min−1) Step frequency (step·min−1)
12 km·h−1 0.944 4.4 0.921 4.1 0.953 3.8 12 km·h−1 0.863 4.1 0.889 3.9
15 km·h−1 0.820 3.9 0.978 3.9 0.940 3.8 15 km·h−1 0.941 3.9 0.946 3.7
18 km·h−1 0.835 4.1 0.985 4.0 0.753 4.5 18 km·h−1 0.925 3.8 0.844 3.8
−1 −1
21 km·h 0.942 4.1 0.956 4.5 0.970 4.4 21 km·h 0.865 4.6 0.860 4.6
Note: ICC < 0.75 and CV > 10% are italicised and represent fair relative Note: ICC < 0.75 and CV > 10% are italicised and represent fair relative
reproducibility and less than adequate absolute reproducibility of measures, reproducibility and less than adequate absolute reproducibility of measures,
respectively. respectively.
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015

Concurrent validity overall fair for contact and aerial parameters against the
The mean of both trials is presented in Table III for each Optojump Next® (0.733 ± 0.071) and high-speed video cam-
system, as are the differences between the Myotest® and the eras (0.666 ± 0.092). The corresponding relative (CV) concur-
two reference systems. The Myotest® recorded significantly rent validity measures were less than adequate (18.1 ± 3.0 and
shorter contact time (range −57 to −102 ms) and longer aerial 15.8 ± 2.1%). On the other hand, the step frequency values
time (range 58–104 ms) compared to the Optojump Next® and from the Myotest® demonstrated good absolute and adequate
high-speed video cameras (Table II), with no significant differ- relative concurrent validity against the Optojump Next® (ICC
ences observed in terms of step frequency (range −0.6 to 0.899 ± 0.040, CV 4.1 ± 0.4%) and high-speed video cameras
1.8 ms). In contrast, stride parameters recorded using the (ICC 0.885 ± 0.05, CV 4.0 ± 0.4%). In contrast, the Optojump
Optojump Next® and high-speed video cameras showed no Next® and high-speed video cameras exhibited overall good
significant differences (all parameters, P > 0.05). absolute concurrent validity with ICCs of 0.901 ± 0.069 (range
The ICC and CV values describing the concurrent validity of 0.738–0.983) and adequate relative concurrent validity with
running stride parameters calculated using the Myotest® CVs of 6.7 ± 3.0% (range 3.9–12.8%).
against the two reference systems are reported in Table IV.
The absolute (ICC) concurrent validity of the Myotest® was
Discussion
In agreement with our hypotheses, the Myotest® was reliable
Table III. Running stride parameters calculated using the Myotest®, Optojump for measuring stride kinematics, but overestimated aerial time
Next® and high-speed video camera systems during 60 m running trials.
compared to photocell- and high-speed video camera sys-
High- Myotest® vs Myotest® vs
Parameter Optojump speed Optojump high-speed tems. This overestimation in aerial time was observed with
(unit) Myotest® Next® cameras Next® cameras an underestimation in contact time. Hence, the Myotest® can
Contact time (ms) Δ (%) be considered as a reliable system for computing stride para-
12 km·h−1 166 ± 15 268 ± 17 252 ± 17 38* 34* meters during overground running at speeds ranging from 12
15 km·h−1 154 ± 15 237 ± 15 223 ± 13 35* 31*
18 km·h−1 135 ± 16 208 ± 13 198 ± 12 35* 32* to 21 km·h−1. However, the Myotest® did not demonstrate
21 km·h−1 116 ± 16 182 ± 16 173 ± 12 36* 33* good concurrent validity for aerial and contact time measures,
Aerial time (ms) Δ (%) warranting caution against the comparisons of results
12 km·h−1 205 ± 13 101 ± 20 117 ± 17 −103* −75* between photocell-, video- and accelerometer-based systems.
15 km·h−1 204 ± 14 119 ± 20 133 ± 18 −71* −52*
18 km·h −1
205 ± 15 131 ± 18 143 ± 20 −57* −43* Only step frequency parameters derived from the Myotest®
−1
21 km·h 202 ± 15 135 ± 17 144 ± 18 −50* −41* proved to be highly reliable and valid against our reference
Step frequency (step·min−1) Δ (%) systems.
12 km·h−1 163 ± 10 163 ± 9 163 ± 9 −0.1 −0.2 The use of several statistical parameters is recommended
15 km·h−1 168 ± 9 169 ± 9 168 ± 9 0.5 0.2
18 km·h −1
177 ± 10 178 ± 10 176 ± 11 0.3 −0.3 for quantifying the reliability of measures (Atkinson & Nevill,
21 km·h−1 188 ± 11 190 ± 12 190 ± 12 0.8 0.9 1998). In this study, all statistical indicators implied high relia-
Notes: The mean ± SD for both trials combined at each test speed for each bility of stride characteristics derived from the three different
system, and the differences between the Myotest® and the other two systems systems, except for aerial times at speeds of 12–18 km·h−1
(Δ, in %), are reported.
*P < 0.05, significant difference between the Myotest® and the Optojump Next® using the Optojump Next® and at 18 km·h−1 using the high-
or high-speed video cameras using paired t-tests. speed video cameras. Other than measurement noise, the

slight non-significant differences in running speeds observed
between trials ran at the same speed (e.g. 14.7 ± 0.7 vs.
15.0 ± 0.6 km·h−1, respectively) and individual variations in
running biomechanics likely contributed to the imperfect relia-
bility of measures observed in all three systems. The subtle
differences in running speed and technique between trials are
normal variations expected in any testing situation, hence the
importance of establishing the reproducibility of test measures
to determine which differences exceed typical variations in
performance.
For the Myotest® specifically, the between-trial ICCs were all
above 0.820, and CVs below 10%. Our indicators of reliability
of accelerometer-derived parameters are in line with those
reported for quantifying vertical jump heights based on aerial
times (ICCs 0.74–0.99, CVs 4.3–6.4%) (Casartelli et al., 2010;
Choukou, Laffaye, & Taiar, 2014) and walking gait on firm
surfaces (ICCs 0.76–0.97) (Cole et al., 2014; Henriksen, Lund,
Moe-Nilssen, Bliddal, & Danneskiod-Samsøe, 2004). Together,
these results tend to highlight that neither the positioning of
the device (i.e. anterior to participants for running and lateral
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015
for jumping) nor the direction or complexity of the movement
(i.e. horizontal bounding gait vs. vertical explosive jumps)
substantially affect the reproducibility of accelerometer-
derived parameters. The confirmation of the reproducibility
of stride parameters during running gait using the Myotest®
allows practitioners to be confident in their ability to track
these particular measures over time using this device,
whereby changes in stride parameters captured using the
Myotest® would reflect actual changes in running stride
characteristics.
That said, the concurrent validity of running stride para-
meters against the Optojump Next® and high-speed video
cameras was only fair. On average, the Myotest® underesti-
mated contact time by 34% and overestimated aerial time by
64%. These results most likely reflect the between-system
difference in computational methods. The Myotest® device
divides the step cycle into two parts based on when the
vertical force is lower than and greater than body weight to
define contact and aerial times, respectively, named the effec-
tive contact and aerial times by Cavagna et al. (1988). On the
other hand, the traditional method of dividing the step cycle
according to foot-ground contact is used by the Optojump
Next® and high-speed video cameras. That these latter two
systems relied on similar methods for defining contact and
aerial times explains their higher concurrent validity and
between-system agreement. In contrast, since step frequency
directly depends on step duration (i.e. the inverse of the
contact time plus the aerial time), the differences between
the three systems were negated, leading to very close agree-
ment between the Myotest® measures and those from the two
other devices (ICCs ~0.90 and CVs ~4%). Clinicians and scien-
tists must be aware of these between-system discrepancies,
particularly when comparing results from different studies,
labs or clinics, and acquiring new equipment for the purpose
of quantifying running stride kinematics. Only step frequency
can be reliably contrasted between photocell-, video- and
accelerometer-based systems. Considering the high reliability
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5
but low validity of the Myotest® for measuring contact and
aerial times, implementing correction factors to achieve valid
absolute measures and to facilitate cross-study comparisons of
results may be proposed. Linear regression analyses on our
data suggest using the following equations to obtain contact
(xc) and aerial (xa) times from the Myotest® that are compar-
able to those from the Optojump Next® (1.274 xc + 42.9 and
1.964 xa + 75.2) and high-speed video cameras (1.151 xc + 47.2
and 1.814 xa + 42.6) when individuals run at speeds ranging
from 12 to 21 km·h−1.
We also observed that, despite our attempts to tightly fix
the Myotest® device around participants, undesirable move-
ments of the accelerometer were unavoidable. Since the accel-
erometer was attached over clothing and around soft tissues,
notably the abdomen, aberrant movement artefacts could not
be eliminated completely. Furthermore, although positioned
to approximate the position of the centre of mass of indivi-
duals, the location of the Myotest® during running is not
mechanically equivalent to the actual position of the centre
of mass. These limitations associated with the external posi-
tioning of the accelerometer during a high-impact movement
such as running are of particular concern in individuals with
high waist circumferences. Indeed, with increments in adipose
tissue or thick clothing, the measurement quality from accel-
erometers may decrease, as can be observed in Figure 1. Non-
vertical motions of the device during running primarily caused
by tilting and rotation of the pelvis are another potent source
of measurement error. The highlighted differences between
the portable accelerometer and the other two fixed reference
systems might also have contributed to the between-system
differences observed in aerial and contact times. Further
refinement of the filtering algorithms within the Myotest®
software is needed to increase the robustness of this device
to different body sizes and movement artefacts.
One limitation of the present study was the use of photo-
cell- and video-based systems as gold standard reference for
establishing concurrent validity instead of ground reaction
force measuring instruments, such as a force platform. As
we do not possess such equipment in our laboratory, the
use of the Optojump Next® and video cameras were consid-
ered as adequate proxy systems given their demonstrated
good validity in comparison to force platforms (Castagna
et al., 2013; Glatthorn et al., 2011). Furthermore, the
Optojump Next® and video cameras are more practical and
portable for recording several consecutive steps than force
platforms imbedded into the ground in series where partici-
pants often have to adjust stride lengths and target force
platforms to obtain clearly defined foot contact data. As
such, our measures with the Optojump Next® and video
cameras are considered to be more eco-valid. Another con-
sideration is that our test–retest runs were performed within a
given session rather than on different days. A smaller time
frame between test sessions usually leads to greater reprodu-
cibility of performance measures (Ditroilo, Forte, McKeown,
Boreham, & De Vito, 2011). As such, our current reliability
statistics might not generalise to runs performed several
days apart.
 6 C. GINDRE ET AL.
Figure 1. For a participant who had a high waist circumference, the Myotest® device misclassified a flight phase into a ground contact phase (shaded area) because
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015
of accentuated accelerations caused by soft tissues.
Conclusion
On the basis of traditional thresholds, the relative (i.e. ICC) and
absolute (i.e. CV) reliability of contact time, aerial time and step
frequency parameters derived using the Myotest® device were
classified as adequate for running assessments. These findings
suggest that the Myotest® is practically useful for monitoring
individuals and quantifying changes in functional performance
over time. However, the concurrent validity of the Myotest®
against optical-based reference systems (i.e. Optojump Next®
and video cameras) was only fair for contact and aerial times.
Clinicians and scientists must consider these between-system dis-
crepancies when comparing findings from various studies, labs or
clinics. Only step frequency can be reliably contrasted between
the Myotest® and photocell- or video-based systems, showing
both adequate reliability and concurrent validity of measures.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the Swiss Olympic Medical Centre of the
Clinique Romande de Rehabiliation SuvaCare in Sion (Switzerland) for its
involvement in the experimental set-up. We also thank Dr Laurent Mourot
for his critical reading of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (1998). Statistical methods for assessing
measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine.
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 26(4), 217–238.
Bernard, P. L., Amato, M., Degache, F., Edouard, P., Ramdani, S., Blain, H., &
Codine, P. (2012). Reproducibility of the time to peak torque and the
joint angle at peak torque on knee of young sportsmen on the iso-
kinetic dynamometer. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine,
55(4), 241–251.
Bosco, C., Tarkka, I., & Komi, P. V. (1982). Effect of elastic energy and
myoelectrical potentiation of triceps surae during stretch-shorten-
ing cycle exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 3(3),
137–140.
Bosquet, L., Berryman, N., & Dupuy, O. (2009). A comparison of 2 optical
timing systems designed to measure flight time and contact time
during jumping and hopping. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 23(9), 2660–2665.
Casartelli, N., Müller, R., & Maffiuletti, N. A. (2010). Validity and reliability of
the Myotest accelerometric system for the assessment of vertical jump
height. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(11), 3186–
3193.
Castagna, C., Ganzetti, M., Ditroilo, M., Giovannelli, M., Rocchetti, A., &
Manzi, V. (2013). Concurrent validity of vertical jump performance
assessment systems. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
27(3), 761–768.
Cavagna, G. A., Franzetti, P., Heglund, N. C., & Willems, P. (1988). The
determinants of the step frequency in running, trotting and hop-
ping in man and other vertebrates. The Journal of Physiology, 399,
81–92.
Choukou, M. A., Laffaye, G., & Taiar, R. (2014). Reliability and validity of an
accele-rometric system for assessing vertical jumping performance.
Biology of Sport, 31(1), 55–62.
Coh, M., Milanović, D., & Kampmiller, T. (2001). Morphologic and
kinematic characteristics of elite sprinters. Collegium Antropologicum,
25(2), 605–610.
Cole, M. H., Van Den Hoorn, W., Kavanagh, J. K., Morrison, S., Hodges,
P. W., Smeathers, J. E., & Kerr, G. K. (2014). Concurrent validity of
accelerations measured using a tri-axial inertial measurement unit
while walking on firm, compliant and uneven surfaces. PloS One,
9(5), e98395.
Comstock, B. A., Solomon-Hill, G., Flanagan, S. D., Earp, J. E., Luk, H. Y.,
Dobbins, K. A., & Kraemer, W. J. (2011). Validity of the Myotest® in
measuring force and power production in the squat and bench press.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(8), 2293–2297.
Cook, C. J., Beaven, C. M., & Kilduff, L. P. (2013). Three weeks of eccentric
training combined with overspeed exercises enhances power and run-
ning speed performance gains in trained athletes. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 27(5), 1280–1286.
Debaere, S., Jonkers, I., & Delecluse, C. (2013). The contribution of step
characteristics to sprint running performance in high-level male and
female athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(1),
116–124.

Ditroilo, M., Forte, R., McKeown, D., Boreham, C., & De Vito, G. (2011). Intra-
and inter-session reliability of vertical jump performance in healthy
middle-aged and older men and women. Journal of Sports Sciences,
29(15), 1675–1682.
Flaction, P., Quievre, J., & Morin, J. B. (2013). U.S. Patent n° US 2013/
0190658. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Tradematk Office.
Glatthorn, J. F., Gouge, S., Nussbaumer, S., Stauffacher, S., Impellizzeri, F.
M., & Maffiuletti, N. A. (2011). Validity and reliability of optojump
photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(2), 556–560.
Hébert-Losier, K., & Beaven, C. M. (2014). The MARS for squat, counter-
movement, and standing long jump performance analyses: Are mea-
sures reproducible? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28
(7), 1849–1857.
Henriksen, M., Lund, H., Moe-Nilssen, R., Bliddal, H., & Danneskiod-Samsøe,
B. (2004). Test-retest reliability of trunk accelerometric gait analysis. Gait
& Posture, 19(3), 288–297.
Holsgaard Larsen, A., Caserotti, P., Puggaard, L., & Aagaard, P. (2007).
Reproducibility and relationship of single-joint strength vs multi-joint
strength and power in aging individuals. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports, 17(1), 43–53.
Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and
science. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 30(1), 1–15.
Downloaded by [Thibault Lussiana] at 22:05 15 July 2015
Hopkins, W. G. (2007). Understanding statistics by using spreadsheets to
generate and analyze samples. Sportscience, 11, 23–36.
Hopkins, W. G., Marshall, S. W., Batterham, A. M., & Hanin, J. (2009).
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(1), 3–13.
Houel, N., Dinu, D., Faury, A., & Seyfried, D. (2011). Accuracy and reliability
of the Myotest pro system to evaluate a squat jump. Procedia
Engineering, 13, 434–438.
Kraemer, W. J., French, D. N., Paxton, N. J., Häkkinen, K., Volek, J. S.,
Sebastianelli, W. J., & Knuttgen, H. G. (2004). Changes in exercise
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7
performance and hormonal concentrations over a big ten soccer sea-
son in starters and nonstarters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 18(1), 121–128.
Mero, A., & Komi, P. V. (1986). Force-, EMG-, and elasticity-velocity relation-
ships at submaximal, maximal and supramaximal running speeds in
sprinters. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology, 55(5), 553–561.
Nummela, A., Keränen, T., & Mikkelsson, L. O. (2007). Factors related to top
running speed and economy. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
28(8), 655–661.
Nuzzo, J. L., Anning, J. H., & Scharfenberg, J. M. (2011). The reliability of
three devices used for measuring vertical jump height. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(9), 2580–2590.
Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research:
Applications to practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/
Prentice Hall.
Rosner, B. (2010). Fundamentals of biostatistics (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Ruben, R. M., Saffel, H., McCrory, J. L., Cormie, P., & Haff, G. G. (2011).
Comparison of accelerometer based vertical jump assessments to a
linear position transducer plus force plate system. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 25, S37.
Sato, K., Smith, S. L., & Sands, W. A. (2009). Validation of an acceler-
ometer for measuring sport performance. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 23(1), 341–347. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181876a01
Stokes, M. (1985). Reliability and repeatability of methods for measuring
muscle in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 1(2), 71–76.
doi:10.3109/09593988509163853
Weyand, P. G., Sandell, R. F., Prime, D. N. L., & Bundle, M. W. (2010). The
biological limits to running speed are imposed from the ground up.
Journal of Applied Physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985), 108(4), 950–961.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00947.2009