Validity of self-reported running distance

M Dideriksen; C Soegaard; R O Nielsen

doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001244

Validity of self-reported running distance

M Dideriksen, C Soegaard, R O Nielsen

Department of Public Health - Sport Science

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Dideriksen, M, Soegaard, C, and Nielsen, RO. Validity of self-reported running distance. J Strength Cond Res 30(6): 1592-1596, 2016 - It is unclear whether there is a difference between subjective evaluation and objective global positioning systems (GPS) measurement of running distance. The purpose of this study was to investigate if such difference exists. A total of 100 participants (51% men; median age, 41.5; body mass, 78.1 kg ±13.8 SD) completed a run of free choice, then subjectively reported the distance in kilometer (km). This information was subsequently compared with the distance derived from a nondifferential GPS watch using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman's 95% limits of agreement. No significant difference was found between the mean paired differences between subjective evaluations and GPS measurements (1.86%, 95% confidence interval -1.53%; 5.25%, p 0.96). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement revealed considerable variation (lower limit -28% and upper limit 40%). Such variation exceeds the clinical error range of 10%. In conclusion, the mean running distance (km) is similar between self-reporting and GPS measurements. However, researchers should consider using GPS measurements in favor of subjective reporting of running distance because of considerable variation on an individual level.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume	30
Issue	6
Pages (from-to)	1592-1596
Number of pages	5
ISSN	1064-8011
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001244
Publication status	Published - 1 Jun 2016

Keywords

GPS
injury
subjective

Access to Document

10.1519/JSC.0000000000001244

Cite this

@article{7cd7cfdea94e403397e7b8899f19de10,

title = "Validity of self-reported running distance",

abstract = "Dideriksen, M, Soegaard, C, and Nielsen, RO. Validity of self-reported running distance. J Strength Cond Res 30(6): 1592-1596, 2016 - It is unclear whether there is a difference between subjective evaluation and objective global positioning systems (GPS) measurement of running distance. The purpose of this study was to investigate if such difference exists. A total of 100 participants (51% men; median age, 41.5; body mass, 78.1 kg ±13.8 SD) completed a run of free choice, then subjectively reported the distance in kilometer (km). This information was subsequently compared with the distance derived from a nondifferential GPS watch using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman's 95% limits of agreement. No significant difference was found between the mean paired differences between subjective evaluations and GPS measurements (1.86%, 95% confidence interval -1.53%; 5.25%, p 0.96). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement revealed considerable variation (lower limit -28% and upper limit 40%). Such variation exceeds the clinical error range of 10%. In conclusion, the mean running distance (km) is similar between self-reporting and GPS measurements. However, researchers should consider using GPS measurements in favor of subjective reporting of running distance because of considerable variation on an individual level.",

keywords = "GPS, injury, subjective",

author = "M Dideriksen and C Soegaard and Nielsen, {R O}",

year = "2016",

month = jun,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000001244",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "1592--1596",

journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",

issn = "1064-8011",

publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of self-reported running distance

AU - Dideriksen, M

AU - Soegaard, C

AU - Nielsen, R O

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - Dideriksen, M, Soegaard, C, and Nielsen, RO. Validity of self-reported running distance. J Strength Cond Res 30(6): 1592-1596, 2016 - It is unclear whether there is a difference between subjective evaluation and objective global positioning systems (GPS) measurement of running distance. The purpose of this study was to investigate if such difference exists. A total of 100 participants (51% men; median age, 41.5; body mass, 78.1 kg ±13.8 SD) completed a run of free choice, then subjectively reported the distance in kilometer (km). This information was subsequently compared with the distance derived from a nondifferential GPS watch using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman's 95% limits of agreement. No significant difference was found between the mean paired differences between subjective evaluations and GPS measurements (1.86%, 95% confidence interval -1.53%; 5.25%, p 0.96). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement revealed considerable variation (lower limit -28% and upper limit 40%). Such variation exceeds the clinical error range of 10%. In conclusion, the mean running distance (km) is similar between self-reporting and GPS measurements. However, researchers should consider using GPS measurements in favor of subjective reporting of running distance because of considerable variation on an individual level.

AB - Dideriksen, M, Soegaard, C, and Nielsen, RO. Validity of self-reported running distance. J Strength Cond Res 30(6): 1592-1596, 2016 - It is unclear whether there is a difference between subjective evaluation and objective global positioning systems (GPS) measurement of running distance. The purpose of this study was to investigate if such difference exists. A total of 100 participants (51% men; median age, 41.5; body mass, 78.1 kg ±13.8 SD) completed a run of free choice, then subjectively reported the distance in kilometer (km). This information was subsequently compared with the distance derived from a nondifferential GPS watch using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman's 95% limits of agreement. No significant difference was found between the mean paired differences between subjective evaluations and GPS measurements (1.86%, 95% confidence interval -1.53%; 5.25%, p 0.96). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement revealed considerable variation (lower limit -28% and upper limit 40%). Such variation exceeds the clinical error range of 10%. In conclusion, the mean running distance (km) is similar between self-reporting and GPS measurements. However, researchers should consider using GPS measurements in favor of subjective reporting of running distance because of considerable variation on an individual level.

KW - GPS

KW - injury

KW - subjective

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973333104&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001244

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001244

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 26479023

SN - 1064-8011

VL - 30

SP - 1592

EP - 1596

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

IS - 6

ER -

Validity of self-reported running distance

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this