Validity and Concordance of a Linear Position Transducer (Vitruve) for Measuring Movement Velocity during Resistance Training

This study aimed to analyze the intra-device agreement of a new linear position transducer (Vitruve, VT) and the inter-device agreement with a previously validated linear velocity transducer (T-Force System, TF) in different range of velocities. A group of 50 healthy, physically active men performed a progressive loading test during a bench press (BP) and full-squat (SQ) exercise with a simultaneous recording of two VT and one TF devices. The mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak of velocity (PV) were recorded for subsequent analysis. A set of statistics was used to determine the degree of agreement (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], Lin's concordance correlation coefficient [CCC], mean square deviation [MSD], and variance of the difference between measurements [VMD]) and the error magnitude (standard error of measurement [SEM], smallest detectable change [SDC], and maximum errors [ME]) between devices. The established velocity ranges were as follows: >1.20 m<middle dot>s(-1); 1.20-0.95 m<middle dot>s(-1); 0.95-0.70 m<middle dot>s(-1); 0.70-0.45 m<middle dot>s(-1); <= 0.45 m<middle dot>s(-1) for BP; and >1.50 m<middle dot>s(-1); 1.50-1.25 m<middle dot>s(-1); 1.25-1.00 m<middle dot>s(-1); 1.00-0.75 m<middle dot>s(-1); and <= 0.75 m<middle dot>s(-1) for SQ. For the MPV, the VT system showed high intra- and inter-device agreement and moderate error magnitude with pooled data in both exercises. However, the level of agreement decreased (ICC: 0.790-0.996; CCC: 0.663-0.992) and the error increased (ME: 2.8-13.4% 1RM; SEM: 0.035-0.01 m<middle dot>s(-1)) as the velocity range increased. For the PV, the magnitude of error was very high in both exercises. In conclusion, our results suggest that the VT system should only be used at MPVs below 0.45 m<middle dot>s(-1) for BP and 0.75 m<middle dot>s(-1) for SQ in order to obtain an accurate and reliable measurement, preferably using the MPV variable instead of the PV. Therefore, it appears that the VT system may not be appropriate for objectively monitoring resistance training and assessing strength performance along the entire spectrum of load-velocity curve.