Agreement and Sensitivity of the Acceleration–Velocity Profile Derived via Local Positioning System.

Sprint performance is commonly assessed via discrete sprint tests and analyzed through kinematic estimates modeled using a mono-exponential equation, including estimated maximal sprinting speed ( M S S ), relative acceleration ( T A U ), maximum acceleration ( M A C ), and relative propulsive maximal power ( P M A X ). The acceleration–velocity profile (AVP) provides a simple summary of short sprint performance using two parameters: MSS and MAC, which are useful for simplifying descriptions of sprint performance, comparison between athletes and groups of athletes, and estimating changes in performance over time or due to training intervention. However, discrete testing poses logistical challenges and defines an athlete's AVP exclusively from the performance achieved in an isolated testing environment. Recently, an in situ AVP (velocity–acceleration method) was proposed to estimate kinematic parameters from velocity and acceleration data obtained via global or local positioning systems (GPS/LPS) over multiple training sessions, plausibly improving the time efficiency of sprint monitoring and increasing the sample size that defines the athlete's AVP. However, the validity and sensitivity of estimates derived from the velocity–acceleration method in relation to changes in criterion scores remain elusive. To assess the concurrent validity and sensitivity of kinematic measures from the velocity–acceleration method, 31 elite youth basketball athletes (23 males and 8 females) completed two maximal effort 30 m sprint trials. Performance was simultaneously measured by a laser gun and an LPS (Kinexon), with kinematic parameters estimated using the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Agreement ( % B i a s ) between laser gun and LPS-derived estimates was within the practically significant magnitude ( ± 5%), while confidence intervals for the percentage mean absolute difference ( % M A D ) overlapped practical significance for T A U , M A C , and P M A X using the velocity–acceleration method. Only the M S S parameter showed a sensitivity ( % M D C 95 ) within practical significance (<5%), with all other parameters showing unsatisfactory sensitivity (>10%) for both the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Thus, sports practitioners may be confident in the concurrent validity and sensitivity of M S S estimates derived in situ using the velocity–acceleration method, while caution should be applied when using this method to infer an athlete's maximal acceleration capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]