Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer

J. Hopker, S. Myers, S. A. Jobson, W. Bruce, L. Passfield

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer against the SRM Powermeter using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) and trained and untrained human participants. Using the CALRIG power outputs of 50-1250W were assessed at cadences of 70 and 90rev.min -1. Validity and reliability data were also obtained from 3 repeated trials in both trained and untrained populations. 4 work rates were used during each trial ranging from 50-300W. CALRIG data demonstrated significant differences (P<0.05) between SRM and Wattbike across the work rates at both cadences. Significant differences existed in recorded power outputs from the SRM and Wattbike during steady state trials (power outputs 50-300W) in both human populations (156±l72W vs. 153±64W for SRM and Wattbike respectively; P<0.05). The reliability (CV) of the Wattbike in the untrained population was 6.7% (95%CI 4.8-13.2%) compared to 2.2% with the SRM (95%CI 1.5-4.1%). In the trained population the Wattbike CV was 2.6% (95%CI 1.8-5.1%) compared to 1.1% with the SRM (95%CI 0.7-2.0%). These results suggest that when compared to the SRM, the Wattbike has acceptable accuracy. Reliability data suggest coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when using the Wattbike at low power outputs in a test-retest setting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)731-736
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume31
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Oct 2010
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • calibration
  • cycling
  • ergometry
  • power output
  • talent identification
  • testing

Cite this

Hopker, J., Myers, S., Jobson, S. A., Bruce, W., & Passfield, L. (2010). Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(10), 731-736. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1261968
Hopker, J. ; Myers, S. ; Jobson, S. A. ; Bruce, W. ; Passfield, L. / Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer. In: International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 31, No. 10. pp. 731-736.
@article{5839a807bee946669e13d2f69bc964d4,
title = "Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer against the SRM Powermeter using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) and trained and untrained human participants. Using the CALRIG power outputs of 50-1250W were assessed at cadences of 70 and 90rev.min -1. Validity and reliability data were also obtained from 3 repeated trials in both trained and untrained populations. 4 work rates were used during each trial ranging from 50-300W. CALRIG data demonstrated significant differences (P<0.05) between SRM and Wattbike across the work rates at both cadences. Significant differences existed in recorded power outputs from the SRM and Wattbike during steady state trials (power outputs 50-300W) in both human populations (156±l72W vs. 153±64W for SRM and Wattbike respectively; P<0.05). The reliability (CV) of the Wattbike in the untrained population was 6.7{\%} (95{\%}CI 4.8-13.2{\%}) compared to 2.2{\%} with the SRM (95{\%}CI 1.5-4.1{\%}). In the trained population the Wattbike CV was 2.6{\%} (95{\%}CI 1.8-5.1{\%}) compared to 1.1{\%} with the SRM (95{\%}CI 0.7-2.0{\%}). These results suggest that when compared to the SRM, the Wattbike has acceptable accuracy. Reliability data suggest coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when using the Wattbike at low power outputs in a test-retest setting.",
keywords = "calibration, cycling, ergometry, power output, talent identification, testing",
author = "J. Hopker and S. Myers and Jobson, {S. A.} and W. Bruce and L. Passfield",
year = "2010",
month = "10",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1055/s-0030-1261968",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "731--736",
number = "10",

}

Hopker, J, Myers, S, Jobson, SA, Bruce, W & Passfield, L 2010, 'Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer', International Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 731-736. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1261968

Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer. / Hopker, J.; Myers, S.; Jobson, S. A.; Bruce, W.; Passfield, L.

In: International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 31, No. 10, 22.10.2010, p. 731-736.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer

AU - Hopker, J.

AU - Myers, S.

AU - Jobson, S. A.

AU - Bruce, W.

AU - Passfield, L.

PY - 2010/10/22

Y1 - 2010/10/22

N2 - The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer against the SRM Powermeter using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) and trained and untrained human participants. Using the CALRIG power outputs of 50-1250W were assessed at cadences of 70 and 90rev.min -1. Validity and reliability data were also obtained from 3 repeated trials in both trained and untrained populations. 4 work rates were used during each trial ranging from 50-300W. CALRIG data demonstrated significant differences (P<0.05) between SRM and Wattbike across the work rates at both cadences. Significant differences existed in recorded power outputs from the SRM and Wattbike during steady state trials (power outputs 50-300W) in both human populations (156±l72W vs. 153±64W for SRM and Wattbike respectively; P<0.05). The reliability (CV) of the Wattbike in the untrained population was 6.7% (95%CI 4.8-13.2%) compared to 2.2% with the SRM (95%CI 1.5-4.1%). In the trained population the Wattbike CV was 2.6% (95%CI 1.8-5.1%) compared to 1.1% with the SRM (95%CI 0.7-2.0%). These results suggest that when compared to the SRM, the Wattbike has acceptable accuracy. Reliability data suggest coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when using the Wattbike at low power outputs in a test-retest setting.

AB - The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer against the SRM Powermeter using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) and trained and untrained human participants. Using the CALRIG power outputs of 50-1250W were assessed at cadences of 70 and 90rev.min -1. Validity and reliability data were also obtained from 3 repeated trials in both trained and untrained populations. 4 work rates were used during each trial ranging from 50-300W. CALRIG data demonstrated significant differences (P<0.05) between SRM and Wattbike across the work rates at both cadences. Significant differences existed in recorded power outputs from the SRM and Wattbike during steady state trials (power outputs 50-300W) in both human populations (156±l72W vs. 153±64W for SRM and Wattbike respectively; P<0.05). The reliability (CV) of the Wattbike in the untrained population was 6.7% (95%CI 4.8-13.2%) compared to 2.2% with the SRM (95%CI 1.5-4.1%). In the trained population the Wattbike CV was 2.6% (95%CI 1.8-5.1%) compared to 1.1% with the SRM (95%CI 0.7-2.0%). These results suggest that when compared to the SRM, the Wattbike has acceptable accuracy. Reliability data suggest coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when using the Wattbike at low power outputs in a test-retest setting.

KW - calibration

KW - cycling

KW - ergometry

KW - power output

KW - talent identification

KW - testing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77958004227&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0030-1261968

DO - 10.1055/s-0030-1261968

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 731

EP - 736

IS - 10

ER -

Hopker J, Myers S, Jobson SA, Bruce W, Passfield L. Validity and reliability of the wattbike cycle ergometer. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2010 Oct 22;31(10):731-736. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1261968