This study assessed the validity of a tri-axial accelerometer worn on the upper body to estimate peak forces during running and change-of-direction tasks. Seventeen participants completed four different running and change-of-direction tasks (0°, 45°, 90°, and 180°; five trials per condition). Peak crania-caudal and resultant acceleration was converted to force and compared against peak force plate ground reaction force (GRF) in two formats (raw and smoothed). The resultant smoothed (10 Hz) and crania-caudal raw (except 180°) accelerometer values were not significantly different to resultant and vertical GRF for all running and change-of-direction tasks, respectively. Resultant accelerometer measures showed no to strong significant correlations (r = 0.00–0.76) and moderate to large measurement errors (coefficient of variation [CV] = 11.7–23.9%). Crania-caudal accelerometer measures showed small to moderate correlations (r = − 0.26 to 0.39) and moderate to large measurement errors (CV = 15.0–20.6%). Accelerometers, within integrated micro-technology tracking devices and worn on the upper body, can provide a relative measure of peak impact force experienced during running and two change-of-direction tasks (45° and 90°) provided that resultant smoothed values are used.

Inter-day training reliability and variability in artistic gymnastics vaulting was determined using a customised infra-red timing gate and contact mat timing system. Thirteen Australian high performance gymnasts (eight males and five females) aged 11–23 years were assessed during two consecutive days of normal training. Each gymnast completed a number of vault repetitions per daily session. Inter-day variability of vault run-up velocities (at ‐18 to ‐12 m, ‐12 to ‐6 m, ‐6 to ‐2 m, and ‐2 to 0 m from the nearest edge of the beat board), and board contact, pre-flight, and table contact times were determined using mixed modelling statistics to account for random (within-subject variability) and fixed effects (gender, number of subjects, number of trials). The difference in the mean (M_diff) and Cohen's effect sizes for reliability assessment and intra-class correlation coefficients, and the coefficient of variation percentage (CV%) were calculated for variability assessment. Approach velocity (‐18 to ‐2 m, CV = 2.4–7.8%) and board contact time (CV = 3.5%) were less variable measures when accounting for day-to-day performance differences, than pre-flight time (CV = 17.7%) and table contact time (CV = 20.5%). While pre-flight and table contact times are relevant training measures, approach velocity and board contact time are more reliable when quantifying vaulting performance.

Performance tests are used for multiple purposes in exercise and sport science. Ensuring that a test displays an appropriate level of measurement properties for use within a population is important to ensure confidence in test findings. The aim of this study was to obtain subject matter expert consensus on the measurement and feasibility properties that should be considered for performance tests used in the exercise and sport sciences and how these should be defined. This information was used to develop a checklist for broader dissemination. A two-round Delphi study was undertaken including 33 exercise scientists, academics and sport scientists. Participants were asked to rate the importance of a range of measurement properties relevant to performance tests in exercise and sport science. Responses were obtained in binary and Likert-scale formats, with consensus defined as achieving 67% agreement on each question. Consensus was reached on definitions and terminology for all items. Ten level 1 items (those that achieved consensus on all four questions) and nine level 2 items (those achieving consensus on ≥2 questions) were included. Both levels were included in the final checklist. The checklist developed from this study can be used to inform decision-making and test selection for practitioners and researchers in the exercise and sport sciences. This can facilitate knowledge sharing and performance comparisons across sub-disciplines, thereby improving existing field practice and research methodological quality.