You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reliability and Validity of a Medicine Ball–Contained Accelerometer for Measuring Upper-Body Neuromuscular Performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002470 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory Roe, William Shaw, Joshua Darrall-Jones, Padraic J Phibbs, Dale Read, Jonathon J Weakley, Kevin Till, Ben Jones |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to assess the between-day reliability and validity of a medicine ball contained-accelerometer (MBA) for assessing upper-body neuromuscular performance during a throwing task. Ten professional rugby union players partook in the study. Between-day reliability was assessed from the best score attained during 2 sets of 3 throws, on 2 testing occasions separated by 7 days. Validity was assessed against a criterion measure (Optioelectronic system) during 75 throws from a sub group of three participants. The MBA exhibited a small between-day error of 2.2 % (90% CI's; 2.0 to 4.6 %) and an almost perfect relationship with a criterion measure r = 0.91 (90% CI's; 0.87 to 0.94)). However, the mean bias and standard error were moderate (7.9% (90% CI's; 6.6 to 9.2%) and 4.9% (90% CI's; 4.2 to 5.7%) respectively). Practitioners using an MBA to assess neuromuscular performance of the upper-body must take into account the overestimation and error associated with such assessment with respect to a criterion measure. However, as the error associated with between-day testing was small, and testing is easy to implement in applied practice, an MBA may provide a useful tool for monitoring upper-body neuromuscular performance over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,833,258
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#3,079
of 6,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,643
of 341,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#40
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.