Training GroupNCT05474521
Evaluation of Illinois Agility Performance With Smartphone Applications: A Validity and Reliability Study
A study testing CODTimer test in people with Training Group and Sensitivity, run by Mehmet Akif Ersoy University at 2 sites in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 25 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Training Group, Sensitivity
- What is being tested?
- CODTimer test
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 10 Mar 2022to 20 Jun 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 25 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Athletes who have not experienced an injury in the last 1 year and have a training history of at least one year.
Who cannot join
- Participants who do not meet the inclusion criteria
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)2 sites
Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Sport Science
Burdur
Huseyin Sahin UYSAL
Burdur
About this study
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Smartphone applications such as CODtimer, Stopwatch Movie watch, and Seconds Count are used to evaluate the ability to change direction within these biomotor features. However, the validity and reliability of these applications are the subjects of research.
Read the detailed description
The athletic performance level is one of the main factors that determine the success of an athlete. However, the athletic performance level of an athlete is determined by many motor abilities. One of these motor abilities is agility.
Because agility has been seen as a complex physical skill, valid and reliable tests and test devices are needed to determine the level of agility. Therefore, researchers have developed many test devices using technology and they have aimed to reach gold standards to measure agility ability through these devices. In this context, manual timers were first used to measure agility performance, then devices such as fully automatic test devices, photocell types, video timers, and radar systems were accepted as a test tool for the measurement of agility performance. Although fully automatic test devices are accepted as the gold standard in the measurement of velocity-based parameters, they cannot be preferred by everyone due to obstacles such as the need for expert knowledge and being economically costly for their use.
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Among these motor features, CODTimer App is the smartphone application that is frequently preferred in the evaluation of agility ability and whose validity-reliability studies are conducted.
In the previous studies on the validity and reliability of the CODTimer App, a very strong correlation was found between the CODTimer App and the gold standard automatic timing gates according to the 5+5 and 505 agility test protocols. However, many mobile applications have validity and reliability unexplored. It is necessary to investigate different test protocols and devices to spread the use of mobile applications and prove that they are valid and reliable measurement tools.
This study aimed to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the CODTimer, Second Count, and Stopwatch Moviewatch App with an iPhone 11 compared to gold standard timing gates for the evaluation of Illinois agility performance in college athletes.
- Conditions
- Training Group, Sensitivity
- Being tested
- CODTimer test
- Keywords
- Performance test, Smarthone app, Agility
- Medical subject headings
- Hypersensitivity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
CODTimer testDevice
Also called Stopwatch Moviewatch App, Seconds Count, Stopwatch, Photocell
The Illinois test times of the participants will be measured with different phone applications that measure the change of direction performance, and each individual will perform the test twice.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Participant 1 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 2 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 3 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 4 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 5 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 6 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 7 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 8 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 9 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 10 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 11 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 12 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 13 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 14 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 15 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 16 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 17 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 18 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 19 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 20 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 21 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 22 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 23 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 24 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 25 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 26 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 27 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 28 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 29 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
| Participant 30 | Experimental | The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. Receives: Device: CODTimer test |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The relationship of smartphone apps versus gold standard measuring tool in measuring direction change performance
Two photocell doors with a height of 1.5 meters and a distance of 2 meters were placed at the beginning and the end of the test. However, to take measurements with smartphone applications, video recordings were made with smartphones from a height of 1.5, 2 meters away from the photocell, parallel to the ending and starting points. To measure with the stopwatch, the researchers were positioned 1 meter next to the photocell at the endpoint. At the beginning of the test, the exit positions of the participants were standardized, and each participant applied the illinois test twice with three minutes of listening.
The means of the obtained values were determined according to the following formula; (first trial time[second]+ second trial time[second])/2. Hypothesis tests were performed with trial time mean. It was assumed that the shorter the test times of the athletes, the better their performance.
Measured: 1-week
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Jul 2022
- Study start10 Mar 2022
- Primary completion2 Jun 2022
- Study completion20 Jun 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Training GroupStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Model description
- This study was performed according to the predictive correlational research design, which is one of the quantitative research methods. Participants included in the study were determined according to the simple random sampling method. Athletes who studied at the faculty of sports sciences participated in this research and the research was carried out with a single group.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Huseyin Sahin UYSAL, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
- Investigators
- Huseyin Sahin Uysal, Msc, Study director, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05474521
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MehmetAkifU
- Status last verified
- Jul 2022
- First submitted
- 20 Jul 2022
- Last updated
- 26 Jul 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Jul 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of Illinois Agility Performance With Smartphone Applications: A Validity and Reliability Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05474521
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MehmetAkifU
- Conditions
- Training Group, Sensitivity
- Keywords
- Performance test, Smarthone app, Agility
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mehmet Akif Ersoy UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 2 Jun 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Jun 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Jul 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Smartphone applications such as CODtimer, Stopwatch Movie watch, and Seconds Count are used to evaluate the ability to change direction within these biomotor features. However, the validity and reliability of these applications are the subjects of research.
Detailed description
The athletic performance level is one of the main factors that determine the success of an athlete. However, the athletic performance level of an athlete is determined by many motor abilities. One of these motor abilities is agility.
Because agility has been seen as a complex physical skill, valid and reliable tests and test devices are needed to determine the level of agility. Therefore, researchers have developed many test devices using technology and they have aimed to reach gold standards to measure agility ability through these devices. In this context, manual timers were first used to measure agility performance, then devices such as fully automatic test devices, photocell types, video timers, and radar systems were accepted as a test tool for the measurement of agility performance. Although fully automatic test devices are accepted as the gold standard in the measurement of velocity-based parameters, they cannot be preferred by everyone due to obstacles such as the need for expert knowledge and being economically costly for their use.
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Among these motor features, CODTimer App is the smartphone application that is frequently preferred in the evaluation of agility ability and whose validity-reliability studies are conducted.
In the previous studies on the validity and reliability of the CODTimer App, a very strong correlation was found between the CODTimer App and the gold standard automatic timing gates according to the 5+5 and 505 agility test protocols. However, many mobile applications have validity and reliability unexplored. It is necessary to investigate different test protocols and devices to spread the use of mobile applications and prove that they are valid and reliable measurement tools.
This study aimed to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the CODTimer, Second Count, and Stopwatch Moviewatch App with an iPhone 11 compared to gold standard timing gates for the evaluation of Illinois agility performance in college athletes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 30
- Model description
- This study was performed according to the predictive correlational research design, which is one of the quantitative research methods. Participants included in the study were determined according to the simple random sampling method. Athletes who studied at the faculty of sports sciences participated in this research and the research was carried out with a single group.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Participant 1 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 2 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 3 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 4 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 5 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 6 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 7 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 8 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 9 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 10 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 11 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 12 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 13 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 14 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 15 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 16 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 17 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 18 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 19 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 20 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 21 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 22 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 23 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 24 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 25 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 26 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 27 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 28 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 29 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
| Participant 30 | Experimental | Device: CODTimer testThe participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 25 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Athletes who have not experienced an injury in the last 1 year and have a training history of at least one year.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Participants who do not meet the inclusion criteria
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| CODTimer testAlso: Stopwatch Moviewatch App, Seconds Count, Stopwatch, PhotocellThe Illinois test times of the participants will be measured with different phone applications that measure the change of direction performance, and each individual will perform the test twice. | Device | Participant 1, Participant 10, Participant 11, Participant 12, Participant 13, Participant 14, Participant 15, Participant 16, Participant 17, Participant 18, Participant 19, Participant 2, Participant 20, Participant 21, Participant 22, Participant 23, Participant 24, Participant 25, Participant 26, Participant 27, Participant 28, Participant 29, Participant 3, Participant 30, Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 6, Participant 7, Participant 8, Participant 9 |
Primary outcome
The relationship of smartphone apps versus gold standard measuring tool in measuring direction change performance
Time frame: 1-week
Two photocell doors with a height of 1.5 meters and a distance of 2 meters were placed at the beginning and the end of the test. However, to take measurements with smartphone applications, video recordings were made with smartphones from a height of 1.5, 2 meters away from the photocell, parallel to the ending and starting points. To measure with the stopwatch, the researchers were positioned 1 meter next to the photocell at the endpoint. At the beginning of the test, the exit positions of the participants were standardized, and each participant applied the illinois test twice with three minutes of listening. The means of the obtained values were determined according to the following formula; (first trial time[second]+ second trial time[second])/2. Hypothesis tests were performed with trial time mean. It was assumed that the shorter the test times of the athletes, the better their performance.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Jul 2022.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Training Group
Active, not recruiting
Chicago Parent Program for Foster and Kinship Caregivers
Behavior Problem, Parenting
Active, not recruiting
Mindfulness Based Eating Awareness Training for Bariatric Surgery Patients
Obesity, Morbid, Eating Disorder Symptom
Recruiting
HABIT-ILE + FST in Children With SMA: Preliminary Effectiveness
Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)
Active, not recruiting
Group-based Stabilization and Skill Training for Patients With Lasting Posttraumatic Reactions in Mental Health Care
Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Mental Disorders
Recruiting
Leveraging Interventions for Caregiver Growth, Health, Training, Empowerment and Navigation: Comparing Group Behavioral Interventions to Improve Dementia Caregiver Strain
Elevated Caregiver Strain, Dementia Caregiver
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Huseyin Sahin Uysal, Msc study director
Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing CODTimer test in people with Training Group and Sensitivity, run by Mehmet Akif Ersoy University at 2 sites in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Jul 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The relationship of smartphone apps versus gold standard measuring tool in measuring direction change performance (time frame: 1-week). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Jul 2022.