Can Inertial Measurement Units Replace Common Sport Science Testing Equipment as an All-in-One Solution?

PURPOSE: This pilot study evaluated the agreement between inertial measurement units (IMUs) and criterion standard performance assessment equipment (e.g., timing gates and force platforms). METHODS: Sixteen female Division 1 athletes completed a standard, preseason assessment battery including the 10-yard dash, Pro-Agility (5-10-5), countermovement jump, and a 5-3 multirebound jump wearing IMUs throughout the performance assessments to evaluate agreement with force platforms and timing gates. All testing took place in a climate-controlled collegiate weight room environment. Agreement between devices were evaluated separately for each assessment and measurement pair using repeated-measures limits of agreement analysis via the "SimplyAgree" package (v.0.2.1). Bias and limits of agreement were analyzed via method of variance estimates recovery with replicates selection applied. RESULTS: Inertial measurement units demonstrated a lack of agreement with criterion devices across all performance assessments (10-yard dash completion time, mean bias of -1.22 [0.29] s, and distance covered, mean bias of -4.09 [1.13] m); 5-10-5 completion time, mean bias of 0.80 [0.51] s, and distance covered, mean bias of 7.23 [1.56] m; countermovement jump height, mean bias of -13.12 [2.56] cm, and flight time, mean bias of -0.10 [0.02] s; and multirebound jump height, mean bias of -6.50 [2.65] cm). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of agreement between IMUs and the criterion devices suggest that at present, IMUs should not be used as a single, expedient solution during performance testing.