ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2025
Validity and Inter-Device Reliability of an Artificial Intelligence App for Real-Time Assessment of 505 Change of Direction Tests.
Article in European journal of sport science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study aimed to explore the validity and inter-device reliability of a novel artificial intelligence app (Asstrapp) for real-time measurement of the traditional (tra505) and modified-505 (mod505) change of direction (COD) tests. Twenty-five male Sports Science students (age, 23.5 ± 3.27 years; body height, 178 ± 9.76 cm; body mass, 79.4 ± 14.7 kg) completed 12 trials each, consisting of six tra505 and six mod505 trials. Completion times were simultaneously recorded via single-beam electronic timing gates (ETG) and two different iPhones (APP1 and APP2). In total 300 trials were collected across the two tests, using all three devices, to establish the reliability and validity of the app. The coefficient of variation indicated a similar level of dispersion between the ETG (≤ 2.73%), APP1 (≤ 2.39%) and APP2 (≤ 2.52%). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) revealed excellent reliability among the three timing devices (ICC ≥ 0.99) and Asstrapp relative reliability was excellent for both APP1 (ICC ≥ 0.91) and APP2 (ICC ≥ 0.91). There was a practically perfect correlation and agreement between ETG and Asstrapp (APP1: r = 0.97; APP2: r = 0.97) for both COD tests. However, small but significant differences were found between smartphones and ETG for tra505 (ES ≤ 0.33; p < 0.05). Collectively, these findings support the use of Asstrapp for real-time assessment of both 505 COD tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.