A comparison of time-motion analysis methods for field-based sports.

S Roberts, G Trewartha, K Stokes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 19 Citations

Abstract

Purpose. To assess the validity of a digitising time-motion analysis method for field-based sports and compare this to a notational analysis method using rugby union match play. Method. Five calibrated video cameras were located around a rugby pitch and one subject completed prescribed movements within each camera view. Running speeds were measured using photocell timing gates. Two experienced operators digitised video data (operator 1 on two occasions) to allow 2D reconstruction of the prescribed movements. Results. Accuracy for total distance calculated was within 2.1% of the measured distance. For intra- and inter-operator reliability, calculated distances were within 0.5% and 0.9% respectively. Calculated speed was within 8.0% of measured photocell speed with intra- and inter-operator reliability of 3.4% and 6.0%, respectively. For the method comparison, two 20 min periods of rugby match play were analysed for five players using the digitising method and a notational time-motion method. For the 20 min periods, overall mean absolute differences between methods for percentage time spent and distances covered performing different activities were 3.5% and 198.1 ± 138.1 m, respectively. Total number of changes in activity per 20 min were 184 ± 24 vs 458 ± 48 and work-to-rest ratio’s 10.0 / 90.0% and 7.3 / 92.7% for notational and digitising methods, respectively. Conclusion. The digitising method is accurate and reliable for gaining detailed information on work profiles of field sport participants and provides the applied researcher with richer data output than the conventional notational method.
LanguageEnglish
Pages386-397
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Volume1
StatusPublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Sports
Football
Running
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Accuracy
  • notational
  • digitising
  • rugby union
  • reliability

Cite this

A comparison of time-motion analysis methods for field-based sports. / Roberts, S; Trewartha, G; Stokes, K.

In: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 1, 2006, p. 386-397.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3eb6afd8da9a407d8c792957c55a4acf,
title = "A comparison of time-motion analysis methods for field-based sports.",
abstract = "Purpose. To assess the validity of a digitising time-motion analysis method for field-based sports and compare this to a notational analysis method using rugby union match play. Method. Five calibrated video cameras were located around a rugby pitch and one subject completed prescribed movements within each camera view. Running speeds were measured using photocell timing gates. Two experienced operators digitised video data (operator 1 on two occasions) to allow 2D reconstruction of the prescribed movements. Results. Accuracy for total distance calculated was within 2.1{\%} of the measured distance. For intra- and inter-operator reliability, calculated distances were within 0.5{\%} and 0.9{\%} respectively. Calculated speed was within 8.0{\%} of measured photocell speed with intra- and inter-operator reliability of 3.4{\%} and 6.0{\%}, respectively. For the method comparison, two 20 min periods of rugby match play were analysed for five players using the digitising method and a notational time-motion method. For the 20 min periods, overall mean absolute differences between methods for percentage time spent and distances covered performing different activities were 3.5{\%} and 198.1 ± 138.1 m, respectively. Total number of changes in activity per 20 min were 184 ± 24 vs 458 ± 48 and work-to-rest ratio’s 10.0 / 90.0{\%} and 7.3 / 92.7{\%} for notational and digitising methods, respectively. Conclusion. The digitising method is accurate and reliable for gaining detailed information on work profiles of field sport participants and provides the applied researcher with richer data output than the conventional notational method.",
keywords = "Accuracy, notational, digitising, rugby union, reliability",
author = "S Roberts and G Trewartha and K Stokes",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "386--397",
journal = "International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance",
issn = "1555-0265",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of time-motion analysis methods for field-based sports.

AU - Roberts,S

AU - Trewartha,G

AU - Stokes,K

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Purpose. To assess the validity of a digitising time-motion analysis method for field-based sports and compare this to a notational analysis method using rugby union match play. Method. Five calibrated video cameras were located around a rugby pitch and one subject completed prescribed movements within each camera view. Running speeds were measured using photocell timing gates. Two experienced operators digitised video data (operator 1 on two occasions) to allow 2D reconstruction of the prescribed movements. Results. Accuracy for total distance calculated was within 2.1% of the measured distance. For intra- and inter-operator reliability, calculated distances were within 0.5% and 0.9% respectively. Calculated speed was within 8.0% of measured photocell speed with intra- and inter-operator reliability of 3.4% and 6.0%, respectively. For the method comparison, two 20 min periods of rugby match play were analysed for five players using the digitising method and a notational time-motion method. For the 20 min periods, overall mean absolute differences between methods for percentage time spent and distances covered performing different activities were 3.5% and 198.1 ± 138.1 m, respectively. Total number of changes in activity per 20 min were 184 ± 24 vs 458 ± 48 and work-to-rest ratio’s 10.0 / 90.0% and 7.3 / 92.7% for notational and digitising methods, respectively. Conclusion. The digitising method is accurate and reliable for gaining detailed information on work profiles of field sport participants and provides the applied researcher with richer data output than the conventional notational method.

AB - Purpose. To assess the validity of a digitising time-motion analysis method for field-based sports and compare this to a notational analysis method using rugby union match play. Method. Five calibrated video cameras were located around a rugby pitch and one subject completed prescribed movements within each camera view. Running speeds were measured using photocell timing gates. Two experienced operators digitised video data (operator 1 on two occasions) to allow 2D reconstruction of the prescribed movements. Results. Accuracy for total distance calculated was within 2.1% of the measured distance. For intra- and inter-operator reliability, calculated distances were within 0.5% and 0.9% respectively. Calculated speed was within 8.0% of measured photocell speed with intra- and inter-operator reliability of 3.4% and 6.0%, respectively. For the method comparison, two 20 min periods of rugby match play were analysed for five players using the digitising method and a notational time-motion method. For the 20 min periods, overall mean absolute differences between methods for percentage time spent and distances covered performing different activities were 3.5% and 198.1 ± 138.1 m, respectively. Total number of changes in activity per 20 min were 184 ± 24 vs 458 ± 48 and work-to-rest ratio’s 10.0 / 90.0% and 7.3 / 92.7% for notational and digitising methods, respectively. Conclusion. The digitising method is accurate and reliable for gaining detailed information on work profiles of field sport participants and provides the applied researcher with richer data output than the conventional notational method.

KW - Accuracy

KW - notational

KW - digitising

KW - rugby union

KW - reliability

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 386

EP - 397

JO - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

T2 - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

JF - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

SN - 1555-0265

ER -