Agreement of Power Measures between Garmin Vector and SRM Cycle Power Meters. Issue 3 (2nd July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Novak, Andrew R.; Dascombe, Benjamin J.
• Is Part Of: Measurement in physical education and exercise science. Volume 20:Issue 3(2016)
• Page Start: 167
• Page End: 172
• Publication Date: 2016-07-02
• Subjects: training -- testing -- performance -- cycling -- validity; Physical fitness -- Testing -- Periodicals; Physical education and training -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; Physical education and training -- Research -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1191496
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1091-367X

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to determine if the Garmin Vector (Schaffhausen, Switzerland) power meter produced acceptable measures when compared with the Schoberer Rad Messetechnik (SRM; Julich, Germany) power meter across a range of high-intensity efforts. Twenty-one well-trained cyclists completed power profiles (seven maximal mean efforts between 5 and 600 s) using Vector and SRM power meters. Data were compared using assessments of heteroscedasticity, t tests, linear regression, and typical error of estimate (TEE). The data were heteroscedastic, whereby the Vector pedals increasingly overestimated values at higher power outputs; however, t tests did not identify any significant differences between power meters ( p > .05). Using linear regression, Vector data were fit to an SRM equivalent (slope = .99; intercept = −9.87) and TEE produced by this equation was 3.3% (3.0%–3.8%). While the data shows slight heteroscedasticity due to differing strain-gauge placement and resultant torque measurement variance, the Vector appears acceptable for measures of power output across various cycling efforts.