This study investigated the inter-rater reliability and validity of the Fulltrack AI application, to measure ball speed under a range of cricket training conditions in comparison to a radar gun. Ball speed (km/hr) of 1081 deliveries (pace = 783; spin = 298) from a range of training sessions and conditions were recorded simultaneously using a radar gun (Stalker Pro IIs) and iOS device running Fulltrack AI (v1.13.1). Statistical analyses were conducted in R Statistical Software. Reliability was assessed with standard error of measurement (SEM), coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was assessed using Bland Altman's 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Validity was assessed using generalised additive models (GAMs). Pace deliveries were associated with good agreement (ICC: 0.87–0.90, CV: 2.56–3.13%), whilst spin deliveries demonstrated lower agreement (ICC: 0.72–0.76, CV: 3.08–4.33%). LOA established poor to fair levels of agreement, exceeding maximal allowable differences (>3%). GAMs identified Fulltrack AI overestimated ball speed (pace: estimate 0.72–0.77 m/s, SE = 0.34–0.34; spin: estimate 1.09–1.18 m/s, SE = 0.23–0.25) when compared to the radar gun. Fulltrack AI is an ecologically valid and reliable field-based method for measuring ball speed. However, caution is warranted given the significant overestimation of ball speed in contrast with a radar gun, even after controlling for different training conditions, suggesting software could benefit from refinement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shorter et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: