An interventional study of CODTimer test in Training Group and Sensitivity, sponsored by Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. Completed at 2 sites in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to participants aged 18 Years to 25 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-07-26.
Sponsored by Mehmet Akif Ersoy University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Smartphone applications such as CODtimer, Stopwatch Movie watch, and Seconds Count are used to evaluate the ability to change direction within these biomotor features. However, the validity and reliability of these applications are the subjects of research.
The athletic performance level is one of the main factors that determine the success of an athlete. However, the athletic performance level of an athlete is determined by many motor abilities. One of these motor abilities is agility.
Because agility has been seen as a complex physical skill, valid and reliable tests and test devices are needed to determine the level of agility. Therefore, researchers have developed many test devices using technology and they have aimed to reach gold standards to measure agility ability through these devices. In this context, manual timers were first used to measure agility performance, then devices such as fully automatic test devices, photocell types, video timers, and radar systems were accepted as a test tool for the measurement of agility performance. Although fully automatic test devices are accepted as the gold standard in the measurement of velocity-based parameters, they cannot be preferred by everyone due to obstacles such as the need for expert knowledge and being economically costly for their use.
Due to the impracticality of accessing the gold standard test devices, researchers have developed easy-to-use and cost-effective smartphone applications that do not require expert knowledge, and these applications have been used to measure different motor abilities. Among these motor features, CODTimer App is the smartphone application that is frequently preferred in the evaluation of agility ability and whose validity-reliability studies are conducted.
In the previous studies on the validity and reliability of the CODTimer App, a very strong correlation was found between the CODTimer App and the gold standard automatic timing gates according to the 5+5 and 505 agility test protocols. However, many mobile applications have validity and reliability unexplored. It is necessary to investigate different test protocols and devices to spread the use of mobile applications and prove that they are valid and reliable measurement tools.
This study aimed to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the CODTimer, Second Count, and Stopwatch Moviewatch App with an iPhone 11 compared to gold standard timing gates for the evaluation of Illinois agility performance in college athletes.
1,925 studies on the registry are indexed under Hypersensitivity; 261 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 30 is below the median of 58 across 1,391 interventional studies indexed under Hypersensitivity.
Browse Hypersensitivity studies →Mehmet Akif Ersoy University is the lead sponsor of 25 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The participant applied the Illinois test twice to determine the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the data collection tools.
Device: CODTimer test
The Illinois test times of the participants will be measured with different phone applications that measure the change of direction performance, and each individual will perform the test twice.
Also known as: Stopwatch Moviewatch App, Seconds Count, Stopwatch, Photocell
The relationship of smartphone apps versus gold standard measuring tool in measuring direction change performance
Two photocell doors with a height of 1.5 meters and a distance of 2 meters were placed at the beginning and the end of the test. However, to take measurements with smartphone applications, video recordings were made with smartphones from a height of 1.5, 2 meters away from the photocell, parallel to the ending and starting points. To measure with the stopwatch, the researchers were positioned 1 meter next to the photocell at the endpoint. At the beginning of the test, the exit positions of the participants were standardized, and each participant applied the illinois test twice with three minutes of listening. The means of the obtained values were determined according to the following formula; (first trial time\[second\]+ second trial time\[second\])/2. Hypothesis tests were performed with trial time mean. It was assumed that the shorter the test times of the athletes, the better their performance.
Time frame: 1-week
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from Mar 2022 to primary completion in Jun 2022, 2 months.
Of 423 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Hypersensitivity, half reached primary completion within 14 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 35. This study's 2 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 481 studies reached it within 13 months; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 30.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University