TY - JOUR T1 - Methods to assess validity of positioning systems in team sports: can we do better? JF - BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine JO - BMJ OPEN SP EX MED DO - 10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001496 VL - 9 IS - 1 SP - e001496 AU - Live Steinnes Luteberget AU - Petter A H Jølstad AU - Matthias Gilgien Y1 - 2023/01/01 UR - http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/9/1/e001496.abstract N2 - Objectives There is previously reported a large variety of criterion measures and reference systems applied to validate position tracking systems in sports. This study aims to investigate the effect of different criterion measures and reference systems on the outcome of accuracy assessments of tracking systems in sports.Methods Data from a commercially available standalone global navigation satellite system (GNSS) were compared with two different reference systems: a high-end differential GNSS and a tape measure. Differences in accuracy outcomes of position (static and dynamic), distance and speed (mean and instantaneous) were investigated in team sport imitation courses.Results The mean horizontal position error was larger when athletes were in motion (dynamic position; 1.53±0.82 m) compared with static measurements (1.10±0.60 m). Measured distances of the courses were markedly different (+6% to −17%) between the two reference systems, causing differences in error. Differences in error were also found between mean speed and instantaneous speed (0.10 vs 0.28 m). Errors in mean speed were highly affected by the time over which speed was averaged.Conclusion Choice of criterion measure and reference system has a substantial impact on the accuracy assessments of tracking systems. Specifically, assessing static position is not a substitute for dynamic position, and mean speed is not a substitute for instantaneous speed. Therefore, the outcomes of validation studies should always be interpreted in light of the reference methods that were used.Data are available upon reasonable request. ER -