Sprint performance is commonly assessed via discrete sprint tests and analyzed through
kinematic estimates modeled using a mono-exponential equation, including estimated
maximal sprinting speed (MSS), relative acceleration (TAU), maximum acceleration (MAC),
and relative propulsive maximal power (PMAX). The acceleration–velocity profile (AVP)
provides a simple summary of short sprint performance using two parameters: MSS and
MAC, which are useful for simplifying descriptions of sprint performance, comparison
between athletes and groups of athletes, and estimating changes in performance over
time or due to training intervention. However, discrete testing poses logistical challenges
and defines an athlete’s AVP exclusively from the performance achieved in an isolated
testing environment. Recently, an in situ AVP (velocity–acceleration method) was proposed
to estimate kinematic parameters from velocity and acceleration data obtained via
global or local positioning systems (GPS/LPS) over multiple training sessions, plausibly
improving the time efficiency of sprint monitoring and increasing the sample size
that defines the athlete’s AVP. However, the validity and sensitivity of estimates
derived from the velocity–acceleration method in relation to changes in criterion
scores remain elusive. To assess the concurrent validity and sensitivity of kinematic
measures from the velocity–acceleration method, 31 elite youth basketball athletes
(23 males and 8 females) completed two maximal effort 30 m sprint trials. Performance
was simultaneously measured by a laser gun and an LPS (Kinexon), with kinematic parameters
estimated using the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Agreement (%Bias)
between laser gun and LPS-derived estimates was within the practically significant
magnitude (±5%), while confidence intervals for the percentage mean absolute difference
(%MAD) overlapped practical significance for TAU, MAC, and PMAX using the velocity–acceleration
method. Only the MSS parameter showed a sensitivity (%MDC95) within practical significance
(<5%), with all other parameters showing unsatisfactory sensitivity (>10%) for both
the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Thus, sports practitioners may
be confident in the concurrent validity and sensitivity of MSS estimates derived in
situ using the velocity–acceleration method, while caution should be applied when
using this method to infer an athlete’s maximal acceleration capabilities.
