Sports Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Athlete and coach perceptions of technology needs for evaluating running performance

  • Paul Fleming
  • Colin Young
  • Sharon Dixon
  • Matt Carré
Original Article


Athletes and their support team utilise technology to measure and evaluate technique and athletic performance. Existing techniques for motion and propulsion measurement and analysis include a combination of indirect methods (high-speed video) and direct methods (force plates and pressure systems). These methods are predominantly limited to controlled laboratory environments (in a small area relative to the competition environment), require expert advice and support, and can take significant time to evaluate the data. Consequently, the more advanced measurement techniques are considered to be restricted to specific coaching sessions, or periods in the year leading up to competition, when the time and expertise of further support staff are available. The more widely used, and simple, devices for monitoring ‘performance’ during running include stopwatches, GPS tracking and accelerometer-based systems to count strides. These provide useful information on running duration, distance and velocity but lack detailed information on many key aspects of running technique. In order to begin the process of development of more innovative technologies for routine use by athletes and coaches, a study was required to improve the understanding of athletes’ and coaches’ perception of their requirements from measurement technology. This study outlines a systematic approach to elicit and evaluate their perceptions, and presents the findings from interviews and a questionnaire. The qualitative data are presented as a hierarchical graphical plot (structured relationship model) showing six general dimensions (technique, footwear and surface, environment, performance, injury and cardiovascular) and shows the development of these general dimensions from the interviewee quotations. The questionnaire quantitative data enhances the study by further ranking characteristics that arise from the interviews. A contrast is shown between short and longer distance runner groups, as might be expected. The current technology available to elite runners is briefly reviewed in relation to the 22 characteristics identified as important to measure. The conclusions highlight the need for newer technologies to measure aspects of running style and performance in a portable and integrated manner, with suggestions as to size and weight likely to be acceptable to users for emerging devices.


Perceptions Instrumentation Gait analysis Running performance 



The research team would like to thank the EPSRC and UK Sport for providing financial support for this one year feasibility project. Additionally, we would like to thank all of the coaches and athletes that gave their time. The opinions are solely those of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Billing DC, Nagarajah CR, Hayes JP, Baker J (2006) Predicting ground reaction forces in running using micro-sensors and neural networks. Sports Eng 9:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen L, Manion L (1980) Research methods in education. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Cock A, de Clercq D, Willems T, Witrouvuw E (2005) Temporal characteristics of foot roll-over during barefoot jogging: reference data for young adults. Gait Posture 21:432–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Cock A, Willems T, Witrouvuw E, Varenterghem J, de Clercq D (2006) A functional foot type classification with cluster analysis based on plantar pressure distribution during jogging. Gait Posture 23:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Cock A, Willems T, Witrouvuw E, Varenterghem J, de Clercq D (2008) The trajectory of the centre of pressure during barefoot running as a potential measure for foot function. Gait Posture 27:669–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixon SJ (2006) Application of centre of pressure data to indicate rearfoot inversion–eversion in shod running. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96:305–312Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleming PR, Young C, Dixon N, Roberts JR, Jones R (2005) Human perceptions of artificial surfaces for field hockey. Sports Eng 8(3):121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hay JG, Reid JG (1988) Anatomy, mechanics, and human motion, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heller B, Haake SJ, Kirtley C (2004) An instrumented insole for measurement of foot motion. In: Hubbard M (ed) The engineering of sport 5: proceedings of the 5th international conference on the engineering of sport, vol 2, pp 201–206. ISEA, Sheffield, UK, ISBN 0-9547861-2-2Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hocknell A, Jones R, Rothberg SJ (1996). Engineering ‘feel’ in the design of golf clubs. In: Haake SJ (ed) The engineering of sport: proceedings of the 1st international conference on the engineering of sport, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 333–337Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Putti AB, Arnold GP, Cochrane L, Abboud RJ (2007) The Pedar in-shoe system: repeatability and normal pressure values. Gait Posture 25(3):401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts JR, Jones R, Harwood C, Mitchell S, Rothberg S (2001) Human perceptions of sports equipment under playing conditions. J Sports Sci 19:485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scanlan TK, Ravizza K, Stein GL (1989) An in depth study of former elite figure skaters: I. Introduction to the project. J Sport Exerc Psychol 11:54–64Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scanlan TK, Stein GL, Ravizza K (1989) An in depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. J Sport Exerc Psychol 11:65–83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Fleming
    • 1
  • Colin Young
    • 2
  • Sharon Dixon
    • 3
  • Matt Carré
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.Sports and Play Construction Association (SAPCA)WarwickshireUK
  3. 3.School of Sport and Health SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations