ArticlePeerJ2026
Validity and reliability of the Valkyria Trainer Free
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Velocity-based training has emerged as a leading approach for quantifying training loads. Therefore, valid and reliable devices must be used to evaluate both movement velocity and power. Objective: This study determined the validity and reliability of the Valkyria Trainer Free Materials and Methods: Nineteen physically healthy men participated in the study (22.7 ± 2.1 years). A repeated-measures design was used to compare the inter-day test-retest reliability of velocity and power, while validity was determined by comparing the VTF Results: For vertical velocity, the "power zone" and "fast velocity zone" showed a high threshold for CV (≤5%), while the "slow velocity zone" showed an acceptable threshold with a CV of 7.94. For power, the "slow velocity zone" showed an acceptable threshold for CV (≤10%), while the "fast velocity zone" and "power zone" showed a CV equivalent to 10.8 and 4.8%, respectively. Conclusion: The study's results demonstrated that VTF
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.