Validity and Reliability of the FlightScope Mevo+ Launch Monitor for Assessing Golf Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Brennan, A, Murray, A, Coughlan, D, Mountjoy, M, Wells, J, Ehlert, A, Xu, J, Broadie, M, Turner, A, and Bishop, C. Validity and reliability of the FlightScope Mevo+ launch monitor for assessing golf performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): e174-e181, 2024-The purpose of this study was to (a) assess the validity of the FlightScope Mevo+ against the TrackMan 4 and (b) determine the within-session reliability of both launch monitor systems when using a driver and a 6-iron. Twenty-nine youth golfers, with a minimum of 3 years of playing experience, volunteered for this study. All golfers completed 10 shots with a 6-iron and a driver, with 8 metrics concurrently monitored from both launch monitor systems in an indoor biomechanics laboratory. For both clubs, Pearson's r values ranged from small to near perfect ( r range = 0.254-0.985), with the strongest relationships evident for clubhead speed (CHS) and ball speed ( r ≥ 0.92). Bland-Altman plots showed almost perfect levels of agreement between devices for smash factor (mean bias ≤-0.016; 95% CI: -0.112, 0.079), whereas the poorest levels of agreement was for spin rate (mean bias ≤1,238; 95% CI: -2,628, 5,103). From a reliability standpoint, the TrackMan showed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from moderate to excellent (ICC = 0.60-0.99) and coefficient of variation (CV) values ranged from good to poor (CV = 1.31-230.22%). For the Mevo+ device, ICC data ranged from poor to excellent (ICC = -0.22 to 0.99) and CV values ranged from good to poor (CV = 1.46-72.70%). Importantly, both devices showed similar trends, with the strongest reliability consistently evident for CHS, ball speed, carry distance, and smash factor. Finally, statistically significant differences ( p < 0.05) were evident between devices for spin rate (driver: d = 1.27; 6-iron: d = 0.90), launch angle (driver: d = 0.54), and attack angle (driver: d = -0.51). Collectively, these findings suggest that the FlightScope Mevo+ launch monitor is both valid and reliable when monitoring CHS, ball speed, carry distance, and smash factor. However, additional variables such as spin rate, launch angle, attack angle, and spin axis exhibit substantially greater variation compared with the TrackMan 4, suggesting that practitioners may wish to be cautious when providing golfers with feedback relating to these metrics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".