Abstract

Subjective assessment of footwear experience during running is critical for recommendation and design. Recently, ride perception was quantified using an eight-dimension ratings scale. Ride varied by shoe and individual for treadmill running. However, it is unknown whether ride per-ception is a reliable measure in circumstances other than treadmill running and across sessions. The purpose of this study was to assess the intra-runner reliability of the previously developed ride rating 5-point semantic differential scale and the influence of surface on reliability ratings. We collected ride ratings in-person from nine runners in a controlled (lab) and semi-controlled (5 km outdoor paved path) environment and remotely from 177 runners in an uncontrolled col- lection. Post-run ride ratings were collected from each group following two separate running sessions on multiple surfaces using native shoes. We used intra-class correlation analysis to determine intra-runner reliability of ride ratings between separate runs in the same shoe on the same surface and in the same shoe on different surfaces. We used a reliability threshold of !0.70 as adequate. More than half of the in-person and slightly under half of the remote runners reached adequate reliability for the same surface runs. Reliability was lower for different surface runs for the remote runners but not the in-person runners. For in-person collection, firmness had adequate reliability during treadmill running, while awareness and sound level had good reliability outdoors. Weight and yield showed adequate and near adequate reliability for remote collections for same surface runs. Ride perception exhibits test-retest reliability in the assessment of subjective experience of footwear. Differences in ratings between surfaces indicate both the definition and construct of ride is captured with this subjective scale.