2015
DOI: 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000113
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data Analysis for Strength and Conditioning Coaches

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
55
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
2
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All tests showed excellent reliability, except for 10 m, which showed an acceptable variability (<10%). These findings suggest the data being presented in this article can be interpreted with confidence for further analysis (Turner et al, 2015). Previous research supports that the level of experience and the structured strength and conditioning training (inclusive of speed and jump training) performed during the season seem to contribute to the good reliability of the data (Bishop et al, 2019a).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…All tests showed excellent reliability, except for 10 m, which showed an acceptable variability (<10%). These findings suggest the data being presented in this article can be interpreted with confidence for further analysis (Turner et al, 2015). Previous research supports that the level of experience and the structured strength and conditioning training (inclusive of speed and jump training) performed during the season seem to contribute to the good reliability of the data (Bishop et al, 2019a).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Data were assessed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Absolute reliability was computed via the coefficient of variation (CV) (SD/mean)*100 (38) and standard error of measurement (SEM) SD*(1-ICC) (15). Relative reliability was assessed using a twoway random intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with absolute agreement, inclusive of 95% confidence intervals.…”
Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 Smallest worthwhile change (SWC; based on between-subject SD 17 ) was calculated for small (SWC 0.2 ), moderate (SWC 0.6 ), and large (SWC 1.2 ) effect sizes and compared to TE scores. 18 ICC and SWC were calculated for change scores (test two-test one) on days 1 and 2. Relationships between variables were assessed by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficients (r).…”
Section: Data Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%