2007
DOI: 10.1519/r-20336.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Familiarization and Reliability of Multiple Sprint Running Performance Indices

Abstract: The aims of this study were to evaluate the time-course of the familiarization process associated with a test of multiple sprint running performance and to determine the reliability of various performance indices once familiarization had been established. Eleven physically active men (mean age: 21 +/- 2 years) completed 4 multiple sprint running trials (12 x 30 m; repeated at 35-s intervals) with 7 days between trials. All testing was conducted indoors, and times were recorded by twin-beam photocells. Results … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
28
1
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
28
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Indices of fatigue on both the cycle-ergometer and repeated-sprint tests have moderate levels reliability (Bar-Or 1987;Glaister et al 2007Glaister et al , 2008. Practical interpretation of fatigue scores is also problematic (Oliver 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indices of fatigue on both the cycle-ergometer and repeated-sprint tests have moderate levels reliability (Bar-Or 1987;Glaister et al 2007Glaister et al , 2008. Practical interpretation of fatigue scores is also problematic (Oliver 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, although some studies did not find the familiarization process necessary, [11][12][13] our results demonstrate that the proposed familiarization method may be beneficial not only at the practical field, but also, at the research setting. In fact, our data is in agreement with previous research suggesting the need for a familiarization process prior to performance testing as considered before.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…10 However, other studies suggest that familiarization procedures are not necessary prior to sprinting and vertical jumping tests, when utilized to monitor performance. [11][12][13] The discrepancy between studies may have been motivated by some methodological conditions that may knowingly affect the results, including: (i) the familiarization protocols were different between the studies, with an arbitrarily determined number of jumps and sessions; (ii) as the objective of the familiarization process is to reduce the intra-subject variation, a protocol with a fixed number of sessions and repetitions does not seem ideal, since it does not attend to the specific needs of each individual; (iii) some studies have not performed instability comparisons between pre and post-familiarization scores; (iv) most comparisons took into account only the best jumping performance or the average of a fixed number of the jumps, thus disregarding intra-subject variation; (v) most studies have calculated only group instability which does not accurately represent the type of expected stability after a familiarization process (i.e. the reduction of errors associated to each individual's performance); (vi) some studies present small sample sizes when compared with others evaluating reliability; 14,15 (vii) some studies have utilized the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as a reliability indicator, whereas Weir 16 suggests that the standard error of measurement (SEM) is a more accurate indicator of reliability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 Gaitanos et al 14 reported no significant differences between NaHCO3 ingestion and placebo in power output dur-ing 10 × 6 s non-motorized treadmill sprinting. Treadmillbased tests, however, do not involve eccentric muscle actions, such as the changing of directions that occurs during teamsport competitions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%