Limits...
The reliability of a functional agility test for water polo.

Tucher G, de Souza Castro FA, Garrido ND, Martins da Silva AJ - J Hum Kinet (2014)

Bottom Line: The CV average considering each individual was near 6-7%.As the FTAP contains some characteristics that create a degree of unpredictability, the same athlete may reach different performance results, increasing variability.An adjustment in the sample, familiarization and careful selection of subjects help to improve this situation and enhance the reliability of the indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal.

ABSTRACT
Few functional agility tests for water polo take into consideration its specific characteristics. The preliminary objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of an agility test for water polo players. Fifteen players (16.3 ± 1.8 years old) with a minimum of two years of competitive experience were evaluated. A Functional Test for Agility Performance (FTAP) was designed to represent the context of this sport. Several trials were performed to familiarize the athlete with the movement. Two experienced coaches measured three repetitions of the FTAP. Descriptive statistics, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), 95% limit of agreement (LOA), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurements (SEM) were used for data analysis. It was considered that certain criteria of reliability measures were met. There was no significant difference between the repetitions, which may be explained by an effect of the evaluator, the ability of the players or fatigue (p > 0.05). The ICC average from evaluators was high (0.88). The SEM varied between 0.13 s and 0.49 s. The CV average considering each individual was near 6-7%. These values depended on the condition of measurement. As the FTAP contains some characteristics that create a degree of unpredictability, the same athlete may reach different performance results, increasing variability. An adjustment in the sample, familiarization and careful selection of subjects help to improve this situation and enhance the reliability of the indicators.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

FTAP performance time: difference of time (evaluator A minus evaluator B) versus average time measured by evaluators A and B with the 95% limit of agreement (sd = standard deviation)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4120452&req=5

f2-jhk-41-181: FTAP performance time: difference of time (evaluator A minus evaluator B) versus average time measured by evaluators A and B with the 95% limit of agreement (sd = standard deviation)

Mentions: The average difference (evaluator A minus evaluator B) was 0.054 s and the SD was a difference of 0.17 s. The difference presented a normal distribution (p = 0.50). Therefore, it could be expected that in 95% of the cases, the difference between the measurements registered by the evaluators would be between − 0.28 s (average – 1.9650) and 0.38 s (average + 1.9650), which characterizes the 95% limit of agreement (LOA). These values represent an amplitude for the value obtained of 0.66 s (Bland and Altman, 1999) (Figure 2).


The reliability of a functional agility test for water polo.

Tucher G, de Souza Castro FA, Garrido ND, Martins da Silva AJ - J Hum Kinet (2014)

FTAP performance time: difference of time (evaluator A minus evaluator B) versus average time measured by evaluators A and B with the 95% limit of agreement (sd = standard deviation)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4120452&req=5

f2-jhk-41-181: FTAP performance time: difference of time (evaluator A minus evaluator B) versus average time measured by evaluators A and B with the 95% limit of agreement (sd = standard deviation)
Mentions: The average difference (evaluator A minus evaluator B) was 0.054 s and the SD was a difference of 0.17 s. The difference presented a normal distribution (p = 0.50). Therefore, it could be expected that in 95% of the cases, the difference between the measurements registered by the evaluators would be between − 0.28 s (average – 1.9650) and 0.38 s (average + 1.9650), which characterizes the 95% limit of agreement (LOA). These values represent an amplitude for the value obtained of 0.66 s (Bland and Altman, 1999) (Figure 2).

Bottom Line: The CV average considering each individual was near 6-7%.As the FTAP contains some characteristics that create a degree of unpredictability, the same athlete may reach different performance results, increasing variability.An adjustment in the sample, familiarization and careful selection of subjects help to improve this situation and enhance the reliability of the indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal.

ABSTRACT
Few functional agility tests for water polo take into consideration its specific characteristics. The preliminary objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of an agility test for water polo players. Fifteen players (16.3 ± 1.8 years old) with a minimum of two years of competitive experience were evaluated. A Functional Test for Agility Performance (FTAP) was designed to represent the context of this sport. Several trials were performed to familiarize the athlete with the movement. Two experienced coaches measured three repetitions of the FTAP. Descriptive statistics, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), 95% limit of agreement (LOA), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurements (SEM) were used for data analysis. It was considered that certain criteria of reliability measures were met. There was no significant difference between the repetitions, which may be explained by an effect of the evaluator, the ability of the players or fatigue (p > 0.05). The ICC average from evaluators was high (0.88). The SEM varied between 0.13 s and 0.49 s. The CV average considering each individual was near 6-7%. These values depended on the condition of measurement. As the FTAP contains some characteristics that create a degree of unpredictability, the same athlete may reach different performance results, increasing variability. An adjustment in the sample, familiarization and careful selection of subjects help to improve this situation and enhance the reliability of the indicators.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus