4.4 Article

THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF FATIGUE MEASURES DURING MULTIPLE-SPRINT WORK: AN ISSUE REVISITED

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 1597-1601

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318181ab80

Keywords

intermittent; repeated; test-retest; repeatability

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Glaister, M, Howatson, G, Pattison, JR, and McInnes, G. The reliability and validity of fatigue measures during multiple-sprint work: an issue revisited. J Strength Cond Res 22(5): 1597-1601, 2008-The ability to repeatedly produce a high-power output or sprint speed is a key fitness component of most field and court sports. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of eight different approaches to quantify this parameter in tests of multiple-sprint performance. Ten physically active men completed two trials of each of two multiples-print running protocols with contrasting recovery periods. Protocol 1 consisted of 12 x 30-m sprints repeated every 35 seconds; protocol 2 consisted of 12 x 30-m sprints repeated every 65 seconds. All testing was performed in an indoor sports facility, and sprint times were recorded using twin-beam photocells. All but one of the formulae showed good construct validity, as evidenced by similar within-protocol fatigue scores. However, the assumptions on which many of the formulae were based, combined with poor or inconsistent test-retest reliability (coefficient of variation range: 0.8-145.7%; intraclass correlation coefficient range: 0.09-0.75), suggested many problems regarding logical validity. In line with previous research, the results support the percentage decrement calculation as the most valid and reliable method of quantifying fatigue in tests of multiple-sprint performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available