3.9 Article

Reliability of an ice hockey-specific complex test

Journal

SPORTVERLETZUNG-SPORTSCHADEN
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 196-203

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0648-8874

Keywords

ice hockey; test performance; reliability; Eishockey; Testleistung; Reliabilitat

Funding

  1. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst - DAAD Research Grants for Doctoral Candidates and Young Academics and Scientists [50015559]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background This study assessed the intra-rater reliability of an ice hockey-specific complex test (IHCT) that reflects the intense multidirectional and intermittent efforts required in ice hockey. Methods Twenty professional players executed the IHCT twice over an interval of 2 days. Load parameters included a 10-m sprint, a 30-m transition with and without a puck, as well as slap and wrist shots. Stress parameters were lactate concentrations and heart rates. Results The intrarater reliability (ICC) ranged from 0.54 to 0.98 for load parameters, and from 0.26 to 0.87 for stress parameters. 33% (3/9) of stress parameters and 82% (18/22) of load parameters had an ICC >0.75. The largest limits of agreement were 41.6 for slap shot 1 after test and 50.4 for 6-min heart rate recovery. The smallest were 0.40 (10-m sprint without a puck) and 5.36 (resting lactate). The intra-rater reliability as shown by the coefficient of variation (CV) was lower for stress than for load parameters (mean CV: 13.4 vs. 4.7). 68% (15/22) of load parameters and 11% (1/9) of stress parameters showed a CV below 5%. Conclusion The IHCT is currently the only ice hockey-specific complex test with scientifically tested reliability and validity that can analyze performance under conditions similar to competition. It is suggested that coaches, fitness coaches and sports scientists explore use of this test as a valid tool to assess players' performance and the effectiveness of training interventions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available