4.4 Article

EVALUATION OF SKATING TOP SPEED, ACCELERATION, AND MULTIPLE REPEATED SPRINT SPEED ICE HOCKEY PERFORMANCE TESTS

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 2273-2283

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002644

Keywords

test battery; timing systems; reliability; performance changes; predicting success

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Skating speed, acceleration (ACC), and economy are important attributes related to ice hockey success and should ideally be tested on the ice in a reliable and time efficient manner that is accessible to coaches at all levels of the sport. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of certain on-ice tests and further, to use these results to evaluate changes in performance across a season. It was hypothesized that the tests' reliability would be excellent and that players would demonstrate improvements in performance associated with enhanced physiological conditioning. Forty male ice hockey players (16.2 +/- 0.8 years, 1.76 +/- 0.06 m, 73.7 +/- 9.8 kg) completed top speed (TS), ACC, and multiple repeated sprint time (MRST) tests twice in the preseason (PRE 1 and 2) 1 week apart to examine reliability and once postseason (POST) to examine changes across the season. A high-speed video camera was used to time each test. The TS, ACC, and MRST demonstrated excellent within- and between-day reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC] >= 0.83, typical error [TE] <= 2.6%) as well as within- and between-rater reliability (ICC >= 0.86, TE <= 0.5%). The team's TS and ACC were similar at all 3 assessments (p > 0.05), whereas MRST was faster at POST than at PRE 1 (p < 0.05). This test battery is reliable, time efficient, and inexpensive. All 3 tests may be used in team selection and identification of fatigue or overtraining. The MRST may be the most sensitive to short-term improvements related to ice hockey conditioning.

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