3.9 Article

Validity of a basketball-specific complex test in female professional players

Journal

SPORTVERLETZUNG-SPORTSCHADEN
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 125-133

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0583-2832

Keywords

test performance; match performance; match efficiency; sport-specific skills; endurance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a new basketball-specific complex test (BBCT) based on the ascertained match performance. Fourteen female professional basketball players (ages: 23.41.8 years) performed the BBCT and a treadmill test (TT) at the beginning of pre-season training. Lactate, heart rate (HR), time, shooting precision and number of errors were measured during the four test sequences of the BBCT (short distance sprinting with direction changes, with and without a ball; fast break; lay-up parcours; sprint endurance test). In addition, lactate threshold (LT) and HR were assessed at selected times throughout the TT and the BBCT and over 6 (TT) or 10 (BBCT) minutes after the tests. The match performance score (mps) was calculated on specific parameters (e.g. points) collected during all matches during the subsequent season (22 matches). The mps served as the gold standard within the validation process for the BBCT and the TT. TT parameters demonstrated an explained variance (EV) between 0% (HR recovery) and 11% (running speed at 6mmol/l LT). The EV from the BBCT was higher and ranged from 0% (HR recovery 6 minutes after end of exercise) to 28% (sprint endurance test after 8 of 10 sprints). Ten out of 21 BBCT parameters (48%) and 2 out of 5 TT parameters (40%) demonstrated an EV higher than 10%. Average EV for all parameters was 12% (BBCT) and 6% (TT), respectively. The BBCT had a higher validity than the TT for predicting match performance. These findings suggest that coaches and scientists should consider using the BBCT testing protocol to estimate the match performance abilities of elite female players.

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