4.2 Article

The Relative Age Effect at the Ice Hockey World Championships (IHWC) in the years 2015-2017

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN KINETICS
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 150-159

出版社

SCIENDO
DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2020-0044

关键词

athletic talent; birthdate; national teams; player's position

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
  2. Masaryk University [MUNI/A/1087/2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relative age effect (RAE) theory is based on the premise that athletes born in the first months of the calendar year have a significant probability of a higher level of physiological, morphological and psychological abilities compared to later-born athletes. The aim of our study was to verify the influence of the RAE on adult ice hockey players, specifically Ice Hockey World Championships' (IHWC) participants in the years 2015-2017 (n = 1,200). Based on the chi-squared (chi(2)) analysis, the influence of the RAE during the 2015-2017 period could not be rejected for all observed players (chi(2) = 54.6, p < 0.01, w = 0.21) or for all the players for particular years (2015, 2016, and 2017; p < 0.01). During the monitored period (2015-2017), the RAE could not be rejected for any player's position (forward, defender, or goaltender). Based on the effect size analysis (Cohen's w), the strongest RAE was observed among goaltenders (w = 0.31), then forwards (w = 0.24) and finally defenders (w = 0.15). The assessment of player's positions in particular years showed statistical significance for goaltenders only in 2015 (chi(2) = 11.3, p < 0.05). With regard to forwards, significance was confirmed for 2015 (chi(2) = 8.5, p < 0.05), 2016 (chi(2) = 15.2, p < 0.01) and 2017 (chi(2) = 14.3, p < 0.01). Therefore, the presence of the RAE could not be rejected for all these cases. The results of the research show that members of national teams in the years 2015-2017 were players who were chronologically older, which is consistent with the results of other authors addressing the RAE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据