Form Matters—Technical Cues in the Single Leg Heel Raise to Failure Test Significantly Change the Outcome: A Study of Convergent Validity in Australian Football Players

BioMed Pub Date : 2024-04-07 DOI:10.3390/biomed4020007
Brady Green, Molly Coventry, T. Pizzari, Ebonie K. Rio, M. Murphy
{"title":"Form Matters—Technical Cues in the Single Leg Heel Raise to Failure Test Significantly Change the Outcome: A Study of Convergent Validity in Australian Football Players","authors":"Brady Green, Molly Coventry, T. Pizzari, Ebonie K. Rio, M. Murphy","doi":"10.3390/biomed4020007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practitioners routinely use the single leg heel raise (SLHR) to quantify calf function in healthy and injured populations. Despite this, approaches vary and the impact of cueing on SLHR performance and results interpretation in athletesis unknown. The primary aim of this study was to quantify the level of agreement of the cued versus non-cued SLHR tests. The secondary aim was to explore test outcomes and the potential impact of intrinsic factors. Cued and non-cued SLHR tests were conducted in fifty-one Australian football players (23 women, 28 men). Metronome pacing (60 bpm) and five key cues were included in the cued condition. The level of agreement (Bland–Altman) between tests was measured for capacity (repetitions to failure) and asymmetry. Data from 100 legs were included. The non-cued and cued SLHR tests demonstrated poor agreement in both capacity and asymmetry. More repetitions to failure were performed in the non-cued SLHR [Mean (SD) = 33.9 (10.3) vs. 21.9 (5.3), p < 0.001)], and men had greater capacity (36.8 (10.4) vs. 30.3 (9.2), p < 0.001). During the cued SLHR, older players (age ≥ 30 years: −5.1 repetitions, p = 0.01) and Indigenous players (−3.4 repetitions, p = 0.002) and had reduced calf muscle function. Cueing the SLHR test significantly changes the result—outcomes are not comparable or interchangeable with the commonly used non-cued SLHR. These findings can guide practitioners quantifying calf capacity.","PeriodicalId":511609,"journal":{"name":"BioMed","volume":"48 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioMed","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed4020007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Practitioners routinely use the single leg heel raise (SLHR) to quantify calf function in healthy and injured populations. Despite this, approaches vary and the impact of cueing on SLHR performance and results interpretation in athletesis unknown. The primary aim of this study was to quantify the level of agreement of the cued versus non-cued SLHR tests. The secondary aim was to explore test outcomes and the potential impact of intrinsic factors. Cued and non-cued SLHR tests were conducted in fifty-one Australian football players (23 women, 28 men). Metronome pacing (60 bpm) and five key cues were included in the cued condition. The level of agreement (Bland–Altman) between tests was measured for capacity (repetitions to failure) and asymmetry. Data from 100 legs were included. The non-cued and cued SLHR tests demonstrated poor agreement in both capacity and asymmetry. More repetitions to failure were performed in the non-cued SLHR [Mean (SD) = 33.9 (10.3) vs. 21.9 (5.3), p < 0.001)], and men had greater capacity (36.8 (10.4) vs. 30.3 (9.2), p < 0.001). During the cued SLHR, older players (age ≥ 30 years: −5.1 repetitions, p = 0.01) and Indigenous players (−3.4 repetitions, p = 0.002) and had reduced calf muscle function. Cueing the SLHR test significantly changes the result—outcomes are not comparable or interchangeable with the commonly used non-cued SLHR. These findings can guide practitioners quantifying calf capacity.
形式很重要--单腿抬高脚跟至失败测试中的技术提示会显著改变结果:澳大利亚足球运动员的收敛有效性研究
医生通常使用单腿提踵(SLHR)来量化健康和受伤人群的小腿功能。尽管如此,方法各不相同,提示对单腿提踵(SLHR)成绩和运动员结果解释的影响尚不清楚。本研究的主要目的是量化提示与非提示 SLHR 测试的一致性水平。次要目的是探索测试结果和内在因素的潜在影响。对 51 名澳大利亚足球运动员(23 名女性,28 名男性)进行了提示和非提示 SLHR 测试。提示条件包括节拍器起搏(60 bpm)和五个音调提示。测试之间的一致性水平(Bland-Altman)是根据能力(重复到失败)和不对称来衡量的。共纳入了 100 条腿的数据。非提示和提示 SLHR 测试在能力和不对称性方面的一致性都很差。非提示 SLHR 的失败重复次数更多 [平均值 (SD) = 33.9 (10.3) vs. 21.9 (5.3),p < 0.001],男性的能力更大(36.8 (10.4) vs. 30.3 (9.2),p < 0.001)。在提示 SLHR 测试中,年龄较大的运动员(年龄≥ 30 岁:-5.1 次,p = 0.01)和土著运动员(-3.4 次,p = 0.002)的小腿肌肉功能降低。提示 SLHR 测试会明显改变结果--结果与常用的非提示 SLHR 无法比较或互换。这些发现可为从业人员量化小腿能力提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信