TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY, SMALLEST WORTHWHILE CHANGE, AND MINIMAL DETECTABLE CHANGE SCORES FOR FREQUENCY SPEED OF KICK TEST IN JUNIOR KICKBOXING ATHLETES

IF 0.2 Q4 SPORT SCIENCES
S. Ulupınar, Cebrail Gençoğlu, S. Özbay
{"title":"TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY, SMALLEST WORTHWHILE CHANGE, AND MINIMAL DETECTABLE CHANGE SCORES FOR FREQUENCY SPEED OF KICK TEST IN JUNIOR KICKBOXING ATHLETES","authors":"S. Ulupınar, Cebrail Gençoğlu, S. Özbay","doi":"10.52165/kinsi.29.2.183-194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While there exists a significant body of research dedicated to performance tests specific to combat sports, the current literature lacks valid and functional methodologies for assessing kickboxing-specific tasks. The present study endeavored to establish the test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), smallest worthwhile change (SWC), and typical error (TE) values of the Frequency Speed of Kicks Test (FSKT). Furthermore, this study sought to compare the reliability values of the FSKT with those of the countermovement jump test (CMJ). The study cohort consisted of twenty-eight junior male kickboxers. Participants performed the CMJ and FSKT twice across test and retest sessions. Pearson correlation analysis identified a significant correlation (r=0.717) between the CMJ and FSKT. Paired t-tests revealed no significant disparities between the test and retest values for both the CMJ and FSKT. However, the difference between the test and retest in the CMJ demonstrated a small effect size, while the FSKT showed a trivial effect size. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values for the CMJ and FSKT were deemed \"good\" (r=0.855) and \"excellent\" (r=0.963) respectively, in terms of reliability. The FSKT displayed superior absolute agreement between test and retest scores due to its lower SEM values when compared to the CMJ. The TE, used to estimate trial-to-trial variation, was lower in the FSKT than in the CMJ. Moreover, the results indicated a lower MDC value in the FSKT than the CMJ, suggesting that the FSKT could be more effective at detecting smaller performance changes compared to the CMJ. In conclusion, this study posits that the FSKT could be considered a reliable method, demonstrating reproducible results in the performance evaluation of kickboxing athletes, pending the development of a functional kickboxing-specific field test.","PeriodicalId":43206,"journal":{"name":"Kinesiologia Slovenica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kinesiologia Slovenica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52165/kinsi.29.2.183-194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While there exists a significant body of research dedicated to performance tests specific to combat sports, the current literature lacks valid and functional methodologies for assessing kickboxing-specific tasks. The present study endeavored to establish the test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), smallest worthwhile change (SWC), and typical error (TE) values of the Frequency Speed of Kicks Test (FSKT). Furthermore, this study sought to compare the reliability values of the FSKT with those of the countermovement jump test (CMJ). The study cohort consisted of twenty-eight junior male kickboxers. Participants performed the CMJ and FSKT twice across test and retest sessions. Pearson correlation analysis identified a significant correlation (r=0.717) between the CMJ and FSKT. Paired t-tests revealed no significant disparities between the test and retest values for both the CMJ and FSKT. However, the difference between the test and retest in the CMJ demonstrated a small effect size, while the FSKT showed a trivial effect size. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values for the CMJ and FSKT were deemed "good" (r=0.855) and "excellent" (r=0.963) respectively, in terms of reliability. The FSKT displayed superior absolute agreement between test and retest scores due to its lower SEM values when compared to the CMJ. The TE, used to estimate trial-to-trial variation, was lower in the FSKT than in the CMJ. Moreover, the results indicated a lower MDC value in the FSKT than the CMJ, suggesting that the FSKT could be more effective at detecting smaller performance changes compared to the CMJ. In conclusion, this study posits that the FSKT could be considered a reliable method, demonstrating reproducible results in the performance evaluation of kickboxing athletes, pending the development of a functional kickboxing-specific field test.
青少年跆拳道运动员踢腿频率-速度测试的再测试可靠性、最小有价值变化和最小可检测变化分数
虽然有大量的研究专门针对搏击运动的性能测试,但目前的文献缺乏评估跆拳道特定任务的有效和实用的方法。本研究试图建立踢踢频率测试(FSKT)的重测信度、测量标准误差(SEM)、最小可检测变化(MDC)、最小可值变化(SWC)和典型误差(TE)值。此外,本研究试图比较FSKT与反向跳跃测验(CMJ)的信度值。研究队列包括28名初级男子跆拳道运动员。参与者在测试和重新测试期间进行了两次CMJ和FSKT。Pearson相关分析发现CMJ与FSKT之间存在显著相关(r=0.717)。配对t检验显示CMJ和FSKT的测试值和重测值之间没有显著差异。然而,在CMJ中测试和重新测试之间的差异显示了一个小的效应量,而FSKT显示了一个微不足道的效应量。在信度方面,CMJ和FSKT的类内相关系数(ICC)值分别被认为是“良好”(r=0.855)和“优秀”(r=0.963)。与CMJ相比,FSKT的SEM值较低,因此在测试和重测分数之间显示出更好的绝对一致性。用于估计试验间变异的TE在FSKT中比在CMJ中要低。此外,结果表明FSKT中的MDC值低于CMJ,这表明与CMJ相比,FSKT可以更有效地检测较小的性能变化。总之,本研究假设FSKT可以被认为是一种可靠的方法,在自由搏击运动员的表现评估中展示了可重复的结果,等待功能性跆拳道特异性现场测试的发展。
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
Kinesiologia Slovenica
Kinesiologia Slovenica SPORT SCIENCES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信