测试特异性是评估跑步者有氧体能和成绩的问题所在吗?系统综述。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Saddek Benhammou, Laurent Mourot, Filipe M Clemente, Jeremy Coquart, Adel Belkadi
{"title":"测试特异性是评估跑步者有氧体能和成绩的问题所在吗?系统综述。","authors":"Saddek Benhammou, Laurent Mourot, Filipe M Clemente, Jeremy Coquart, Adel Belkadi","doi":"10.23736/S0022-4707.23.15619-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Various tests have been developed to evaluate aerobic fitness and performance of runners. However, a systematic understanding of which methods are more accurate is necessary to provide coaches and the sports sciences community with useful and confident outcomes. This study aims to summarize the evidence regarding the validity, reliability and sensitivity of tests for measuring aerobic fitness and performance in runners of several background of training.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic search was conducted of Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus up to 31<sup>st</sup> December 2022 according to PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies that reported findings about tests covering maximal aerobic speed, final velocity achieved during the test, average running speed or other method of evaluating the reference speed during the test were included. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included articles using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). The tests were categorized into continuous incremental tests, intermittent tests and time-trial test.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 23 studies met eligibility criteria. These studies contained three background of training: track and road runners (N.=15), trail runners (N.=7) and inexperienced runners (N.=1). Criterion validity was assessed in 73% of the studies, while only 41% of studies examined convergent validity. The majority of the reviewed studies (87%) ignored test-retest reliability. Test sensitivity was not reported in any study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At least one aerobic fitness and performance test was identified for each types of background of training. However, some methodological aspects were not provided in the included articles. Most studies examined at least one aspect of validity (i.e., criterion or convergent-related validity), whilst few studies investigated test-retest reliability. Researchers and practitioners can use the information provided in this systematic review to select appropriate tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":17013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is test specificity the issue in assessing aerobic fitness and performance of runners? A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Saddek Benhammou, Laurent Mourot, Filipe M Clemente, Jeremy Coquart, Adel Belkadi\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0022-4707.23.15619-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Various tests have been developed to evaluate aerobic fitness and performance of runners. However, a systematic understanding of which methods are more accurate is necessary to provide coaches and the sports sciences community with useful and confident outcomes. This study aims to summarize the evidence regarding the validity, reliability and sensitivity of tests for measuring aerobic fitness and performance in runners of several background of training.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic search was conducted of Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus up to 31<sup>st</sup> December 2022 according to PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies that reported findings about tests covering maximal aerobic speed, final velocity achieved during the test, average running speed or other method of evaluating the reference speed during the test were included. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included articles using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). The tests were categorized into continuous incremental tests, intermittent tests and time-trial test.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 23 studies met eligibility criteria. These studies contained three background of training: track and road runners (N.=15), trail runners (N.=7) and inexperienced runners (N.=1). Criterion validity was assessed in 73% of the studies, while only 41% of studies examined convergent validity. The majority of the reviewed studies (87%) ignored test-retest reliability. Test sensitivity was not reported in any study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At least one aerobic fitness and performance test was identified for each types of background of training. However, some methodological aspects were not provided in the included articles. Most studies examined at least one aspect of validity (i.e., criterion or convergent-related validity), whilst few studies investigated test-retest reliability. Researchers and practitioners can use the information provided in this systematic review to select appropriate tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.23.15619-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.23.15619-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介目前已开发出多种测试方法来评估跑步者的有氧体能和成绩。然而,有必要系统地了解哪些方法更准确,以便为教练和体育科学界提供有用和可靠的结果。本研究旨在总结有关测试的有效性、可靠性和敏感性的证据,以衡量不同训练背景的跑步者的有氧体能和成绩:根据 PRISMA 声明指南,对截至 2022 年 12 月 31 日的 Web of Science、PubMed 和 Scopus 进行了系统检索。纳入的研究报告涉及最大有氧速度、测试期间达到的最终速度、平均跑步速度或测试期间评估参考速度的其他方法。我们使用非随机研究偏倚风险评估工具(RoBANS)对纳入文章的偏倚风险进行了评估。测试分为连续增量测试、间歇测试和计时测试:共有 23 项研究符合资格标准。这些研究包含三种训练背景:田径和公路跑步者(15 人)、越野跑者(7 人)和缺乏经验的跑步者(1 人)。73%的研究对标准有效性进行了评估,只有41%的研究对收敛有效性进行了检查。大部分受检研究(87%)都忽略了测试重复可靠性。没有一项研究报告了测试灵敏度:每种训练背景下至少有一种有氧体能和表现测试。结论:每种类型的训练背景都至少有一种有氧体能和成绩测试。然而,纳入的文章没有提供某些方法方面的信息。大多数研究至少考察了一个方面的有效性(即标准有效性或收敛相关有效性),而很少有研究考察了测试-再测试的可靠性。研究人员和从业人员可以利用本系统综述提供的信息来选择合适的测验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is test specificity the issue in assessing aerobic fitness and performance of runners? A systematic review.

Introduction: Various tests have been developed to evaluate aerobic fitness and performance of runners. However, a systematic understanding of which methods are more accurate is necessary to provide coaches and the sports sciences community with useful and confident outcomes. This study aims to summarize the evidence regarding the validity, reliability and sensitivity of tests for measuring aerobic fitness and performance in runners of several background of training.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic search was conducted of Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus up to 31st December 2022 according to PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies that reported findings about tests covering maximal aerobic speed, final velocity achieved during the test, average running speed or other method of evaluating the reference speed during the test were included. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included articles using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). The tests were categorized into continuous incremental tests, intermittent tests and time-trial test.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 23 studies met eligibility criteria. These studies contained three background of training: track and road runners (N.=15), trail runners (N.=7) and inexperienced runners (N.=1). Criterion validity was assessed in 73% of the studies, while only 41% of studies examined convergent validity. The majority of the reviewed studies (87%) ignored test-retest reliability. Test sensitivity was not reported in any study.

Conclusions: At least one aerobic fitness and performance test was identified for each types of background of training. However, some methodological aspects were not provided in the included articles. Most studies examined at least one aspect of validity (i.e., criterion or convergent-related validity), whilst few studies investigated test-retest reliability. Researchers and practitioners can use the information provided in this systematic review to select appropriate tests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
393
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness publishes scientific papers relating to the area of the applied physiology, preventive medicine, sports medicine and traumatology, sports psychology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines.
×
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