Reliability and validity of a basketball-specific fatigue protocol simulating match load

10Citations
Citations of this article
77Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Research on the amount and type of fatigue caused by match load depends on protocols based on time-motion analysis of match performance in a given sport. The role of these protocols is to accurately simulate specific player match load, which is, contrary to a match, identical for all participants. Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine the reliability and validity using a basketball-specific fatigue protocol simulating player’s performance during a basketball match. Methods: The study involved a total of 25 male basketball players (age 17.4 ± 1.5 years; body height 185.1 ± 7.4 cm and body mass index 22.1 ± 0.3 kg ⋅ m–2) of U17 and U19 categories. The participants performed a specific basketball fatigue protocol twice during 14 days consisting of four periods separated by breaks as in a basketball match. Each period contained a stage with maximum intensity activities followed by a stage of medium intensity and low intensity. During the protocol, heart rate was recorded and time intervals of maximum, medium and low intensity were measured. Results: The relative reliability measurement pointed to high intra-individual stability of the results, when intraclass correlation coefficient varied from .71 to .92. The typical error of measurement showed that the players should be able to repeat the measurement with less than 1.31 s (0.82%) in total time, 0.17 s (2.73%) in sprint time, and 1.32% (1.19%) for percentage of heart rate. The values 1.68 (38.35%) of Sprint decrement showed very low repeatability. Conclusion: Measurements using a fatigue protocol showed high validity, reliability, and agreement of repeated measures.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hůlka, K., Lehnert, M., & Bělka, J. (2017). Reliability and validity of a basketball-specific fatigue protocol simulating match load. Acta Gymnica, 47(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2017.009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free