Evaluation of Fitness Capacity of Players in Team Sports

Transcription

1 PhD course 5-9 November 2012 PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAM SPORTS WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON SOCCER Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences Universitetsparken 13 DK-2100 Copenhagen N Evaluation of Fitness Capacity of Players in Team Sports Carlo Castagna Laboratorio di Metodologia e Biomeccanica Applicata al Calcio Settore Tecnico FIGC. Coverciano (FI) Laboratorio.cov@figc.it Why Testing? Talent Selection-Development Training: Prescription/Assessment Performance Prediction Team Sports: Testing what? Football Theoretical Framework Aerobic Performance Repeated Sprint Ability Agility-COD Strength Training Load Impellizzeri & Marcora

2 What Test? Selection Test Criteria? Logical Validity Criterion Validity Construct Validity Ecological Validity Direct Validity Reliability Validity The extent to which a test accurately measures what is supposed to. Logical Validity it appears obvious that the test is measuring what is supposed to. The test mimics the exercise mode considered Stated by authorities. Criterion-Based Validity The result of one test is compared with that of an accepted standard Construct Validity Ability to detect difference between population known to a given construct Construct: The concept that is being measured Examples: Competitive Level, Gender, Maturity 2

3 Ecological Validity How closely the condition reflects the real sporting or exercise environment Specificity? Direct Validity Ability of a test to estimate (Predict) match performance (Construct) Specificity? Direct Validity Scale of Magnitude (r) Trivial Small Moderate Large Very Large >0.9 Nearly Perfect 1 Perfect Cohen, J. (1988). Responsiveness External Ability of a test to detect changes in the reference measure Internal Variations in the same method Absolute Relative Reliability Degree to which RMs vary for individuals Degree to which individuals maintain their position in RMs Tools TEM [Changes over time] ICC [Discriminate among individual] Impelliizzeri & Marcora

4 TEM ICC Reliability Influenced by error variation Influenced by Inter-subject variability and measurement error Specific Endurance Impelliizzeri & Marcora 2009 Match Demands Assistant Referees Match Demands Assistant Referees Total Distance 7.28km ( ) High Intensity 1.15km ( ) Sideways 1.16km ( ) %HRmax 73% (60-88%) VO 2 max 65% (53-80%) Krustrup et al 2002; Mallo et al ; Barbero-Álvarez et al 2012 Match Demands Assistant Referees Field Testing Specific Endurance Testing in Elite Assistant Referees ARIET Assistant Referees Intermittent Endurance Test Helsen & Bultynck

5 Endurance Assessment Field Tests : Yo-Yo IET2 (ARIET) ARIET (Assistant Referee Intermittent Endurance Test) 20m+20m Shuttle running 12.5m+12.5m Sideway Shuttle running 12.5 m m 20 m Shuttle Sideways Running [12.5m] Shuttle Running [20m] Progressive Exhaustive Field Test Intermittent HI Relative Reliability 4 trials (n=41) T1-T2 ICC=0.98 ( ) T2-T3 ICC=0.99 ( ) T3-T4 ICC=0.96 ( ) Field Testing Information of Interest: Smallest Worthwhile Change SWC= SD X 0.20 Typical Error of Measurement TEM=SD diff / 2 Pyne

6 Field Testing Signal Noise Pyne 2003 Test Rate Criterion SWC TEM } 0 } } Marginal SWC<TEM Ok SWC=TEM Good SWC>TEM Signal-to-noise Ratio SWC=58m TEM=56m SWC/TEM=1.03 (good) Serie A 1431±193m (n=27) Serie B 1460±152m (n=41) Lega-Pro 1168±231m (n=89) Dichotomization Competitive Level Elite vs Sub-Elite Serie A-B vs Lega-Pro ROC curve ROC curve Receiver Operating Characteristic is a graphical plot which illustrates the performance of a binary classifier system as its discrimination threshold is varied. 6

7 ROC curve Receiver Operating Characteristic It is created by plotting the fraction of true positives out of the positives (TPR = true positive rate) vs. the fraction of false positives out of the negatives (FPR = false positive rate), at various threshold settings. ROC curve Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (AUC)=probability of correctly discriminating between Construct Variables (Elite vs Sub-Elite). ROC curve AUC=0.82 ( ) p<0.001 Cut-off=1300m Convergent Validity ARIET vs Yo-Yo IR1 (n=18) r=0.95 ( ), nearly perfect; p<0.001 ARIET vs VO 2 max r=0.78 ( ), very large; p<0.001 Convergent Validity ARIET 4 vs ARIET max (n=36) r=-0.81 (-0.90 to -0.66, Very large; p<0.001 ARIET what more?? Validity Ecological/Direct Validity Longitudinal Validity (Responsivenes) 7

8 Normatives Median Split Technique Limits for Eligibility Category Inclusion values Cut-off Values Tools Median Split Technique ROC curves Median Split Technique Looking for Differences In the mean Individual Tools Effect Size Spaghetti Graph Bland & Altman Plot Bland & Altman Plot Castagna et al

9 ES= Effect-Size: Pre -Post σ Comparison between studies Practical Importance Trivial < 0.20 Small Moderate Large >1.20 Cohen 1988 Hopkins 2002 baseline level Practical Significance? Mohr 2008 Team Sports: Testing what? Aerobic Performance Repeated Sprint Ability Agility-COD Strength Training Load Change of Direction Match Analysis: CODs Profile of COD angles in Football Referees and Players Players 69% Referees 68% 17% 16% 6% 7% 5% 4% 3% 4% RSA validity RSA 9

10 Repeated Sprint Ability Mode: Repeated Sprint Football Theoretical Framework Related to Match Activity Tracks Match Physiology Construct Validity Impellizzeri & Marcora