首页> 外文OA文献 >Physiologic Performance Test Differences by Competition Level and Player Position in Female Volleyball Athletes
【2h】

Physiologic Performance Test Differences by Competition Level and Player Position in Female Volleyball Athletes

机译:女子排球运动员按比赛水平和运动员位置进行的生理性能测试差异

摘要

Introduction: The game of volleyball, which requires power, strength, speed, agility, and anaerobic fitness, is played around the world. A performance divide is evident between high school and collegiate volleyball athletes, and the physiologic differences have not been extensively studied. Because sport specific test performance data are not available, performance deficits in high school athletes are not well understood. Players striving to improve volleyball performance need clear expectations of skill and performance measures to succeed at higher levels of competition. There are extremely limited data available for female volleyball players that specifically describe how physiological performance test data may vary by position. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine physiologic performance differences between high school athletes and Division I collegiate athletes and by player position in four specific tests that are related to volleyball performance. Participants: Female participants from four Varsity high school volleyball teams and two Division I collegiate volleyball teams were recruited for the study. Participants were recruited through the head coach at each of the chosen six schools. Methods: Participants completed four performance-based field tests after completing a standardized dynamic warm-up. The Vertical Jump test, which assesses lower body power, was measured with a Vertec system. The Agility T-Test, which assesses agility, was measured using four cones in a T-shaped pattern and a laser timing device. A 150-Yard as well as a 300-Yard Shuttle run, measures of anaerobic capacity, were assessed using two cones and a laser timing device. All tests were completed as recommended by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), from the least fatiguing to most fatiguing test. Each of the performance-based test results was analyzed for each skill grouping (High school and college) and for 3 groupings of positions (setters, hitters, and back row defense). Data Analysis: Multiple one-way ANOVAs were conducted with a Bonferroni adjustment for potential inflation of type I error due to multiple comparisons among variables. The statistical analysis was completed using SPSS version 18.0 to examine differences in test performance scores calculated for test by team, position, as well as for the skill grouping (high school varsity and collegiate Division I). Results: The most important findings of this study were that: (a) college volleyball athletes were older (19.65 ± 1.64 yrs, pu3c 0.01), heavier (69.96 ± 7.72 kg, pu3c 0.01), and taller (176.88 ± 6.03 cm, pu3c 0.01), than their high school counterparts. (b) compared to collegiate athletes, high school athletes had performance deficiencies in the Vertical Jump (HS: 47.58 ± 8.22 cm, DI: 52.95 ± 6.59 cm, pu3c 0.05), Lower Body Power (HS: 3592.3 ± 522.82 W, DI: 4160.67 ± 598.34 W, pu3c 0.05), and the 150-Yard Shuttle Run (HS: 29.73 ± 6.20 sec, DI: 28.67 ± 5.98 sec, pu3c0.05); (c) there were no differences found between Agility T-Test and 300-Yard Shuttle Run shuttle when collegiate athletes were compared to their high school counterparts; (d) Lower Body Power was the only statistically significant difference in the performance test measures by player position (Hitter: 1070.36 ± 139.47 W, Setter: 1131.36 ± 163.94 W, and Back Row Defense: 881.83 ± 120.54 W, pu3c 0.0005) and (e) the 150-Yard Shuttle Run did not demonstrate convergent validity with the 300-Yard Shuttle Run in volleyball players (r= 0.488). Conclusion: While there are several significant performance differences by level of play (e.g., High School versus Collegiate players), there was only one significant difference in physical performance by position (e.g., Hitter, Setter, Back Row Defense,): Lower Body Power. This indicates that high school and collegiate volleyball athletes have different performance levels, especially in lower body power and anaerobic capacity, and that high school athletes who aspire to play collegiate Division I volleyball should consider improving their strength and conditioning programs to achieve better scores in volleyball-specific performance measures. Additionally, Back Row Defensive players have less Lower Body Power than Hitters or Setters. More research needs to be performed in order to fully understand the relationship of the 150 and 300-Yard Shuttle run in relationship to each other, and the ability of the 300-Yard Shuttle run to predict anaerobic capacity in female volleyball athletes. These specific comparative values create a baseline performance measure that now may better equip strength and conditioning coaches to create programs that would address deficits in player performance.
机译:简介:排球比赛在世界范围内进行,而排球比赛需要力量,力量,速度,敏捷性和无氧健身能力。高中和大学排球运动员之间存在明显的成绩差异,并且生理差异尚未得到广泛研究。由于没有针对运动的测试成绩数据,因此对高中运动员的成绩缺陷还没有很好的了解。努力提高排球成绩的运动员需要对技能和成绩指标有明确的期望,才能在更高水平的比赛中取得成功。女排球运动员的可用数据非常有限,这些数据专门描述了生理性能测试数据如何随位置变化。目的:本研究的目的是在与排球表现有关的四个特定测试中,检查高中运动员与我分区大学的运动员之间的生理表现差异,并根据运动员的位置进行检查。参与者:分别招募了来自四个大学高中排球队和两个我分区大学排球队的女性参与者进行这项研究。通过选定的六所学校中的每所学校的总教练招募了参与者。方法:参加者在完成标准化的动态热身后完成了四项基于性能的现场测试。垂直跳动测试用于评估较低的身体力量,是通过Vertec系统进行测量的。使用四个圆锥形的T形图案和激光计时装置测量评估敏捷性的“敏捷性T测试”。使用两个锥体和一个激光计时装置评估了150码和300码航天飞机运行时的无氧能力测量。从疲劳程度最低到疲劳程度最高的测试,所有测试均按照美国国家强度和适应协会(NSCA)的建议完成。针对每个技能组(高中和大学)和职位的3个组(接球手,击球手和后排防守)分析每个基于性能的测试结果。数据分析:对多个变量进行多次比较,使用Bonferroni调整对I型错误的潜在膨胀进行了多次单向方差分析。使用SPSS 18.0版完成统计分析,以检查按团队,职位和技能分组(高中和大学I级)计算的测试成绩得分的差异。结果:这项研究最重要的发现是:(a)高校排球运动员年龄较大(19.65±1.64岁,p u3c 0.01),较重(69.96±7.72 kg,p u3c 0.01),且较高(176.88± 6.03厘米,p u3c 0.01),比高中同学高。 (b)与大学运动员相比,高中运动员的垂直跳高(HS:47.58±8.22 cm,DI:52.95±6.59 cm,p u3c 0.05),下身功率(HS:3592.3±522.82 W, DI:4160.67±598.34 W,p u3c 0.05)和150码航天飞机运行时间(HS:29.73±6.20 sec,DI:28.67±5.98 sec,p u3c0.05); (c)当将大学运动员与高中生的运动员进行比较时,敏捷性T检验和300码航天飞机运行航天飞机之间没有发现差异; (d)下肢力量是按球员位置进行的性能测试指标中唯一具有统计意义的差异(击球手:1070.36±139.47 W,二传手:1131.36±163.94 W,后排防守:881.83±120.54 W,p u3c 0.0005) (e)排球运动员的150码穿梭跑与300码的穿梭跑没有收敛性(r = 0.488)。结论:尽管按比赛水平(例如,高中生与大学球员)有几个显着的表现差异,但按位置(例如,击球手,二传手,后排防守),身体表现上只有一个显着差异:下半身力量。这表明高中和大学排球运动员的表现水平不同,尤其是在下半身力量和无氧运动能力方面,有志参加大学第一类排球的高中运动员应考虑提高力量和适应性计划,以取得更好的排球成绩特定的绩效指标。此外,后排防守球员的身体力量要比击剑手或二传手少。为了充分理解150和300码穿梭跑的相互关系,以及300码穿梭跑预测女排球运动员无氧能力的能力,还需要进行更多的研究。这些特定的比较值创建了基准绩效衡量标准,现在可以更好地为力量和教练提供条件,以制定解决球员绩效缺陷的计划。

著录项

  • 作者

    Schaal Monique Lynae;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2011
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号