Você está na página 1de 7

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(2), 246-251

'j^' 2006 National Strength & Conditioning Association

THE RELIABILITY OF TEN-METER SPRINT TIME USING DIFFERENT STARTING TECHNIQUES


GRANT M . DUTHIE,^-* DAVID B . PYNE,' ANGUS HOOPER'

A. Ross,' STEUART G. LrviNGSTONE,^ AND SUE L .

'Department of Physiology, Australian Institute of Sport, Bruce, Australia; -Elite Player Development, Australian Rugby Union, North Sydney, Australia; 'School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Austraiia.
Duthie, G.M., D.B. Pyne, A A, Ross, S.G. Livingstone, and S.L. Hooper. The reliability of ten-meter sprint time using different starting techniques. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(2l24G:-251. 2rjr;6".Acceleration is an important factor for success in team-sport athletes. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the reliability of 10-m sprint timt's when using different starting techniques. Junior male rugby players (n = 15) were tested for speed over 10 m on 2 different testing sessions. Three trials of 3 different starting techniques (standing, foot, and thumb starts) were assessed. Despite large dilTerences in the time taken to perform 10-m sprints from diRerent starts, there was minimal difference in the typical error! -^0.02 seconds, or <l'/r) between the 3 different starts. There was a small, 0.02 + 0.02 second, decrease (p = 0.05) in sprint time between sessions for the foot start. For all starting techniques, the magnitude of error (typical error! was greater than the smallest worthwhile change (-'0.01 second), indicating that acceleration over 10 m measured by photocells only has a marginal chance of reliably detecting a change ol' sufficient magnitude to be worthwhile in practical terms. However, by accounting for the smallest worthwhile change and typical error, it is possible to establish the probability an individual has had a worthwhile change in sprint performance. Coaching and sports-science practitioners can use a variety of sprint-start techniques shown to have small typical errors l<V/(l: however, the results from the different starting technique are not interchangeable.
ABSTRACT. KK\ WORDS,

speed, worthwhile change, assessment, practical

significance INTRODUCTION

printing is a fundamental component necessary for success in team-sport competition (1). Players who get to the ball first and demonstrate agility and balance in attack and defense have a distinct advantage over opponents (18). The short duration of sprint efforts during team-sport competition indicates that acceleration rather tban maximal velocity should constitute the majority of sprint training for team-sport athletes (18). Current recommendations suggest that speed testing of team-sport athletes should focus on the assessment of acceleration over 5-40 m (7) or 40 yd (10, 20). Despite previous researcb on tbe reliability of acceleration assessment (16), tbere is currently a lack of information on tbe most reliable method for assessing worthwhile changes in speed and acceleration for elite team-sport athletes. Further, the utility of sprint testing has yet to be examined in terms of the smallest worthwhile or practically important change in sprint performance. Photocells, commonly known as timing lights, are the most popular method of speed assessment for team-sport
246

athletes (16). Timing lights are a relatively inexpensive and simple system for monitoring speed (7). A limitation of timing-light systems is the standardization of the selfregulated start. Momentum incurred by extraneous body movement (particularly a rocking motion) prior to activating the initial timing photocell will reduce the time recorded over the designated distance (7). From a standing start, players will often step backward initially to assist in producing forward propulsion (13). It has been suggested that players need to commence tbe sprint test with the front foot on the start line to eliminate or minimize the degree of momentum developed before the start (7). Unfortunately, athletes adopting a correct starting posture with a forward lean (8) can prematurely start the timing in this position, resulting in inaccurate data. More recent research studies have employed sprint starts tbat are 30-100 cm back from the initial timing gate (16, 21) to overcome this limitation. Regardless of the starting distance from the initial timing light, variations in tbe starting metbod, such as rocking or leaning back prior to sprinting, will affect tbe sprint time recorded. Technical variations in the typical sprint start (e.g., the 3-point start) could possibly limit tbe amount of movement that occurs prior to the commencement of the sprint due to tbe weight being distributed across 3 limbs, limiting the possible range of movement witbout affecting balance. A novel metbod bas been proposed for sprint testing, wbere the initial gate is replaced with a contact switch activated by tbe thumb or foot (2). When the player's hand and foot leaves the ground during the start, the timing for the sprint is activated. Subsequent splits (e.g., 5, 10, or 20 m) can then be collected via the standard timing-light system. The benefits of the thumb (hand) or foot technique is a possible decrease in the conscious or unconscious body swing and extraneous movements tbat occur in the standing-sprint start prior to activation of the electronic timing. A critical factor in the assessment of athletes is the ability to reliably detect changes in physiological and performance tests over time (16, 17, 19). Reduction of the error associated with a given fitness test increases confidence in interpreting the magnitude of the change in performance. Previous reports on sprint testing suggest tbat the error associated with short sprints (10 m) is 2% or -^0.04 seconds (9, 16). Despite a typical error of 2% representing a good test (6), the reliability or error (noise) needs to be quantified in terms of tbe magnitude of a practically important or worthwhile change in performance (signal). The smallest worthwhile change in per-

SPRINT RELIABILITY

247

formance can be established as a small Cohen effect size (ES) calculated as 0.2 times the between-subject standard deviation within a specific population (3). Elite rugby union players demonstrate a 0.67r variation (CV) in sprint time (5). This calculation results in a smallest worthwhile change in performance over 10 m of 0.002 seconds based on a 1.75-second sprint (16) (0.2 X 6% X 1.75 seconds). Subsequently, the usefulness of 10-m sprint testing using timing lights is questionable, given the magnitude of noise 10.04 seconds) compared with the worthwhile change (0.002 seconds) (17). There is currently a need to establish the reliability of short ( 10-m) sprint tests and examine methods of reducing the random error associated with such tests by using different starting techniques. The purpose of this investigation is to examine the reliability and variability of different starting techniques on sprinting speed over the acceleration phase of a maximal sprint {10 m). METHODS Experimental Approach to the Problem To assess the variability in 10-m time from different starting techniques, elite junior rugby union players were tested over 10 m from a variety of starting positions on 3 separate occasions, consisting of 1 familiarization and 2 testing sessions. The within-subject, between-day typical error for each of the starting techniques was established. The magnitude of differences between the starting techniques was calculated. Subjects Fifteen elite junior male rugby players were involved in the investigation. Players were selected from the Australian Capital Territory Rugby Union and had been training consistently in a structured elite junior program for a minimum of 2 months. All testing was performed hetween 1600 and 1700 hours on the same day each week. Players were 17 0.7 years of age, had a body mass of 89.2 16.8 kg, and were 179.9 5.2 cm in stature. All players were familiar with the requirements of sprint testing and had completed specific sprint and acceleration training and testing prior to the study. The training program of the players was standardized over the testing period and they were not in regular competition. Players' parents provided written consent for their sons to partake in the training program and scientific investigation associated with the program. Players and parents were advised that participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time. Speed Assessment Players attended 3 testing sessions, all performed indoors on an artificial grass surface. The first session was designated as a familiarization session, followed by 2 designated testing sessions on different days. Familiarization sessions have been suggested to be unnecessary for speed assessment (16); however, because players had been exposed to 1 sprint-start method (standing start) more than the other method, we included this session in an attempt to limit bias. Each session was separated hy 7 days, with standardized training performed on the days prior to each session. Within each session, players performed 9 maximal-effort 20-m sprints. The players regularly performed maximal sprint efforts during their training and were

well accustomed to the high-intensity nature of each sprint. Three sets of 3 sprints were performed, with a full recovery between sprints. Each set of 3 sprints was performed with a different starting technique (Figure 1). The 3 different starting techniques were (Eigure la) a standing start with timing commenced when tbe first gate was activated (standing start), (Figure lb) a standing start with timing activated when the front foot left a fixed timing mat (foot start), and (Figure Ic) a conventional 3-point start using a thumb switch to commence the timing (thumb start). The order of the 3 sets of sprints was counterhalanced between subjects to eliminate an order effect. Prior to the testing sessions, all players were reminded of tbe particular requirements for each of the 3 starting techniques. Splits were taken at 10 and 20 m using timing lights (Swift Performance Equipment, Goonellabah, Australia). The purpose of testing the sprints over 20 m was to eliminate a finishing dip at 10 m by players attempting to record a faster time. Sprint protocols for team-sport athletes regularly involve a 10-m split (7), and we attempted to replicate the standard testing protocols. A thorough 15minute, standardized warm-up preceded all testing sessions. The warm-up involved light jogging, short accelerations, and dynamic stretching. Statistical Analyses Measures of centrality and spread are shown as mean between-subject SD. Uncertainty in the estimate of differences between starts is expressed as the mean effect, +90% confidence limits. Differences between the starting methods were assessed with independent sample ^-tests with unequal variance. The reliability of 10-m times for each method between the 2 testing sessions was also established as the SD of the difference scores between trials divided by root two (11). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the 2 testing trials were also calculated for each of the different starts. The mean change between the first and second testing session was also established and effects assessed with dependant sample ^-tests (Statistica, STATSOFT, Tulsa, OK). Magnitudes of differences and changes are expressed qualitatively as an effect size using the following criteria: 0.0, trivial; 0.2, small; 0.6, moderate; 1.2, large; and >2.0, very large (15). The smallest worthwhile change in 10-m performance was established from previously reported variance (0.6%) in sprint performance for elite rugby players (5) or 0.01 second for 10 m. The magnitude of change in 10-m sprint performance required before it could be established that an individual player had likely changed performance was calculated using methods previously described (12, 15). Briefly, the probability of observing a worthwhile change in performance was calculated from the smallest worthwhile change, the typical error, and a 75% (likely) probability (15).
RESULTS

The mean SD 10-m times for each of the different start positions are presented in Figure 2. The results show that there were large differences between tbe foot start and the standing start (0.22 0.00 seconds, ES: 1.8) and the foot start and the thumb start (0.38 0.00 seconds, ES: 1.9), with the foot start being faster in both cases. There was also evidence of a large difference between the stand-

248

DuTHiE, PYNE, ROSS ET AL.


2.5 -,

a
(LI

2.0 -

I 1.5

0,0 -I Fool Stand Thumb

Starting technique

FIGURE 2. Mean standard deviation 10-m sprint times for the different starting techniques. * significantly different to foot start (p < 0.01). " i " significantly different to stand start (p < 0.01).

0 02 QJ

E
P

0 01 0,00 -

-0.02 -

-003 -

Thumb

FIGURE 3. The mean (909; confidence limits) change in 10m time between trial 1 and trial 2.

ing start and thumb start, with the standing start being 0.16 0.06 seconds (ES: 1.6) faster. The changes in the 10-m times between testing sessions are shown in Figure 3. There was a small, 0.02 0.02 second, decrease (ES: 0.4) in 10-m time between sessions for the foot start. The mean time for the standing and thumb starts were relatively unchanged between trials with a trivial, 0.01 0.02 second, decrease (ES: 0.1) for the standing start and a trivial, 0.00 0.02 second, decrease for the thumb start (ES; 0.0).

FIGURE 1. The 3 different sprint-starting techniques assessed, (a) Standing start, (b) foot start, and (c) thumb start. Timing in the standing start (a) commences when the initial light gate is broken. Timing in the foot (b) and thumb (c) starts commences when pressure on the timing switcb is released. For all starts, the initial timing gate/switch is placed at 0 m.

SPRINT RELIABILITY
0 045 -, 0.040 0 035 -

249

0015 0010 0.005 -

4. The typical error (90% confidence limits) of 10-m times using different starting techniques.
FIGURE

2 0 -I

1,6 -

0.8 -

0.4 -I Foot Stand Thumb

FIGURE

5. The percent typical error (90% confidence limits) of 10-m times using different starting techniques. The typical error of each of the starting techniques between tests is provided in Figure 4 and the relative typical error in Figure 5. Intraclass correlations coefficients were 0.86, 0.92, and 0.92 for the foot start, standing start, and thumb start, respectively. The poor reliability in relation to the smallest worthwhile change suggests that the current methods of assessment are poor in identifying changes of substantial practical importance. In all cases, the magnitude of the typical error was substantially greater than the smallest worthwhile change. To observe a likely change in 10-m sprint time for an individual, a player would be required to change performance by 0.02 second for all ofthe starts assessed in this investigation.
DISCUSSION

We have demonstrated that the reliability of the 10-m sprint time when using dual-beam light gates is approximately 0.02 seconds (-1%). There were substantial differences in 10-m time when using different starting methods; however, there was no substantial difference in re-

liability. It is apparent from the results of this study that different sprint starts cannot be used interchangeably, and a consistent starting technique is required when comparing different teams and assessing change in an individual. The typical error observed for 10-m sprint time is greater than the smallest worthwhile change in 10-m time. Strict guidelines for testing should be followed and the likelihood of observing a small, but substantial, change calculated by accounting for the typical error and smallest worthwhile cbange. Our values for the percentage typical error were lower than the 1.9-2.6% previously reported for male physicaleducation students (16), possibly due to the current subjects' familiarization with the different starts in the testing protocol. Moreover, the previous investigation used a standing start 0.5 m behind the initial timing gate (16) and single-beam photocells (Moir, personal communication, 2004) that can he triggered by an arm or leg rather than the torso (7). Preferably, the configuration of lightgate systems for elite-athlete testing should be dual beam and require the simultaneous breaking of 2 beams to register a valid time. Quantification of reliability (typical error) is useful for practitioners working with trained athletes from a variety of team sports, and also for researchers interested in characterizing the nature of acceleration qualities in athletes and the effectiveness of training interventions aimed at improving acceleration. Despite having the lowest typical error, there was a substantial decrease in 10-m time between tests conducted 7 days apart when using the foot start. This decrease was not evident in the other starting methods and may have been a result of the players having less prior exposure to this starting method. With more familiarization, this method may have produced more consistent sprint times. In contrast, players had performed the standing start (0.02 second typical error) regularly in previous testing, possibly negating the requirement for further familiarization (16). The thumb start had the poorest reliability (0.03 second typical error) of the different starts assessed. It must be recognized that the reliability of 10-m time observed in this study was for sprints conducted indoors and following a standardized warm-up. Sprint testing should be performed following a standardized warmup and on an even and consistent surface in standardized environmental conditions. Such standardization is not always possible and needs to be accounted for in any analysis. For example, results can be adjusted for wind speed using formulas adapted from track and field (14) when testing is performed outdoors. It appears that the major source of variation when using photocells to assess sprint performance is the momentum gathered prior to activating the initial timing gate. In the 3 different starts under examination in this study, the center of mass was moving prior to the timing commencing, which results in the subject having some momentum, that is, a flying start. The 3-point starts (thumb and foot start) were an attempt to decrease the variation in the amount of momentum developed before timing was commenced. However, given tbe similar magnitude of reliability between the different starts, it is still unclear whether implementing a 3-point sprint start for testing purposes is advisable, especially in populations where familiarization would be required. Further, for rugby and other football players, the 3-point start tech-

250

DUTHIK, P\-NE, R o s s KT AL.

nique may disadvantage players of large stature or body mass. When assessing an individual's measured performance change, the observed change in performance (signal) needs to account for the typical error (noise) associated with the test (11). The typical error is the SD of the change scores from test to test in an individual athlete's repeated measurements (11). A better typical error for a test implies less random noise and therefore a greater ability or likelihood of detecting a change in the performance, or signal. Eurther, knowledge of the magnitude of the smallest worthwhile change in performance is useful in identifying the practical significance of feedback provided to the player and coach. Expressed as a SD, an effect size of 0.2 has been suggested to represent the threshold for a small, hut substantial, change in performance (11). Eor 10-m sprint performance, an effect size of 0.2 based on the between-subject variation of 0.04 second gives a smallest worthwhile change of 0.008 (0.2 X 0.04) or <0.01 second. None of the sprint-start methods implemented in this investigation are likely to accurately identify small 0.01-second changes in 10-m sprint performance for rugby union players based on a ~0.02-second typical error. Previously, improvements in 10-m time of 0.06 seconds following repeat sprint training have been found to be statistically nonsignificant (4). Practically, this suggests that a single assessment of 10-m sprint time only has a marginal chance of reliably detecting a change of sufficient magnitude to be worthwhile in elite rugby players. Serial sprint testing over an extended period should indicate the direction and magnitude of trends in acceleration and speed. The marginal ability of the 10-m sprint to detect worthwhile changes in performance of elite rughy union players is magnified by the relatively homogenous (0.01 second SD) data for 10-m sprint times of elite rugby union players. If the sprint data demonstrated greater heterogeneity (e.g., 0.10 second SD), then the smallest worthwhile difference/change would increase to 0.02 second. In this case, the reliability of the 10-m time would be sufficient to detect a small but substantial change. Moreover, using the same principles, moderate and large differences (effects sizes) between groups of players could be monitored more confidently. Greater variation between subjects may occur when screening larger populations of players for talent-identification purposes. Examination of the reliability of elite senior players is also of interest, as greater training history may lead to reduced random error during testing. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS In conclusion, there were no substantial differences in the reliability for each starting method despite large differences between starting techniques. The results for the different starting techniques are not directly interchangeable and, therefore, it is important that one method be used consistently. Maintaining strict adherence to standardized testing protocols will assist in decreasing the random error that occurs between tests. The foot switch elicited a substantial change between trials, suggesting a learning effect that improved performance. Eamiliarization is therefore required when testing athletes under modified conditions if they are not regularly exposed to a particular technique in training or testing. The probability of observing a worthwhile change can he calculated

for the 10-m sprint and, therefore, this test provides reliable information on individual athlete development. Moreover, repeated measures on individuals and/or groups of players will assist in tracking long-term improvement in performance resulting from specific speedorientated training. REFERENCES
1. BAKKR, D., A.ND S. NANCE. The relation l)etweon running speed

2-

3.
4.

and mea.sures of strength and power in professional rugby league player.s. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:230-235. 1999. BROOKS, B.T. Relative effects of running surface, equipment, and competitive test conditions upon sprinting speed of football players. Ma.ster's thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1976. COHKN, J. The earth is round (p < .05). Arn. Psvchol 49:9971003. 1994.
DAW.SON, B.. M . FiTzsiMONS, S. GKICEN, C. GOODMAN, M . CA-

REY, AND K. COLE. Changes in performance, muscle metabolites, enzymes and fihre types after sbort sprint training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 78:163-169. 1998.
5. DuTHiE, G.M., D.B. PYNE, AND S. HOOPKR. The apphed physi-

ology and game analysis of rugby union, Sport.s Mod. 33:973991. 2003.
6. DuTHiE, G.M., D.B. PYNP:, AND S. HOOPER. The reliability of

video based time motion analysis. J. Hum. Move. Studies. 44: 259-272. 2003.
7. ELLIS, L., P. GASTIN, S. LAWRENCE, B . SAVAGE, A. BUCKERIDCE, A. STAPFF, D . TllMILTY, A. QUINN, S. WOOLFOKO, AND W.

YOUNG. Protocols for the physiological assessment of team sport players. In: Physiological Test for Elite Alhlctes. C. Gore, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp. 128-143. 8. FACCIONI, A. Speed development for team sport athletes. Strength Cond. Coach. 1:8-19. 1993.
9. FiTZSiMONS, M., B. DAWHON, D . WARD, AND A. WILKINSON. Cy-

chng and running tests of repeated sprint ability. Austral. J. Sports Med. 25:82-87. 1993.
10. GARSTEOKI, M.A., R.W. LATIN, ANO M.M. CUPITTT. Comparison

11. 12.

of selected physical fitness and performance variables between NCAA division I and II football players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:292-297. 2004. HOPKINS, W.G. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Mod. 30:1-15. 2000. HOPKINS, W.G. Precision of the estimate of a subject's true value (Excel spreadsheet). Available at www.sportsci.org/resource/ .stats/index.html. Accessed April 15, 2002.
KRAAN, G.A.. J. V A N VEEN, C.J. SNIJDERS, AND J. STOR.M. Start-

13.

14. 15.

ing from standing; why step backward.s? J. Biomech. 34:211215. 2001. LiNTHORNE, N. Wind assistance in the 100 m sprint. Modern Athlete Coach. 32:6-9. 1994. Liow, D.K., AND W.G. HOPKINS. Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak sprint performance. Med. Svi. Sports Ext'rr. 35:1232-1237. 2003MoiR, G., C. BUTTON, M. GLAISTER, AND M . H . STONR. Influence

16.

17. 18.
19.

of iamiliarization on the reliability of vertical jump and acceleration sprinting performance in physically active men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:276-280. 2004. PYNE, D.B. Interpreting tbe results of fitness testing. In: Victorian Institute of Sport: International Science and Football Symposium. Melbourne, Victoria, 2003. pp. 1-5. SAYERS, M. Running techniques for field sport players. Sports Coach. 23:26-27. 2000.
ScHAHORT, E.J.. J.A. HAWI.EY. W.G. HOPKINS, AND H . BLUM.

High reliability of performance of well-trained rowers on a rowing ergometer. J. Sport.s Sci. 17:627-632. 1999.
20. Si-xxjRA, C.A., R.W. LATIN, K . E . BERG, AND J . M . NOBLE. Com-

RFI.IABILITY

251

21.

parison of physical and performance characteristics of NCAA division I football players: 1987 and 2000. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:286-291. 2004. WisLOEF, U., C. CASTAGNA, J. HKLGERUD, R. JONES, AND J. HoFF. Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with

sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 38:285-288. 2004. Address correspondence to G r a n t Duthie, g r a n t . d u t h i e ausport.gov.au.

Você também pode gostar