球类项目灵敏测试的实践应用:基于信度与效度评价的系统综述

Practical Application of Ball Game Agility Test: A Systematic Review Based on Reliability and Validity Evaluation

Received:July 14, 2022

DOI：10.12064/ssr.2022071401

英文关键词:ball games reactive agility change of direction test

基金项目:国家重点研发计划项目（2020YFC2006701）

Author Name	Affiliation
XU Jiasheng	School of Humanities and Education, Guangdong Ocean University, Yangjiang 529500 , China
ZHANG Yimin	Beijing Sport University, Laboratory of the Ministry of Sports and Physical Health Education, Beijing 100084 , China
JIA Xiao	Beijing Sport University, Laboratory of the Ministry of Sports and Physical Health Education, Beijing 100084 , China
YU Jingjing	Beijing Sport University, Laboratory of the Ministry of Sports and Physical Health Education, Beijing 100084 , China
WANG Liguo	Guangdong Ocean University, Faculty of Sport and Leisure, Zhanjiang 524088 , China

Hits: 1191

Download times: 1211

中文摘要:

目的：对国内外经检验的球类运动灵敏测试方法的设计结构、信度和效度进行系统综述，为球类运动灵敏素质的评价提供更科学的测试方法。方法：通过数据库对相关关键词进行检索并搜集符合标准的文献，运用PE-Dro评分系统对文献进行质量评估。结果：共纳入33篇文献，质量评价平均得分15分，得分范围13~17分。所有搜集文献共包含59种测试方法，37种为改变方向速度测试（CODT），22种为反应灵敏测试（RAT）。结果：CODT设计的移动距离相对更长，改变方向的次数相对更多，两类测试方法的变向角度主要采用45°、90°和180° ；CODT的组内相关系数（ICC）范围为0.5~0.99，RAT的ICC为0.33~0.99，3篇文献发现较低的信度且均为RAT ；效度检验主要通过区分运动员水平、比赛位置以及年龄段来实现。结论：球类项目灵敏素质评价主要应用CODT与RAT两类测试方法。由于设计结构的差异，两类方法在信度和效度上各有优劣。CODT具有相对更高的信度，RAT则具有相对更高的效度。认知与决策能力作为高水平球类运动员的关键指标，建议未来在球类项目灵敏素质测量评价中加入刺激源组件

英文摘要:

To conduct a systematic review on the design structure, reliability and validity of the test methods for ball games both domestically and internationally, in order to provide a more scientific test method for evaluating ball game agility. Method: EBSCO, Web of Science and PubMed databases were used to search the relevant keywords and collect the literature that met the standards. PE-Dro scoring system was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. Results: a total of 33 articles were included. The average score of literature quality evaluation was 15 points, ranging from 13 to 17 points. The included literature contained a total of 59 test methods, of which 37 were the Change of Direction Test (CODT) and 22 were the Reactive Agility Test (RAT). It is found that the CODT design had a relatively longer moving distance and more times to change the direction. The direction change angles of the two types of test methods were mainly 45 °, 90 ° and 180 °; The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of CODT ranged from 0.5 to 0.99, and that of RAT ranged from 0.33 to 0.99. Low reliability was found in the three articles, all of which were RAT; The validity test was mainly realized by distinguishing the level, position and age of athletes. Conclusion: The evaluation of the agility of ball games mainly adopts two kinds of test methods: CODT and RAT. Due to the differences in design structure, the two methods have their own advantages and disadvantages in reliability and validity. CODT has relatively higher reliability, while RAT has relatively higher validity. Cognition and decision-making ability are the key indicators of high-level ball players. It is suggested that the stimulus components should be added to the evaluation of agility quality in ball events in the future.

View Full Text View/Add Comment Download PDF reader