The combined strength of standardized lab sprint testing and wheelchair mobility field testing in wheelchair tennis players.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1097/PHM.0000000000002717
Rowie J F Janssen, Marit P van Dijk, Thomas Rietveld, Sonja de Groot, Lucas H V van der Woude, Han Houdijk, Riemer J K Vegter
{"title":"The combined strength of standardized lab sprint testing and wheelchair mobility field testing in wheelchair tennis players.","authors":"Rowie J F Janssen, Marit P van Dijk, Thomas Rietveld, Sonja de Groot, Lucas H V van der Woude, Han Houdijk, Riemer J K Vegter","doi":"10.1097/PHM.0000000000002717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This cross-sectional study examined associations between wheelchair sprint and anaerobic power (measured in the lab) and wheelchair mobility performance (measured in the field) among two groups of wheelchair tennis players. Additionally, construct validity was assessed for both lab and field tests.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Nine amateur and nine elite wheelchair tennis players performed a Sprint and Wingate test on a wheelchair ergometer in the lab and a Sprint, Illinois and Spider test in the field, with inertial measurement units on their wheelchairs. Associations were assessed using regression analyses, and construct validity was assessed with an independent t-test (elite vs. amateur).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The strongest associations were observed between lab outcomes and field sprint power (R2 > 90%), followed by peak linear velocity and test duration (R2 = 77-85%), while peak rotational velocity showed the lowest associations with lab outcomes (R2 = 69-80%). The elite group outperformed the amateur group on all test outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite differences in lab- and field-testing methodologies (e.g., trunk influence, linear/rotational components), the strong associations indicate overlap in measured constructs. Field testing offers valuable insight into practical performance, whereas lab testing enables in-depth biomechanical and physiological analyses. All tests effectively discriminate between elite and amateur wheelchair tennis players.</p>","PeriodicalId":7850,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000002717","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This cross-sectional study examined associations between wheelchair sprint and anaerobic power (measured in the lab) and wheelchair mobility performance (measured in the field) among two groups of wheelchair tennis players. Additionally, construct validity was assessed for both lab and field tests.

Design: Nine amateur and nine elite wheelchair tennis players performed a Sprint and Wingate test on a wheelchair ergometer in the lab and a Sprint, Illinois and Spider test in the field, with inertial measurement units on their wheelchairs. Associations were assessed using regression analyses, and construct validity was assessed with an independent t-test (elite vs. amateur).

Results: The strongest associations were observed between lab outcomes and field sprint power (R2 > 90%), followed by peak linear velocity and test duration (R2 = 77-85%), while peak rotational velocity showed the lowest associations with lab outcomes (R2 = 69-80%). The elite group outperformed the amateur group on all test outcomes.

Conclusion: Despite differences in lab- and field-testing methodologies (e.g., trunk influence, linear/rotational components), the strong associations indicate overlap in measured constructs. Field testing offers valuable insight into practical performance, whereas lab testing enables in-depth biomechanical and physiological analyses. All tests effectively discriminate between elite and amateur wheelchair tennis players.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
423
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).
期刊最新文献
A Rare Ganglionic Cyst of Medial Collateral Ligament of Knee: A Visual Vignette. The Effect of Wearable Robot-Assisted Gait Training on Balance and Walking Ability in Subacute Stroke Patients. Unilateral Abdominal Wall Atrophy Due to Intercostal Nerve Injury Following Rib Fractures: A Rare Clinical Presentation. 2024 AJPM&R Reviewers. Choosing Wisely in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Developing Canadian Recommendations for Resource Stewardship.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1