The effect of a pacer versus no-pacer on submaximal fitness test results among Special Olympics athletes

V. Temple, Kendal F. Alston, Jaymie J. Elder, L. Stuart-Hill
{"title":"The effect of a pacer versus no-pacer on submaximal fitness test results among Special Olympics athletes","authors":"V. Temple, Kendal F. Alston, Jaymie J. Elder, L. Stuart-Hill","doi":"10.5507/EUJ.2019.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using a pacer when administering fitness tests reduces the practicality of testing. Additionally, presuming that a pacer is needed for all Special Olympics athletes is potentially discriminatory. We examined the need for a pacer to enhance performance and the test retest-reliability of the six-minute walk test administered with a pacer (Criterion-m6MWT) and without a pacer (No-pacer 6MWT).  Participants were n=18 Special Olympics athletes (men = 12, Mean age=37 years (SD=10.1) with low support needs. After familiarization, participants completed the Criterion-m6MWT and the No-pacer 6MWT. The order of the tests was randomized. A week later, participants completed these tests again. There were no significant differences between any of the walk distances and both the Criterion-m6MWT and the No-pacer 6MWT had high test-retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients =.90 and .93, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficients between the first administration of the Criterion-m6MWT and both of the No-Pacer tests were not as strong (i.e. r=.65 and r=.65) as the relationships between the second administration of the Criterion-m6MWT and both No-Pacer tests (r=.81 and r=.87). These results suggest that adult Special Olympics athletes with relatively low support needs can perform the 6MWT without a pacer if the familiarization process is expanded to include a complete 6MWT.","PeriodicalId":37918,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5507/EUJ.2019.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Using a pacer when administering fitness tests reduces the practicality of testing. Additionally, presuming that a pacer is needed for all Special Olympics athletes is potentially discriminatory. We examined the need for a pacer to enhance performance and the test retest-reliability of the six-minute walk test administered with a pacer (Criterion-m6MWT) and without a pacer (No-pacer 6MWT).  Participants were n=18 Special Olympics athletes (men = 12, Mean age=37 years (SD=10.1) with low support needs. After familiarization, participants completed the Criterion-m6MWT and the No-pacer 6MWT. The order of the tests was randomized. A week later, participants completed these tests again. There were no significant differences between any of the walk distances and both the Criterion-m6MWT and the No-pacer 6MWT had high test-retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients =.90 and .93, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficients between the first administration of the Criterion-m6MWT and both of the No-Pacer tests were not as strong (i.e. r=.65 and r=.65) as the relationships between the second administration of the Criterion-m6MWT and both No-Pacer tests (r=.81 and r=.87). These results suggest that adult Special Olympics athletes with relatively low support needs can perform the 6MWT without a pacer if the familiarization process is expanded to include a complete 6MWT.
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
特殊奥林匹克运动员使用起搏器与不使用起搏器对亚极限体能测试结果的影响
在进行体能测试时使用起搏器会降低测试的实用性。此外,假设所有特奥会运动员都需要一个起搏器,这可能是歧视性的。我们检查了是否需要起搏器来提高性能,以及使用起搏器(标准-m6MWT)和不使用起搏器(无起搏器6MWT)进行的6分钟步行测试的测试-重新测试可靠性。参与者为18名支持需求较低的特奥会运动员(男性=12,平均年龄=37岁(SD=10.1)。熟悉后,参与者完成了标准m6MWT和无起搏器6MWT。测试的顺序是随机的。一周后,参与者再次完成了这些测试。任何步行距离之间都没有显著差异,标准m6MWT和无起搏器6MWT都具有较高的重测可靠性,组内相关系数分别为0.90和.93。第一次服用标准m6MWT和两次无起搏器测试之间的类间相关系数(即r=.65和r=.65)不如第二次服用标准m6MWT和这两次无起搏测试之间的关系(r=.81和r=.87)。这些结果表明,支持需求相对较低的成年特奥会运动员可以进行如果熟悉过程扩大到包括完整的6MWT,则6MWT不带起搏器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity (EUJAPA) is an international, multidisciplinary journal, introduced to communicate, share and stimulate academic inquiry focusing on physical activity of persons with special needs. Articles appearing in EUJAPA reflect cross disciplinary nature of the academic discipline of adapted physical activity ranging from physical education, through sport, recreation, rehabilitation, dance, sport medicine or health care. EUJAPA is the official journal of the European Federation of Adapted Physical Activity. This multidisciplinary journal provides the latest academic inquiry related to physical activity for special populations. Regular features include qualitative and quantitative research studies, case studies, review articles, viewpoints, methodological guidelines, and editorial commentary.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Quality Participation through Dance Movement Therapy for Parkinson's Disease Elite performance in para-cycling: a scoping review Difference in balance capacity for Special Olympics athletes and non-athletes with intellectual disabilities Perceptions of patients with psychosis on living an active lifestyle Dynamics of courage: Personal learning processes in an adapted physical activity- based rehabilitation context, a single case study
×
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