IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability and Validity of a 20-s Alternative to the Wingate Anaerobic Test in Team Sport Male Athletes

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Attia
  • Younes Hachana
  • Helmi Chaabène
  • Abdelmajid Gaddour
  • Zied Neji
  • Roy J Shephard
  • Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly

Abstract

The intent of this study was to evaluate relative and absolute reliability of the 20-s anaerobic test (WAnT20) versus the WAnT30 and to verify how far the various indices of the 30-s Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT30) could be predicted from the WAnT20 data in male athletes. The participants were Exercise Science majors (age: 21.5±1.6 yrs, stature: 0.183±0.08 m, body mass: 81.2±10.9 kg) who participated regularly in team sports. In Phase I, 41 participants performed duplicate WAnT20 and WAnT30 tests to assess reliability. In Phase II, 31 participants performed one trial each of the WAnT20 and WAnT30 to determine the ability of the WAnT20 to predict components of the WAnT30. In Phase III, 31 participants were used to cross-validate the prediction equations developed in Phase II. Respective intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for peak power output (PPO) (ICC = 0.98 and 0.95) and mean power output (MPO) (ICC 0.98 and 0.90) did not differ significantly between WAnT20 and WAnT30. ICCs for minimal power output (POmin) and fatigue index (FI) were poor for both tests (range 0.53 to 0.76). Standard errors of the means (SEM) for PPO and MPO were less than their smallest worthwhile changes (SWC) in both tests; however, POmin and FI values were “marginal,” with SEM values greater than their respective SWCs for both tests values. Stepwise regression analysis showed that MPO had the highest coefficient of predictability (R = 0.97), with POmin and FI considerable lower (R = 0.71 and 0.41 respectively). Cross-validation showed insignificant bias with limits of agreement of 0.99±1.04, 6.5±92.7 W, and 1.6±9.8% between measured and predicted MPO, POmin, and FI, respectively. WAnT20 offers a reliable and valid test of leg anaerobic power in male athletes and could replace the classic WAnT30.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Attia & Younes Hachana & Helmi Chaabène & Abdelmajid Gaddour & Zied Neji & Roy J Shephard & Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly, 2014. "Reliability and Validity of a 20-s Alternative to the Wingate Anaerobic Test in Team Sport Male Athletes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114444
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114444
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114444&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114444?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshi Kunal & Singh Ashutosh, 2024. "Alternative Methods for Anaerobic Power Assessment in Athletes: A Correlational Study of Wingate, Vertical Jump, and Standing Broad Jump Tests," Polish Journal of Sport and Tourism, Sciendo, vol. 31(3), pages 18-22.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.