Skip to main content
PMC home page
Children logoLink to Children
. 2024 Nov 1;11(11):1346. doi: 10.3390/children11111346

Age- and Gender-Specific Reference Values for Physical Performance in Tunisian Youth Basketball Players

Chirine Aouichaoui 1,2, Mohamed Tounsi 1, Ghazi Racil 3, Oussama Tabka 1, Monia Zaouali 1, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi 4,5,*, Yassine Trabelsi 1,2
Editor: Paul R Carney
PMCID: PMC11593227  PMID: 39594921

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Physical performance is becoming increasingly critical in basketball, as it directly influences players’ agility, power, and endurance. This study aimed to assess the progression of body composition and physical performance metrics across different ages and genders, establishing age- and gender-specific reference values for Tunisian basketball athletes. Methods: A total of 469 Tunisian basketball players (239 boys and 230 girls) were assessed and grouped by age. Anthropometric measures—including standing and sitting height, body mass, leg length, body mass index, fat mass, fat-free mass, body fat percentage, wingspan, and leg muscle volume—were collected alongside physical performance metrics. Performance tests included countermovement and squat jumps, change-of-direction speed, maximal oxygen uptake, flexibility, the five-jump test, and 5 m, 10 m, and 20 m sprints with and without the ball. Normative data were generated based on age and gender categories. Results: The findings revealed significant age-related improvements in both anthropometric and performance parameters. Boys consistently outperformed girls in physical and fitness-related measures, with gender differences becoming more pronounced with age. Stepwise regression analyses indicated that, for boys, body fat percentage, leg muscle volume, standing height, and wingspan were the best predictors of physical performance. For girls, body fat percentage, standing height, and sitting height were identified as key predictors. Conclusions: The newly established Tunisian reference values for physical performance in youth basketball provide valuable benchmarks that can support the development of explosive power and strength in players, aiding in talent identification and potentially enhancing individual and team performance outcomes.

Keywords: performance parameters, body measurement, reference values, basketball players

1. Introduction

Basketball is a highly popular, high-intensity sport that demands a range of skills, such as jumping, sprinting, and sprinting with changes of direction (CODs) [1]. Executing these movements during gameplay engages both the anaerobic and aerobic energy systems. A well-developed endurance capacity is essential for athletes, as it enhances their ability to recover more efficiently during a match [2].

In basketball, performance is multifaceted, involving an integration of anthropometric, physiological, psychological, tactical, and technical attributes, all of which play a crucial role in determining player success. In addition to technical–tactical skills [3], body measurements and physiological metrics are pivotal in evaluating player success across all age groups [4]. Physical characteristics, including agility, endurance, power, strength, and speed in both the upper and lower limbs, are integral. Muscle strength, in particular, serves as the foundation upon which performance in basketball is built [5], with significant improvements observable during middle-to-late childhood. This improvement, however, is influenced by various factors such as gender, fitness level, body growth, somatic maturation, and motor skills [4].

Vertical jump performance is a critical indicator of lower limb strength and, therefore, is frequently used as a valuable measure of athletic performance across sports. In basketball specifically, a player’s vertical jump is directly tied to their on-court performance. The anthropometric profile of players can be a limiting factor in their performance, and the National Basketball Association (NBA) underscores the importance of physical profiling in the selection process [6].

Anthropometric characteristics, including factors like body fat percentage, height, wingspan, and circumferential measurements, are recognized as significant parameters in elite basketball athletes [7]. Other studies have also shown that these anthropometric and physical traits predict success in young players and aid in identifying talent [7]. However, determining the correlation between specific physical and anthropometric variables and player success remains challenging. Moreover, an important research question is how these variables can reliably inform predictive models for player performance.

Sansone et al. [8] conducted a study providing normative values for body fat mass in basketball athletes, considering measurement methods, gender, and competition level. However, research investigating the relationship between anthropometric and physical performance parameters in basketball is limited [9]. Moreover, understanding these relationships across age groups is essential for enhancing player performance. Rismayadi et al. [10] reported differences in physical conditions among 16- to 18-year-old players in various positions (guards, forwards, and centers) [10].

In Chile, Hernandez-Martinez et al. [11] found that male athletes with higher fat-free mass and lower body fat percentages performed better in the countermovement jump (CMJ), ball throwing, and maximal isometric handgrip strength tests [11]. Previous studies have demonstrated significant differences in physical test outcomes according to age, gender, and playing position [12,13], yet no predictive relationship was established between performance indicators and anthropometric variables. Recently, Čaušević et al. [14] showed that anthropometric factors could predict agility and speed profiling among U14, U15, and U16 basketball players in Sarajevo Canton, examining the association between physical parameters, anthropometric profiles, and body composition profiles [14].

In Tunisia, data on the predictive parameters of physical performance in basketball players is scarce. Understanding predictive physical variables, considering gender and age, is crucial for Tunisian basketball coaches, allowing them to tailor training programs effectively and enhance performance. Statistical models are required to provide coaches with a robust tool for assessing performance and identifying talent efficiently. In this context, the present research was conducted with the hypothesis that basketball talent identification and game performance indicators could be predicted from anthropometric and physical tests.

The objectives of this study were (i) to evaluate the progression of morphological parameters and performance metrics across age and gender, (ii) to identify the anthropometric parameters with the highest predictive value for performance in jumping and speed tests among Tunisian players in the U13, U15, U17, and U20 age categories, and (iii) to establish reference values for physical performance in youth basketball players.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Four hundred and sixty-nine Tunisian basketball players (239 boys and 230 girls) were randomly chosen from various basketball teams. Their mean weight, height, and age were 62.59 ± 14.32 kg, 169.81 ± 12.87 cm, and 15.27 ± 2.44 years, respectively. Before conducting the study, both players and their guardians were fully informed of the research objectives and procedures and signed a written informed consent form. All athletes were evaluated by a physician and confirmed to be in good health. During the competitive season, players participated in the championship league on a weekly basis. They had a similar training volume, totaling 8 h and 40 min per week, which included three technical sessions (1.5 h each), three conditioning and strength sessions (40 min each), and two hours of gameplay. Players abstained from exercise the day before testing and avoided caffeine beverages for four hours prior to testing.

On three separate days, players completed physical performance tests, which included the squat jump (SJ), CMJ, five-jump test, speed, agility, flexibility, and aerobic shuttle run. Participants were instructed to avoid intense training, alcohol, and tobacco use for two days before testing. Only water was allowed up to two hours before each test, and no food was allowed three hours before testing. Each test session began with a standardized 15 to 20 min warm-up. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the test–retest reliability of the study’s variables were greater than 0.95, with the coefficients of variation (CVs) ranging from 0.9% to 8.1%.

The research protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of Sousse, Tunisia (CEFMS: 213/2023). The study adhered to the ethical standards of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, as amended in 2013, and received local institutional review board approval [15].

2.2. Anthropometric Measurements

Sitting and standing heights were measured using a Harpenden Portable Stadiometer (Harpenden, UK). Body mass was recorded with a digital Harpenden Balance Scale (UK). Leg length was calculated as the difference between standing and sitting heights [16]. Body mass index (BMI) was derived by dividing body mass (kg) by the square of standing height (m).

Lower body impedance was assessed with a Tanita TBF-604 Body Fat Monitor/Scale (Tokyo, Japan), which requires input parameters such as the body mass, standing height, and gender of the participant. The device measures lower body impedance and calculates body fat percentage [17]. Absolute body fat mass was then calculated using the following formula: fat mass (kg) = (percentage body fat × body mass)/100. Fat-free mass (kg) was determined by subtracting fat mass from total body mass.

Wingspan was measured with a tape measure from fingertip to fingertip, with the subject standing upright against a wall and arms extended horizontally.

The volume of leg muscle in the dominant leg was determined using anthropometric methods, as outlined by Jones and Pearson [18]. Seven circumference measurements were taken at specific sites: the maximum gluteal furrow, maximum mid-thigh, minimum above the knee, maximum knee, minimum below the knee, maximum calf, and minimum ankle. The heights of these circumferences from the floor were also recorded. Additionally, skinfold thickness measurements were obtained at the thigh (second circumference) and calf (sixth circumference) sites [18].

2.3. Vertical and Horizontal Jump Assessments

Vertical jump performance was assessed using an Optojump device (Microgate SRL, Bolzano, Italy) connected to a portable computer for data collection. This setup captured metrics including jump height, power, flight time, and contact time. Two types of vertical jump tests were performed: the SJ and the CMJ. Athletes were instructed to perform two practice jumps, with the best performance from three subsequent trials recorded as the final result. A two-minute rest period was provided between each jump to ensure adequate recovery [19].

For the SJ test, athletes descended to and held a knee angle of approximately 90 degrees for three seconds before jumping as high as possible, without any preliminary countermovement. A valid trial required no downward movement prior to the jump [19].

In the CMJ test, athletes started from a standing position, quickly descending before jumping as high as possible in the concentric phase. Verbal encouragement was provided to maximize jump height [19]. Both types of jumps were performed without the use of arms. Each participant completed three attempts for each jump type, with the highest value from each type used for analysis. Athletes wore comfortable clothing and running shoes during the tests. The CV for the reliability of this test was 3.2%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.98–0.99.

The five-jump test was also conducted to assess explosive leg strength and measure the distance covered. Athletes began the test by standing with their feet together, choosing their lead foot for the initial jump. They were instructed to complete the final stride with feet together. Distance covered was measured with a tape measure [20].

2.4. Sprint Tests

Speed assessments involved 5 m, 10 m, and 20 m sprints, conducted both with and without the ball. Prior to testing, participants completed a standardized warm-up routine, beginning with a light jog, followed by dynamic exercises targeting flexibility in muscle groups critical for sprinting [21]. The players’ performance was measured using the Witty timing system by Microgate. Participants started each sprint from a stationary position, positioned half a meter behind the starting line. Each player completed three trials per distance, with a minimum recovery period of five minutes between attempts. The fastest recorded time, measured to the nearest 0.01 s, was taken as the player’s speed score. Verbal encouragement was provided to ensure maximal effort in each sprint [21].

2.5. Flexibility

Flexibility was assessed using an anteflexion meter (TKK-5403) to measure hamstring and lower back flexibility [22]. This digital device records the degree of forward body flexion, with a measuring range from −20.0 to +35.0 cm. During testing, players stood barefoot on a platform with their legs straight and together, then bent forward, reaching as far as possible to gauge maximum flexibility [22].

2.6. Modified Agility T-Test (MATT)

The modified agility T-test (MATT) is a running assessment that evaluates changes in direction speed through various techniques. Agility timing was measured with the Microgate portable timing system. The MATT followed the standard T-test protocol, with adjustments to the total distance covered and the spacing between cones. Participants were verbally encouraged to perform multidirectional movements as quickly as possible, typically resulting in approximately 45-degree CODs. The best performance from the final two trials in the reliability assessment session was recorded as the agility score [23].

2.7. Aerobic Power Test

Aerobic capacity, based on maximal aerobic speed, was assessed using the 20 m maximal multistage run test, initially developed by Léger and Lambert [24] and later modified by Léger et al. [25]. In this test, participants sprinted back and forth between two lines set 20 m apart, with continuous encouragement to sustain their effort for as long as possible. The pace was dictated by a cassette tape emitting timed beeps, beginning at 8.5 km per hour for the first minute and increasing by 0.5 km per hour each minute thereafter. The test concluded when participants could no longer maintain the required pace. The number of completed shuttles was recorded for further analysis [25].

Data from the final stage enabled the calculation of each participant’s maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), expressed in mL.kg−1.min−1. Maximal Aerobic Speed (MAS) was defined as the minimum speed at which participants achieved their VO2 max, representing their peak aerobic power level [25].

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, with all measurements reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). The normality of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and confirmed with Q-Q plots. Differences in body size and performance parameters across age categories and gender were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with a Bonferroni correction applied to account for multiple comparisons. Partial eta squared (η2) values from the MANOVA results were used to determine effect sizes, categorized as follows: no effect (0 to 0.039), minimum (0.04 to 0.24), moderate (0.25 to 0.63), and strong (≥0.64) [26]. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between anthropometric parameters, jumping performance, and sprint performance, with separate models computed for boys and girls according to age groups. All statistical analyses were performed using the commercial software ‘‘Statistical Package for the Social Sciences’’ (SPSS version 26.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Anthropometry and Physical Performances Differences Based on Age Groups and Gender

The distribution of Tunisian basketball players based on age categories and gender is displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Distribution of Tunisian basketball players according to age categories and gender.

A total of 469 Tunisian basketball athletes (239 boys and 230 girls) participated in this study. Descriptive statistics for anthropometric parameters are summarized in Table 1, while the mean ± standard deviation for physiological and physical performance measures are provided in Table 2. Across all participants, there was an increase in anthropometric and physiological parameters with chronological age, regardless of gender, except for sprint and agility times, which decreased with age (as shown in Table 1 and Table 2). Significant differences (p < 0.05) between genders emerged from the U15 category onward, with boys being significantly heavier and taller than girls (see Table 1). Additionally, boys demonstrated superior physical and physiological performance compared to girls (Table 2). Notably, jump heights in the CMJ test were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those in the SJ test for both boys and girls (as indicated in Table 2).

Table 1.

Anthropometric measurements of Tunisian basketball players based on age category and gender.

Age Categories (Years) Under 13 Under 15 Under 17 Under 20
Body mass (kg) Boys 55.29 ± 13.96 58.32 ± 12.17 * § 72.65 ± 13.67 * 78.27 ± 11.97 *
Girls 52.59 ± 10.49 52.27 ± 9.04 † † 66.10 ± 13.47 64.91 ± 7.87
Standing height (cm) Boys 161.49 ± 11.90 * § 168.01 ± 11.38 * § 181.07 ± 10.96 * § 188.12 ± 8.30 *
Girls 155.90 ± 7.33 †160.64 ± 5.41 † 167.75 ± 6.63 167.96 ± 6.24
Sitting height (cm) Boys 79.36 ± 5.26 81.48 ± 6.15 * § 88.29 ± 5.53 * 90.78 ± 6.40 *
Girls 77.61 ± 4.14 79.42 ± 4.32 † †83.66 ± 3.60 85.32 ± 3.95
Leg length (cm) Boys 82.13 ± 7.62 * § 86.52 ± 7.56 * § 92.78 ± 7.24 * § 97.34 ± 5.61 *
Girls 78.28 ±4.25 81.73 ± 6.44 83.22 ± 5.22 † 81.70 ± 5.34
Body mass index (kg.m−2) Boys 22.20 ± 4.42 § 20.39 ± 2.73 § 21.98 ± 2.97 22.08 ± 2.97
Girls 21.44 ± 2.54 20.20 ± 3.02 † 23.15 ± 4.18 22.33 ± 2.05
Fat mass (kg) Boys 6.89 ± 9.61 9.26 ± 4.12 § 12.27 ± 5.31 11.99 ± 4.48
Girls 9.85 ± 3.31 8.70 ± 2.63 * † 12.99 ± 7.41 * 10.94 ± 2.41 *
Fat-free mass (kg) Boys 48.39 ± 13.00 * 49.05 ± 9.47 * § 60.37 ± 10.28 * § 66.27 ± 9.15 *
Girls 42.73 ± 8.18 43.56 ± 6.69 † 51.71 ± 9.05 † 51.49 ± 6.21 †
Body fat percentage (%) Boys 17.12 ± 5.47 15.53 ±5.09 16.51 ± 4.87 * 15.08 ± 4.15 *
Girls 17.95 ± 3.33 16.38 ± 2.64 † 18.53 ± 6.56 17.23 ± 1.97
Wingspan (cm) Boys 168.22 ± 13.13 * 172.80 ± 13.09 * 184.72 ± 11.71 * § 192.75 ± 8.59 *
Girls 159.95 ± 9.79 † 165.14 ± 7.62 * † 171.12 ± 7.80 170.46 ± 8.03
Leg muscle volume (mL) Boys 4353.61 ± 1514.22 4648.34 ± 2238.49 * 5738.37 ± 1834.12 5375.74 ± 1759.24
Girls 3806.47 ± 1707.45 3463.47 ± 1144.77 5353.58 ± 2095.20 4859.78 ± 1957.59
Open in a new tab

* Significant difference between boys and girls in same age category (p < 0.05). § Boys: Bonferroni test age category vs. previous age category (p < 0.05). † Girls: Bonferroni test age category vs. previous age category (p < 0.05).

Table 2.

Physical and physiological performance measurements of Tunisian basketball players by age category and gender.

Age Categories (Years) U13 U15 U17 U20
VO2 max (mL.min−1.kg−1) Boys 40.32 ± 2.84 * § 42.46 ± 3.59 * § 44.99 ± 2.97 * 45.44 ± 4.24 *
Girls 36.73 ± 2.37 36.91± 3.56 † 39.00± 3.85 40.45 ± 3.03
MAV (km.h−1) Boys 11.52 ± 0.8 * § 12.13 ± 1.02 * § 12.85 ± 0.84 * 12.98 ±1.21 *
Girls 10.49 ± 0.67 10.57± 0.97 † 11.14 ± 1.10 † 11.56 ± 0.83
SJ height (cm) Boys 21.03 ± 5.26 § 24.85 ± 6.17 * § 28.98 ± 4.66 * § 32.25 ± 5.76 *
Girls 19.69 ± 3.86 19.76 ± 4.14 20.04 ± 3.85 21.42 ± 3.34
CMJ height (cm) Boys 22.37 ± 5.48 § 26.12 ± 6.34 * § 29.31 ± 5.07 * § 33.87 ± 6.08 *
Girls 19.73 ± 4.15 20.68 ± 4.15 21.46 ± 4.66 22.62 ± 3.77
SJ power (W.kg−1) Boys 10.75 ± 1.42 § 12.00 ± 1.76 * § 13.38 ± 1.37 * § 15.09 ± 2.63 *
Girls 10.35 ± 1.27 10.32 ± 1.27 10.59 ± 1.36 10.94 ± 0.96
CMJ power (W.kg−1) Boys 11.07 ± 1.42 §12.75 ± 2.14 * § 13.96 ± 1.62 * § 16.92 ± 3.81 *
Girls 10.35 ± 1.21 10.95 ± 1.37 10.94 ± 1.34 11.43± 1.34
Five-jump test (m) Boys 8.57 ± 0.98 * 9.68 ± 1.42 * 11.38 ± 1.20 * 12.14 ± 1.40 *
Girls 8.04 ± 0.60 † 8.28 ± 0.81 † 8.83 ± 0.78 † 8.76 ± 0.62
5 m sprint time (s) Boys 1.30 ± 0.19 * 1.23 ± 0.15 * § 1.22 ± 0.18 * 1.13 ± 0.14 *
Girls 1.40 ± 0.15 1.48 ± 0.29 † 1.33 ± 0.18 † 1.29 ± 0.09
10 m sprint time(s) Boys 2.15 ± 0.30 * 2.06 ± 0.23 * 2.02 ± 0.21 * 1.89± 0.23 *
Girls 2.66 ± 0.43 2.59 ± 0.44 † 2.26 ± 0.15 † 2.26 ± 0.15
20 m sprint time without the ball (s) Boys 3.86 ± 0.43 * 3.65 ± 0.40 3.45± 0.23 * 3.30± 0.19 *
Girls 4.31 ± 0.41 † 4.66 ± 5.09 † 3.89 ± 0.25 3.77 ± 0.22
20 m sprint time with the ball (s) Boys 4.19 ± 0.42 * 3.95 ± 0.42 * 3.64 ± 0.29 * 3.75 ± 1.22 *
Girls 4.69 ± 0.39 4.63 ± 0.52 4.22 ± 0.33 4.12 ± 0.26
Agility test (s) Boys 12.58 ± 0.90 * 12.07 ± 0.42 * 10.82 ± 0.85 * 10.72 ± 0.56 *
Girls 14.44 ± 1.02 † 13.71 ± 1.07 † 12.83 ± 1.23 12.81 ± 0.91
Flexibility (cm) Boys −4.06 ± 8.53 −2.60 ± 8.53 −0.97 ± 7.30 1.55 ± 9.42
Girls −3.04 ± 9.53 −1.89 ± 9.63 0.47 ± 9.55 3.47 ± 7.97
Open in a new tab

* Significant difference between boys and girls in same age category (p < 0.05). § Boys: Bonferroni test age category vs. previous age category (p < 0.05). † Girls: Bonferroni test age category vs. previous age category (p < 0.05). VO2 max: maximum oxygen uptake; MAV: Maximum Aerobic Velocity; SJ: squat jump; CMJ: counter-movement jump.

3.2. MANOVA Analyses Evaluating Difference in Anthropometric and Physical Performance Parameters by Age Categories and Gender

The MANOVA results, including the main and interaction effects as well as effect sizes, are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. These results examine differences in anthropometric and performance parameters across age categories, gender, and test batteries.

Table 3.

The results of the MANOVA analyses evaluating the difference in anthropometric variables by age categories and gender.

MANOVA Age * Gender MANOVA Age MANOVA Gender
[F (p)] η2 [F (p)] η2 [F (p)] η2
Body mass (kg) 4.413 (0.004) * 0.028 75.028 (0.000) * 0.328 34.604 (0.000) * 0.070
Standing height (cm) 16.329 (0.000) * 0.096 101.951 (0.000) * 0.399 168.163 (0.000) * 0.267
Sitting height (cm) 3.756 (0.011) * 0.024 82.000 (0.000) * 0.348 45.387 (0.000) * 0.090
Leg length (cm) 21.350 (0.000) * 0.122 37.412 (0.000) * 0.196 171.170 (0.000) * 0.271
Body mass index (kg.m−2) 1.464 (0.224) 0.009 14.406 (0.000) * 0.086 0.138 (0.710) 0.000
Fat mass (kg) 2.417 (0.066) 0.015 15.555 (0.000) * 0.092 1.005 (0.317) 0.002
Fat-free mass (kg) 7.556 (0.000) * 0.047 65.796 (0.000) * 0.300 91.260 (0.000) * 0.165
Body fat percentage (%) 1.151(0.328) * 0.007 5.528 (0.001) * 0.035 14.835 (0.000) * 0.031
Wingspan (cm) 14.437 (0.000) * 0.086 62.497 (0.000) * 0.289 160.050 (0.000) * 0.258
Leg muscle volume (mL) 1.337(0.262) 0.009 18.408 (0.000) * 0.107 12.611 (0.000) * 0.027
Open in a new tab

Multivariate F statistics. *: indicates significant results (p < 0.05). In case of non-significant multivariate test results, univariate test results were not shown.

Table 4.

The results of the MANOVA analyses evaluating the difference in physical performance outcomes by age category and gender.

MANOVA Age * Gender MANOVA Age MANOVA Gender
[F (p)] η2 [F (p)] η2 [F (p)] η2
VO2 max (mL. min−1.kg−1) 1.570 (0.196) 0.010 34.463 (0.000) * 0.184 202.532 (0.000) * 0.308
MAV (km.h−1) 1.557 (0.199) 0.010 35.056 (0.000) * 0.187 206.087 (0.000) * 0.310
SJ height (cm) 17.621 (0.000) * 0.103 33.446 (0.000) * 0.180 178.779 (0.000) * 0.281
CMJ height(cm) 12.944 (0.000) * 0.078 34.886 (0.000) * 0.186 170.922 (0.000) * 0.272
SJ Power (W.kg−1) 23.779 (0.000) * 0.135 46.345 (0.000) * 0.233 191.478 (0.000) * 0.295
CMJ Power (W.kg−1) 27.727 (0.000) * 0.154 50.489 (0.000) * 0.249 177.259 (0.000) * 0.279
Five-Jump test (m) 34.795 (0.000) * 0.186 82.659 (0.000) * 0.351 330.526 (0.000) * 0.419
5 m sprint time (s) 3.739 (0.011) * 0.024 15.337 (0.000) * 0.091 66.532 (0.000) * 0.127
10 m sprint time(s) 5.970 (0.001) * 0.038 30.961 (0.000) * 0.169 209.629 (0.000) * 0.314
20 m sprint time without the ball (s) 0.587 (0.624) 0.004 2.582 (0.053) 0.017 7.664 (0.006) * 0.016
20 m sprint time with the ball (s) 1.587 (0.192) 0.010 17.435 (0.000) * 0.102 77.614 (0.000) * 0.145
Agility test (s) 1.372 (0.251) 0.009 65.412 (0.000) * 0.300 351.408 (0.000) * 0.434
Flexibility (cm) 0.161 (0.923) 0.001 9.908 (0.000) * 0.061 2.070 (0.151) 0.004
Open in a new tab

Multivariate F statistics. *: indicates significant results (p < 0.05). In case of non-significant multivariate test results, univariate test results were not shown. VO2 max: maximum oxygen uptake; MAV: Maximum Aerobic Velocity; SJ: squat jump; CMJ: counter-movement jump.

3.2.1. Interaction Effect of Gender and Age

Our findings revealed significant age × gender interaction effects for most anthropometric variables, with the exception of BMI, body fat percentage, and leg muscle volume (see Table 3). Additionally, significant age × gender interactions were observed for vertical jumps, the five-jump test, 5 m sprints, and 10 m sprints (p < 0.05) (Table 3). For anthropometric variables, Wilks’ Lambda for the age category × gender interaction was Λ = 0.756, F(30, 1327) = 4.427, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.089. For physical performance variables, Wilks’ Lambda for the age category × gender interaction was Λ = 0.589, F(51, 1316) = 5.019, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.162.

3.2.2. Effects of Chronological Age

Significant main effects of chronological age were observed across all anthropometric parameters (p < 0.01; η2 ranging from 0.035 to 0.399). For anthropometric measures by age category, Wilks’ Lambda was Λ = 0.499, F(30, 1327) = 11.841, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.207 (see Table 3). Additionally, significant age effects were found for all physical parameters (p < 0.01; η2 ranging from 0.017 to 0.351). In analyzing age categories for physicalperformance, Wilks’ Lambda was Λ = 0.431, F(51, 1316) = 8.430, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.245.

3.2.3. Effects of Gender

Statistically significant main effects of gender were found across all anthropometric and physiological parameters, except for BMI, fat mass, and flexibility. In the analysis of gender effects on anthropometric measures, Wilks’ Lambda was Λ = 0.657, F(10, 452) = 23.545, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.343. For physical performance parameters, Wilks’ Lambda for gender effects was Λ = 0.392, F(17, 442) = 40.309, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.608.

3.3. Multiple Regression Models of Physical Performances According to Age Category and Gender

Stepwise regression analysis on performance parameters revealed that body fat percentage, leg muscle volume, standing height, and wingspan were the strongest predictors of physical performance in boys. In contrast, body fat percentage, standing height, and sitting height were the primary predictors for girls. Table 5 presents the regression model outcomes, including the standard error of estimation, with anthropometric variables as independent predictors. These findings highlight the significant role of specific morphological characteristics in predicting and understanding performance variations among athletes (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Predictive models for the performance of Tunisian basketball players.

Dependent Variable Age Category Gender Predictors Constant Beta (95% CI) R2 Adjusted R2 SEE ANOVA
SJ height U13 Boys Body fat percentage 31.568 −0.615 (−0.846 to −0.385) 0.408 0.394 4.101 0.000
Girls Sitting height 54.132 −0.444 (−0.838 to −0.050) 0.226 0.186 3.485 0.029
U15 Boys Leg muscle volume 26.217 0.001 (0.001 to −0.002) 0.361 0.346 4.995 0.000
Body fat percentage −0.455 (−0.668 to −0.242)
Girls Fat mass 26.887 −0.818 (−1.124 to −0.512) 0.273 0.254 3.576 0.000
U17 Boys Body fat percentage 36.632 −0.463 (−0.712 to −0.215) 0.235 0.218 4.124 0.000
Girls Fat-free mass 27.458 −0.143 (−0.256 to −0.031) 0.113 0.096 3.666 0.014
U20 Boys Body fat percentage 80.230 −0.866 (−1.133 to −0.599) 0.482 0.455 4.257 0.000
Standing height −0.214 (−0.352 to −0.076)
Leg muscle volume 0.001 (0.000 to 0.002)
Girls Wingspan 34.551 −0.235 (−0.356 to −0.114) 0.211 0.179 3.032 0.001
Standing height 0.269 (0.101 to 0.438)
Sitting height −0.216 (−0.420 to −0.011)
CMJ height U13 Boys Body fat percentage 7.873 −0.475 (−0.740 to −0.210) 0.404 0.375 4.337 0.000
Age 1.855 (0.094 to 3.616)
Girls Sitting height 54.116 −0.443 (−0.875 to −0.010) 0.195 0.152 3.826 0.045
U15 Boys Age 27.758 3.040 (0.050 to −6.030) 0.406 0.384 4.981 0.000
Body fat percentage −0.422 (−0.875 to −0.010)
Leg muscle volume 0.001 (0.000 to 0.002)
Girls Body fat percentage 27.344 −0.765 (−1.080 to −0.450) 0.236 0.226 3.656 0.000
U17 Boys Body fat percentage 38.203 −0.538 (−0.802 to −0.274) 0.268 0.252 4.385 0.000
Girls Fat mass 24.133 −0.206 (−0.373 to −0.038) 0.107 0.089 4.453 0.017
U20 Boys Body fat percentage 81.115 −0.892 (−1.180 to −0.604) 0.458 0.430 4.594 0.000
Leg muscle volume 0.001 (−0.000 to 0.002)
Standing height −0.211 (−0.360 to −0.063)
Girls Body fat percentage 24.556 0.172 (−1.128 to 1.472) 0.240 0.127 3.531 0.035
Fat-free mass −0.113 (−0.466 to −0.241)
Fat mass −0.313 (−1.876 to 1.250)
SJ power U13 Boys Body fat percentage 13.431 −0.156 (−0.221 to −0.091) 0.358 0.343 1.158 0.000
Girls Body mass 17.312 0.057 (−0.329 to 0.443) 0.327 0.208 1.135 0.075
Wingspan −0.099 (−0.291 to 0.094)
YAPHV −0.033 (−0.472 to 0.405)
U15 Boys Leg muscle volume 12.019 0.000 (0.000 to 0.001) 0.369 0.353 1.421 0.000
Body fat percentage −0.116 (−0.176 to −0.055)
Girls Body fat percentage 12.233 −0.222 (−0.330 to −0.113) 0.181 0.170 1.165 0.000
U17 Boys Body fat percentage 15.291 −0.116 (−0.192 to −0.039) 0.172 0.153 1.264 0.004
Girls Wingspan 8.553 0.045 (−0.053 to 0.142) 0.082 0.062 1.346 0.236
Leg length −0.032 (−0.153 to 0.088)
Fat-free mass −0.056 (−0.112 to 0.000)
U20 Boys Body fat percentage 18.714 −0.368 (−0.504 to −0.232) 0.346 0.323 2.165 0.000
Leg muscle volume 0.000 (0.000 to 0.001)
Girls Wingspan 18.290 −0.043 (−0.069 to −0.018) 0.130 0.118 0.903 0.001
CMJ power U13 Boys Body fat percentage 13.577 −0.146 (−0.213 to −0.079) 0.317 0.300 1.189 0.000
Girls Body fat percentage 21.346 −0.058 (−0.414 to 0.298) 0.168 0.021 1.189 0.360
Sitting height −0.138 (−0.316 to 0.039)
Fat mass 0.077 (−0.328 to 0.481)
U15 Boys Age −11.192 1.436 (0.468 to 2.405) 0.439 0.418 1.636 0.000
Body fat percentage −0.175 (−0.249 to −0.101)
Wingspan 0.040 (0.009 to 0.071)
Girls Fat mass 12.867 −0.220 (−0.328 to −0.112) 0.177 0.167 1.257 0.000
U17 Boys APHV −35.193 2.360 (1.284 to 3.436) 0.413 0.373 1.288 0.000
Body fat percentage −0.122 (−0.200 to −0.045)
Sitting height 0.172 (0.049 to −0.269)
Girls Fat mass 11.743 −0.061 (−0.109 to −0.013) 0.115 0.097 1.277 0.013
U20 Boys Body fat percentage 12.222 −0.446 (−0.634 to −0.258) 0.384 0.363 3.047 0.000
Fat-free mass 0.173 (0.087 to 0.258)
Girls Body fat percentage 12.846 0.233 (0.007 to 0.459) 0.081 0.044 1.311 0.097
Sitting height −0.042 (−0.118 to 0.035)
Fat mass −0.172 (−0.357 to 0.014)
20 m sprint time without the ball U13 Boys Body fat percentage 6.138 0.042 (0.026 to 0.058) 0.604 0.585 0.278 0.000
Sitting height −0.038 (−0.054 to −0.021)
Girls Sitting height 6545 −0.044 (−0.113 to 0.026) 0.160 0.012 0.416 0.385
Fat mass −0.022 (−0.096 to 0.052)
Fat-free mass 0.032 (−0.006 to 0.070)
U15 Boys Age 9.161 −0.430 (−0.594 to −0.267) 0.410 0.396 0.313 0.000
Girls Body fat percentage 0.026 (0.012 to 0.040)
U17 Boys Body fat percentage 4.329 0.026 (0.015 to 0.037) 0.359 0.331 0.189 0.000
Age −0.082 (−0.151 to −0.013)
Girls Body mass 3.557 0.008 (0.003 to 0.013) 0.186 0.153 0.232 0.006
Leg muscle volume 0.000 (0.000 to 0.000)
U20 Boys Fat mass 2.955 0.029 (0.020 to 0.038) 0.420 0.410 0.153 0.000
Girls Fat mass 4.324 0.067 (0.033 to 0.100) 0.191 0.159 0.203 0.001
Body mass −0.010 (−0.017 to −0.003)
Body fat percentage −0.036 (−0.072 to 0.000)
20 m sprint time with the ball U13 Boys Body fat percentage 6.081 0.042 (0.026 to 0.059) 0.565 0.544 0.288 0.000
Sitting height −0.033 (−0.050 to −0.016)
Girls Sitting height 4.767 −0.055 (−0.135 to 0.025) 0.128 0.032 0.391 0.290
Wingspan 0.026 (−0.008 to −0.060)
U15 Boys Age 8.276 −0.344 (−0.531 to −0.158) 0.294 0.277 0.358 0.000
Body fat percentage 0.027 (0.011 to 0.043)
Girls Body mass 3.128 0.020 (0.008 to 0.032) 0.216 0.195 0.474 0.000
YAPHV −0.349 (−0.570 to −0.129)
U17 Boys Body fat percentage 5.426 0.031 (0.017 to 0.045) 0.402 0.375 0.232 0.000
Age −0.144 (−0.228 to −0.060)
Girls Leg length 3.047 0.028 (0.014 to 0.071) 0.128 0.036 0.385 0.272
Body fat percentage −0.032 (−0.088 to 0.023)
U20 Boys Body fat percentage 6.092 0.042(0.025 to 0.059) 0.565 0.532 0.292 0.000
Wingspan 0.000 (−0.011 to 0.010)
Sitting height −0.032 (−0.058 to −0.006)
Girls Fat-free mass 3.741 0.024 (0.009 to 0.038) 0.129 0.106 0.250 0.006
Body mass −0.013 (−0.024 to −0.002)
Open in a new tab

CI = confidence interval; R2 = coefficient of determination; SEE = standard error of estimation; ANOVA = analysis of variance; YAPHV = years from age at peak height velocity; APHV = age at peak height velocity.

4. Discussion

The objectives of this research were to (i) examine the development of anthropometric characteristics and physical performance among Tunisian basketball athletes across different age categories, and (ii) to identify the variables that best predict performance in jumping ability and speed tests. This study aims to establish reference values for physical performance parameters by gender and age category in Tunisian basketball athletes.

4.1. Anthropometry and Physical Performances Differences Based on Age and Gender

The present study demonstrated significant age-related increases in all anthropometric and performance variables. Chronological age and gender influenced morphological (e.g., sitting height, standing height, leg length, body mass, BMI, fat mass, fat-free mass, body fat percentage, wingspan, and leg muscle volume) and physical performance parameters (e.g., VO2 max, SJ and CMJ power, jump height, five-jump test, sprint times, agility, and flexibility) across the U15, U17, and U20 age categories. These findings are consistent with research by Aouichaoui et al. [27] on Tunisian handball players and by Tounsi et al. [28] on Tunisian soccer players aged 13 to 19.

The results align with patterns of somatic growth, suggesting that the development of anthropometric and performance parameters may correlate with morphological and hormonal changes associated with peak height velocity (PHV). During pre-puberty, growth is driven by growth hormone (GH) and thyroid hormones (T3 and T4) [29], while maturation is marked by interactions between GH, steroid hormones (especially testosterone and estradiol), gender and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), leading to changes in body composition, including water, muscle, bone, and fat proportions [30]. The average PHV in boys occurs around age 14 [31].

Supporting this, speed and jumping performance progressively improved from the U13 to U20 age groups, with no significant gains observed between U17 and U20. Our findings also indicated that vertical jump and speed performance increase with age, as lower limb performance improves throughout childhood and adolescence [13]. This stage corresponds with anabolic changes in skeletal muscle mass. In boys, this development is further supported by increased circulating testosterone, which induces hypertrophy of type II muscle fibers [32,33].

This study also revealed gender-specific differences in performance, likely due to physiological and biological changes that emerge in boys and girls at the onset of puberty. These differences coincide with increased levels of endogenous hormones, particularly testosterone in boys, which leads to a greater increase in lean muscle mass and volume, enhancing power, strength, and functional capacities. Consistent with this finding, previous research has shown that gender-related differences in physical parameters are minimal at the start of puberty but become more pronounced as hormonal influences take effect [33,34].

4.2. Interaction Influence of Age and Gender on Anthropometry and Physical Performances

Our study demonstrated significant interactions between gender and age in relation to anthropometric parameters and fitness tests. Consistent with our findings, Tounsi et al. [28] reported age-related increases in all anthropometric measures among Tunisian adolescents aged 13–19 in both genders. Our results also align with prior studies that observed similar trends, despite differences in the specific physical tests conducted [35].

Variations in anthropometric and physical performance parameters due to growth, development, and gender are likely influenced by differences in muscle mass, hormonal changes, and overall physical maturity. Pre-pubertal athletes generally show less developed anthropometric and physical characteristics compared to those who have completed puberty. Post-puberty, males typically exhibit greater height, wingspan, and muscle mass than females and tend to perform better in strength, speed, and power tests, while females often demonstrate superior flexibility [36,37].

4.3. Multiple Regression Models of Physical Performance Outcomes According to Age Category and Gender

A multiple regression model was applied to lower limb jumping measures (SJ height, CMJ height, SJ power, and CMJ power) and sprint parameters (20 m sprint time) across all age groups, analyzing each gender separately. The best prediction model was selected based on the highest determination coefficient (R2) across age groups, explaining the variance in the dependent variable. This study established prediction models from a large sample of Tunisian basketball players (n = 469), consistent with prior research on Tunisian athletes aged 7–13, which identified similar predictive parameters [38].

However, our findings diverge from previous studies that highlighted body height as the sole predictor of basketball performance [39,40], and from research suggesting lean body mass as a key predictor of anaerobic performance in basketball [41]. Gryko et al. [26] reported that only the time from PHV predicted 10 m sprint performance in U13-U15 female Polish basketball players.

Few studies provide age- and gender-specific reference values for physical fitness in Tunisian basketball players. Existing studies focus on different athletic populations, such as Lesinski et al. [42], who provided maturity- and gender-specific morphological and physical percentiles across various sports for young German athletes. Other studies have generated physical percentiles for Chinese children and adolescents [43,44]. While similar in offering gender- and age-specific reference values, differences arise due to variations in chronological and biological age, ethnic groups, and the physical characteristics measured.

Rinaldo et al. [45] showed significant correlations between body fat percentage and sprinting/agility performance, with handgrip strength and body mass status associated with upper limb explosive strength in pre-adolescent basketball players. They found that changes in body composition influenced physical performance, especially in speed, agility, and upper limb power [46].

In Tunisian populations, Tounsi et al. [47] provided percentile values for jumping performance in adolescents aged 13 to 19, while Aouichaoui et al. [48] presented percentiles for lower limb jumping in young athletes across various sports. Recently, Aouichaoui et al. [27] established normative values for physical parameters in Tunisian handball players aged 13 to 19. Given the limited literature on age-specific physical fitness reference values for basketball players, our results serve as a foundational resource.

Identifying top basketball talent requires assessing various anthropometric and performance parameters [7]. Our study shows that multiple regression analyses identified body fat percentage, leg muscle volume, standing height, and wingspan as primary predictors of physical performance in boys, while body fat percentage, standing height, and sitting height were the key predictors in girls. Body fat percentage indicates a balance of muscle and body fat, which is vital for optimizing athleticism. Standing and sitting heights, crucial for rebounding and shot-blocking, along with leg muscle volume (important for explosive movements and endurance) and wingspan (beneficial for defense and offense), contribute to well-rounded basketball skills [8,49].

The best parameters for jump performance, used as dependent variables in our regression models, include vertical jump height and relative power in both SJ and CMJ. These metrics indicate body power and explosive strength, critical for rebounding and shooting. Additionally, 20 m sprint times (with and without the ball) were measured, with the types of jumps assessed closely mimicking common sprinting movements in basketball [49].

5. Practical Applications

The established reference values can guide individualized training programs tailored to athletes’ physical profiles, age, and gender, helping practitioners and coaches identify high-potential talent and detect deficiencies in specific performance areas, such as strength. These values also enable objective, data-driven comparisons of youth basketball players’ physical performance across different regions or countries. By applying these benchmarks, coaches and researchers can enhance player development, optimize training effectiveness, and deepen their understanding of youth basketball performance.

6. Strengths and Limitations

This study provides a comprehensive dataset of age- and gender-specific physical performance benchmarks for Tunisian youth basketball players, enhancing its relevance for coaches, trainers, and sports scientists working with this demographic. By incorporating a broad array of anthropometric and physical metrics, the study offers valuable insights into the developmental patterns across different age categories, assisting in talent identification and personalized training approaches. Additionally, the large sample size contributes to the robustness of the reference values, supporting their applicability across various age and gender groups.

One limitation of this study is its focus on a specific population—Tunisian youth basketball players—which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or regions with different training practices, socio-cultural factors, or genetic backgrounds. Additionally, while the study accounts for basic anthropometric and performance metrics, future research could incorporate more advanced physiological and psychological assessments to provide a holistic view of athletic development. Lastly, as a cross-sectional study, it does not capture longitudinal changes within individuals, which would be valuable for understanding the trajectories of physical performance over time.

7. Conclusions

In summary, male athletes outperformed female athletes in both anthropometric and performance variables. This research established age- and gender-specific reference values for physical performance among Tunisian basketball players, providing valuable benchmarks for monitoring the fitness of adolescent athletes. These reference norms enable coaches to objectively assess individual and team performance, understand physical development across age groups, identify talent, and support the structured growth of young athletes.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the participants for their valuable contributions to this research study. Special thanks to Amel Zahra, Sarra Ben Jaballah, and Yafet Abidi for the data collection and conducting the experiments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A., M.T., O.T., G.R. and Y.T.; data curation, C.A., N.L.B. and M.T.; formal analysis, C.A., O.T., N.L.B. and M.T.; investigation, C.A., M.T., M.Z. and Y.T.; methodology, C.A., G.R., O.T., M.T., N.L.B. and Y.T.; project administration, C.A., M.T., N.L.B. and Y.T.; supervision, N.L.B. and Y.T.; validation, M.Z., N.L.B. and Y.T.; visualization, M.Z., N.L.B. and Y.T.; writing—original draft, C.A. and N.L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of Sousse prior conducting this research (Tunisia) (protocol code: CEFMS: 213/2023; 11 November 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the players to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest regarding the information provided in this study.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Shalom A., Gottlieb R., Alcaraz P.E., Calleja-Gonzalez J. A narrative review of the dominant physiological energy systems in basketball and the importance of specificity and uniqueness in measuring basketball players. Appl. Sci. 2023;13:12849. doi: 10.3390/app132312849. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zimmermann P., Moser O., Edelmann F., Schöffl V., Eckstein M.L., Braun M. Electrical and structural adaption of athlete’s heart and the impact on training and recovery management in professional basketball players: A retrospective observational study. Front. Physiol. 2022;13:739753. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.739753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Morrison M., Martin D.T., Talpey S., Scanlan A.T., Delaney J., Halson S.L., Weakley J. A systematic review on fitness testing in adult male basketball players: Tests adopted, characteristics reported and recommendations for practice. Sports Med. 2022;52:1491–1532. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01626-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guimarães E., Baxter-Jones A.D.G., Williams A.M., Tavares F., Janeira M.A., Maia J. The effects of body size and training environment on the physical performance of adolescent basketball players: The INEX study. Ann. Hum. Biol. 2023;50:26–34. doi: 10.1080/03014460.2023.2169759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hassan A.K., Bursais A.K., Alibrahim M.S., Selim H.S., Abdelwahab A.M., Hammad B.E. The impact of core complex training on some basketball-related aspects of physical strength and shooting performance. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023;13:1624–1644. doi: 10.3390/ejihpe13090118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ramirez-Campillo R., García-Hermoso A., Moran J., Chaabene H., Negra Y., Scanlan A.T. The effects of plyometric jump training on physical fitness attributes in basketball players: A meta-analysis. J. Sport Health Sci. 2022;11:656–670. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.12.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Han M., Gómez-Ruano M.A., Calvo A.L., Calvo J.L. Basketball talent identification: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the anthropometric, physiological and physical performance factors. Front. Sports Act. Living. 2023;5:1264872. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1264872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sansone P., Makivic B., Csapo R., Hume P., Martínez-Rodríguez A., Bauer P. Body fat of basketball players: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. Open. 2022;8:26. doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00418-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.de Moraes A.M., Vidal-Espinoza R., Bergamo R.R., Gómez-Campos R., de Lazari E., de Campos L.F.C.C., Sulla-Torres J., Cossio-Bolaños M. Prediction of fat-free mass from body surface area in young basketball players. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2024;16:65. doi: 10.1186/s13102-024-00857-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rismayadi A., Purnamasari I., Novan N., Firdaus I., Novian G. Differences in physical conditions for each playing position in basketball athletes. J. Phys. Educ. Sport. 2023;23:844–849. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hernandez-Martinez J., Perez-Carcamo J., Coñapi-Union B., Canales-Canales S., Negron-Molina M., Avila-Valencia S., Cid-Calfucura I., Herrera-Valenzuela T., Cisterna D., Branco B.H.M., et al. Relationship between body composition and physical performance by sex in professional basketball players. Appl. Sci. 2024;14:9165. doi: 10.3390/app14209165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Toro-Román V., Grijota F.J., Muñoz D., Maynar-Mariño M., Clemente-Gil S., Robles-Gil M.C. Anthropometry, body composition, and physical fitness in semi-professional soccer players: Differences between sexes and playing position. Appl. Sci. 2023;13:1249. doi: 10.3390/app13031249. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhao Q., Wang Y., Niu Y., Liu S. Jumping rope improves the physical fitness of preadolescents aged 10–12 Years: A meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2023;22:367–380. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2023.367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Čaušević D., Čović N., Abazović E., Rni B., Manolache G.M., Ciocan C.V., Zaharia G., Alexe D.I. Predictors of speed and agility in youth male basketball players. Appl. Sci. 2023;13:7796. doi: 10.3390/app13137796. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Harriss D.J., Atkinson G. Update–Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research. Int. J. Sports Med. 2011;32:819–821. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1287829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jain M., Saber A.Y. StatPearls [Internet] StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island, FL, USA: 2024. Dwarfism. 2023 June 24. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vasold K.L., Parks A.C., Phelan D.M.L., Pontifex M.B., Pivarnik J.M. Reliability and validity of commercially available low-cost bioelectrical impedance analysis. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2019;29:406–410. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2018-0283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jones P.R., Pearson J. Anthropometric determination of leg fat and muscle plus bone volumes in young male and female adults. J. Physiol. 1969;204:63–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Komi P.V., Bosco C. Utilization of stored elastic energy in leg extensor muscles by men and women. Med. Sci. Sports. 1978;10:261–265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bouhlel E., Bouhlel H., Chelly M., Tabka Z. Relationship between maximal anaerobic power measured by force-velocity test and performance in the counter movement jump and in the 5-jump test in moderately trained boys. Sci. Sports. 2006;21:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.scispo.2005.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Opplert J., Babault N. Acute Effects of dynamic stretching on muscle flexibility and performance: An analysis of the current literature. Sports Med. 2018;48:299–325. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0797-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Baltaci G., Un N., Tunay V., Besler A., Gerçeker S. Comparison of three different sit and reach tests for measurement of hamstring flexibility in female university students. Br. J. Sports Med. 2003;37:59–61. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.37.1.59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sassi R.H., Dardouri W., Yahmed M.H., Gmada N., Mahfoudhi M.E., Gharbi Z. Relative and absolute reliability of a modified agility T-test and its relationship with vertical jump and straight sprint. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009;23:1644–1651. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b425d2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Léger L.A., Lambert J. A maximal multistage 20-m shuttle run test to predict VO2 max. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1982;49:1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF00428958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Léger L., Lambert J., Goulet A., Rowan C., Dinelle Y. Aerobic capacity of 6 to 17-year-old Quebecois-20 meter shuttle run test with 1 minute stages. Can. J. Appl. Sport Sci. 1984;9:64–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gryko K., Adamczyk J.G., Kopiczko A., Calvo J.L., Calvo A.L., Mikołajec K. Does predicted age at peak height velocity explain physical performance in U13-15 basketball female players? BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2022;14:21. doi: 10.1186/s13102-022-00414-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aouichaoui C., Krichen S., Tounsi M., Ammar A., Tabka O., Chatti S., Zaouali M., Zouch M., Trabelsi Y. Reference values of physical performance in handball players aged 13-19 Years: Taking into account their biological maturity. Clin. Pract. 2024;14:305–326. doi: 10.3390/clinpract14010024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tounsi M., Aouichaoui C., Tabka Z., Trabelsi Y. Specific physical performances among male elite youth soccer players: Effect of maturity status. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2021;61:1339–1347. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.21.11766-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Carabulea G., Bughi S., Klepsch I., Eşanu C. Circulating FSH, LH, GH, testosterone, TSH, T3, T4, prolactin and insulin in boys during puberty. Endocrinologie. 1980;18:109–114. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rogol A.D., Clark P.A., Roemmich J.N. Growth and pubertal development in children and adolescents: Effects of diet and physical activity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;72((Suppl. S2)):521s–528s. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/72.2.521S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hills A.P., Byrne N.M. An overview of physical growth and maturation. Med. Sport Sci. 2010;55:1–13. doi: 10.1159/000321968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Oyovwi Mega O., Ben-Azu B., Ovuakporaye Irikefe S., Onome Bright O., Emojevwe V., Falajiki Y.F., Patrick Godwin O., Rotu Arientare R., Okoro Ogheneyebrorue G., Nwangwa Eze K. Testosterone: The Male Sex Hormone. In: Hirokazu D., editor. Testosterone. IntechOpen; Rijeka, Croatia: 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nokoff N.J., Senefeld J., Krausz C., Hunter S., Joyner M. Sex differences in athletic performance: Perspectives on transgender athletes. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2023;51:85–95. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kwarteng E.A., Shank L.M., Faulkner L.M., Loch L.K., Fatima S., Gupta S., Haynes H.E., Ballenger K.L., Parker M.N., Brady S.M., et al. Influence of puberty on relationships between body composition and blood pressure: A cross-sectional study. Pediatr. Res. 2023;94:781–788. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02503-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiménez-Daza P., Teba Del Pino L., Calleja-Gonzalez J., Sáez de Villarreal E. Maturity offset, anthropometric characteristics and vertical force-velocity profile in youth basketball players. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023;8:160. doi: 10.3390/jfmk8040160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hunter S.K., Angadi S.S., Bhargava A., Harper J., Hirschberg A.L., Levine B.D., Moreau K.L., Nokoff N.J., Stachenfeld N.S., Bermon S. The Biological basis of sex differences in athletic performance: Consensus statement for the american college of sports medicine. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2023;55:2328–2360. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bchini S., Hammami N., Selmi T., Zalleg D., Bouassida A. Influence of muscle volume on jumping performance in healthy male and female youth and young adults. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023;15:26. doi: 10.1186/s13102-023-00639-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Aouichaoui C., Trabelsi Y., Bouhlel E., Tabka Z., Dogui M., Richalet J.P., Buvry A.B. The relative contributions of anthropometric variables to vertical jumping ability and leg power in Tunisian children. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012;26:777–788. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822a61a2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zarić I., Kukić F., Jovićević N., Zarić M., Marković M., Toskić L., Dopsaj M. Body height of elite basketball players: Do taller basketball teams rank better at the FIBA World Cup? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:3141. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cui Y., Liu F., Bao D., Liu H., Zhang S., Gómez M. Key anthropometric and physical determinants for different playing positions during national basketball association draft combine test. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:2359. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Correas-Gómez L., Benítez-Flores S., Calleja-González J., Carnero E.A. Quality of lean body mass and jump capacity in high performance young basketball players lean body mass and jump capacity. J. Sports Sci. 2023;41:1667–1677. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2291294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lesinski M., Schmelcher A., Herz M., Puta C., Gabriel H., Arampatzis A., Laube G., Büsch D., Granacher U. Maturation-, age-, and sex-specific anthropometric and physical fitness percentiles of German elite young athletes. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0237423. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhang F., Bi C., Yin X., Chen Q., Li Y., Liu Y., Zhang T., Li M., Sun Y., Yang X. Physical fitness reference standards for Chinese children and adolescents. Sci. Rep. 2021;2:4991. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84634-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ma N., Dang J., Liu Y., Zhong P., Yan X., Zhang J., Dong Y., Song Y., Ma J., Lau P.W.C. Percentile curves for multiple physical fitness components among Chinese Han children and adolescents aged 7–18 years from a national survey based on the total and the normal weight population. Front. Nutr. 2022;8:770349. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.770349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rinaldo N., Toselli S., Gualdi-Russo E., Zedda N., Zaccagni L. Effects of anthropometric growth and basketball experience on physical performance in pre-adolescent male players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:2196. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Tingelstad L., Raastad T., Till K., Luteberget L. The development of physical characteristics in adolescent team sport athletes: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0296181. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tounsi M., Aouichaoui C., Elloumi M., Dogui M., Tabka Z., Trabelsi Y. Reference values of vertical jumping performances in healthy Tunisian adolescent. Ann. Hum. Biol. 2015;42:116–124. doi: 10.3109/03014460.2014.926989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Aouichaoui C., Tounsi M., Mrizak I., Tabka Z., Trabelsi Y. Reference values of vertical jumping performances and anthropometric characteristics in trained adolescents. Sci. Sports. 2018;33:e59–e74. doi: 10.1016/j.scispo.2017.09.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Flórez Gil E., Vaquera A., Ramírez-Campillo R., Sanchez-Sanchez J., Rodríguez Fernández A. Can complex training improve acute and long-lasting performance in basketball players? A systematic review. Appl. Sci. 2024;14:6839. doi: 10.3390/app14156839. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Articles from Children are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES