Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Sports Medicine logoLink to British Journal of Sports Medicine
. 2004 Dec;38(6):784–789. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.012229

A simple multistage field test for the prediction of anaerobic capacity in female games players

S Cooper 1, J Baker 1, Z Eaton 1, N Matthews 1
PMCID: PMC1724973  PMID: 15562181

Abstract

Objective: To establish the validity of a 15 m multistage shuttle run test (MSRT) as a predictor of anaerobic capacity (expressed as mean power output (MPO) from the 30 second Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT)) in female university standard games players.

Methods: Data came from three phases using a total of 72 players (mean (SD) age 20.3 (1.5) years, body mass 64.9 (8.8) kg, and stature 1.67 (0.04) m). The repeatability of the MSRT was assessed in phase 1 by applying 95% limits of agreement (LoA) to the test and retest results from a random sample of 20 players. In phase 2, linear relations between MPO and performance on the MSRT were investigated in a random sample of 36 players. As a result, a calibration model (Y = a + bX) was developed and cross validated in phase 3, in which the remaining 36 players performed both the WAnT and the MSRT. Time (seconds) to volitional exhaustion/disqualification from the MSRT was substituted into the calibration model from which MPO was predicted. The agreement between MPO predicted and MPO measured from the WAnT was quantified using LoA.

Results: Insignificant bias between repeat applications of the MSRT (meandiff (SDdiff) = 1.0 (3.5) seconds (4 (14) m), t = 1.23, p = 0.230) was found from phase 1. Data were homoscedastic (r = 0.061, p = 0.799) with LoA ± 6.9 seconds (± 27 m). In phase 2 the strongest correlation was between MPO (W/kg0.67) and time to volitional exhaustion/disqualification on the MSRT; r = 0.715 (r2 = 51.1%, p = 0.0005). As a result, the calibration model developed was: MPO (W/kg0.67) = 12.5 + (0.2 x time (seconds)) with a standard error of prediction of 2.1 W/kg0.67. The cross validation in phase 3 showed insignificant bias between measured and predicted MPO (meandiff (SDdiff) = 0.3 (2.8) W/kg0.67, t = 0.75, p = 0.460). Data were homoscedastic (r = 0.05, p = 0.774) with LoA ± 5.5 W/kg0.67.

Conclusions: The MSRT requires minimal equipment and training of assessors, and it is easy to perform. In the population studied, it provides scores that are repeatable, and anaerobic capacity (MPO) can be successfully predicted from its performance. It would seem therefore to be a useful field based test for use by female games players, their coaches, and support scientists.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (98.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Atkinson G., Nevill A. M. Selected issues in the design and analysis of sport performance research. J Sports Sci. 2001 Oct;19(10):811–827. doi: 10.1080/026404101317015447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson G., Nevill A. M. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998 Oct;26(4):217–238. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker J., Ramsbottom R., Hazeldine R. Maximal shuttle running over 40 m as a measure of anaerobic performance. Br J Sports Med. 1993 Dec;27(4):228–232. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.27.4.228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bangsbo J. Is the O2 deficit an accurate quantitative measure of the anaerobic energy production during intense exercise? J Appl Physiol (1985) 1992 Sep;73(3):1207–1209. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1992.73.3.1207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bar-Or O. The Wingate anaerobic test. An update on methodology, reliability and validity. Sports Med. 1987 Nov-Dec;4(6):381–394. doi: 10.2165/00007256-198704060-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates B. T., Zhang S., Dufek J. S., Chen F. C. The effects of sample size and variability on the correlation coefficient. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996 Mar;28(3):386–391. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199603000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Davis J. A., Brewer J. Applied physiology of female soccer players. Sports Med. 1993 Sep;16(3):180–189. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199316030-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Green S., Dawson B. Measurement of anaerobic capacities in humans. Definitions, limitations and unsolved problems. Sports Med. 1993 May;15(5):312–327. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199315050-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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):1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF00428958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Léger L. A., Mercier D., Gadoury C., Lambert J. The multistage 20 metre shuttle run test for aerobic fitness. J Sports Sci. 1988 Summer;6(2):93–101. doi: 10.1080/02640418808729800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Maxwell N. S., Nimmo M. A. Anaerobic capacity: a maximal anaerobic running test versus the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit. Can J Appl Physiol. 1996 Feb;21(1):35–47. doi: 10.1139/h96-004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Medbø J. I., Mohn A. C., Tabata I., Bahr R., Vaage O., Sejersted O. M. Anaerobic capacity determined by maximal accumulated O2 deficit. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1988 Jan;64(1):50–60. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1988.64.1.50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Medbø J. I., Tabata I. Relative importance of aerobic and anaerobic energy release during short-lasting exhausting bicycle exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1989 Nov;67(5):1881–1886. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1989.67.5.1881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nevill A. M., Atkinson G. Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science. Br J Sports Med. 1997 Dec;31(4):314–318. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.31.4.314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nevill A. Validity and measurement agreement in sports performance. J Sports Sci. 1996 Jun;14(3):199–199. doi: 10.1080/02640419608727704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Patton J. F., Kraemer W. J., Knuttgen H. G., Harman E. A. Factors in maximal power production and in exercise endurance relative to maximal power. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;60(3):222–227. doi: 10.1007/BF00839163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ramsbottom R., Brewer J., Williams C. A progressive shuttle run test to estimate maximal oxygen uptake. Br J Sports Med. 1988 Dec;22(4):141–144. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.22.4.141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ramsbottom R., Nevill M. E., Nevill A. M., Hazeldine R. Accumulated oxygen deficit and shuttle run performance in physically active men and women. J Sports Sci. 1997 Apr;15(2):207–214. doi: 10.1080/026404197367489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Scott C. B., Roby F. B., Lohman T. G., Bunt J. C. The maximally accumulated oxygen deficit as an indicator of anaerobic capacity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991 May;23(5):618–624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Sports Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES