Wragg C B, Maxwell N S, Doust J H
Chelsea School Research Centre, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, UK.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Sep;83(1):77-83. doi: 10.1007/s004210000246.
The reliability and validity of a soccer-specific field test of repeated sprint ability was assessed. Seven male games players performed the repeated sprint test on six separate occasions. The temporal pattern of the mean sprint time was analysed by using coefficient of variation with confidence intervals (CI), and repeated measures ANOVA. A within subject mean coefficient of variation of 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5-2.4) was found for performance in the repeated sprint test across all six trials. The mean coefficient of variation across trials 2-4 was found to be 1.9% (95% CI, 1.3-3.1), compared to trials 4-6, where it was 1.4% (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). The ANOVA showed that a significant difference was present between the trials (F6,30 9.8. P<0.001). A Tukey post-hoc test showed that significant differences were present between trial I and trials 3-6, and trial 2 and trial 5. The learning effect was complete by trial 3. Performance in the repeated sprint test was compared to total running time averaged from two repeats of the maximal anaerobic running test laboratory protocol. Mean sprint time in the repeated sprint test and total running time in the laboratory protocol had a correlation coefficient of r = -0.298 (P = 0.516, n = 7), suggesting that the energetics of the two tests are not closely related. In conclusion, this soccer-specific field test demonstrated high reliability.
对一项针对足球项目的重复冲刺能力场地测试的信度和效度进行了评估。七名男性足球运动员在六个不同场合进行了重复冲刺测试。通过使用带有置信区间（CI）的变异系数和重复测量方差分析来分析平均冲刺时间的时间模式。在所有六次测试中，重复冲刺测试成绩的受试者内平均变异系数为1.8%（95%CI，1.5 - 2.4）。发现第2 - 4次测试的平均变异系数为1.9%（95%CI，1.3 - 3.1），而第4 - 6次测试为1.4%（95%CI，1.0 - 2.3）。方差分析表明各测试之间存在显著差异（F6,30 = 9.8，P<0.001）。Tukey事后检验表明，第1次测试与第3 - 6次测试之间以及第2次测试与第5次测试之间存在显著差异。到第3次测试时学习效应已完成。将重复冲刺测试的成绩与最大无氧跑测试实验室方案两次重复的平均总跑步时间进行了比较。重复冲刺测试中的平均冲刺时间与实验室方案中的总跑步时间的相关系数为r = -0.298（P = 0.516，n = 7），这表明两项测试的能量学没有密切关系。总之，这项针对足球项目的场地测试显示出高信度。
