RESUMO
Movement competency (MC) development of high-school athletes can prepare them for the requirements of physical preparation training and the demands of sport. The aim of this study was to explore the physical effects of and athlete compliance to coach-led versus self-directed training approaches in this population. Thirty-nine high-school athletes (19 male, 14.5 ± 0.3 years old; 20 female, 14.6 ± 0.3 years) were allocated into two groups for a physical preparation program to improve MC. Groups were prescribed either (i) one face-to-face and one online (F2F, n = 18), or (ii) two online (OL, n = 21) sessions per week for 16-weeks. Before and after the intervention, the Athlete Introductory Movement Screen (AIMS) was used to assess MC alongside common physical capacity measures (triple-hop, star-excursion balance, medicine ball throw, 40m sprint and countermovement jump). Dropout left 22 participants with pre-post physical scores. Compliance with online training was low and F2F session attendance moderate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess participant perceptions following the intervention. Assessing individual responses, the F2F group had a higher proportion of positive responders to AIMS scores, yet capacity measures were inconclusive across groups. Face-to-face coaching when acquiring MCs as part of physical preparation, may provide greater positive perceptions towards training compared to self-directed online prescriptions, and thereby greater compliance.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: A novel 4-task Athlete Introductory Movement Screen was developed and tested to provide an appropriate and reliable movement screening tool for youth sport practitioners. METHODS: The overhead squat, lunge, push-up, and a prone brace with shoulder touches were selected based on previous assessments. A total of 28 mixed-sport junior athletes (18 boys and 10 girls; mean age = 15.7 [1.8] y) completed screening after viewing standardized demonstration videos. Athletes were filmed performing 8 repetitions of each task and assessed retrospectively by 2 independent raters using a 3-point scale. The primary rater reassessed the footage 3 weeks later. A subgroup (n = 11) repeated the screening 7 days later, and a further 8 athletes were reassessed 6 months later. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), typical error (TE), coefficient of variation (CV%), and weighted kappa (k) were used in reliability analysis. RESULTS: For the Athlete Introductory Movement Screen 4-task sum score, intrarater reliability was high (ICC = .97; CV = 2.8%), whereas interrater reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = .88; CV = 5.6%). There was a range of agreement from fair to almost perfect (k = .31-.89) between raters across individual movements. A 7-day and 6-month test-retest held good reliability and acceptable CVs (≤ 10%) for sum scores. CONCLUSION: The 4-task Athlete Introductory Movement Screen appears to be a reliable tool for profiling emerging athletes. Reliability was strongest within the same rater; it was lower, yet acceptable, between 2 raters. Scores can provide an overview of appropriate movement competencies, helping practitioners assess training interventions in the athlete development pathway.
