Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives:

To establish the discriminant validity of the athletic ability assessment in elite Australian rules football. Secondarily, to examine the association between athletic ability assessment and maximum running velocity extracted from elite Australian rules football game-play.

Methods:

To establish the discriminant validity of the athletic ability assessment, 43 Australian Football League players from one club were split into two groups based upon playing status; ‘starters’ (n = 17; selected in 50% of the first 10 games of the Australian Football League season), ‘non-starters’ (n = 26; not selected in 50% of the first 10 games of the Australian Football League season). Each group performed a modified version of the athletic ability assessment consisting of five foundational athletic movements. An independent-sampled t-test modelled the effect of player group (starters; non-starters) on the total score and for each individual exercise. Pearson product moment correlation was also conducted to establish the association between maximum running velocity and athletic ability assessment.

Results:

The starters attained a significantly greater total mean score on the athletic ability assessment (d = 1.04, p < 0.05), overhead squat (d = 0.96, p < 0.05), double lunge left (d = 0.64, p < 0.05), single leg Romanian deadlift left (d = 1.19, p < 0.05) and right single leg Romanian dead lift (d = 0.79, p < 0.05) relative to the non-starters. Also noted were moderate, positive correlations between maximum running velocity and athletic ability assessment (r = 0.31–0.46; p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

The results support the use of the athletic ability assessment to measure movement competency in elite Australian rules football. Accordingly, physical development coaches may consider its integration in high-performance training programs.

Keywords

Athlete movement competency functional movement screen

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bilsborough

et al.

Comparison of anthropometry, upper-body strength, and lower-body power characteristics in different levels of Australian football players. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 826–834.

Coutts

et al.

Metabolic power and energetic costs of professional Australian football match-play. J Sci Med Sport 2015; 18: 219–224.

Sullivan

et al.

Factors affecting match performance in professional Australian football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2014; 9: 561–566.

McKeown

. Power development and movement ability in junior athletes, Canberra, Australia: University of Canberra, 2013.

Woods

et al.

Comparison of athletic movement between elite junior and senior Australian football players. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1260–1265.

Lundgren

et al.

Athletic movement competency is related to general athletic performance variables and surfing performance. J Aust Strength Cond 2014; 22: 80–83.

Parsonage

et al.

Assessment of conditioning-specific movement tasks and physical fitness measures in talent identified under 16-year-old rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 1497–1506.

Lang

Light

. Interpreting and implementing the long term athlete development model: English swimming coaches' views on the (swimming) LTAD in practice. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 389–402.

Cook

Burton

Hoogenboom

. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function – part 1. North Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006; 1: 62.

10.

McKeown

Ball

. Current practices of long term athlete development of junior athletes in high performance sport environments. J Aust Strength Cond 2013; 21: 4–12.

11.

Gribble

et al.

Intrarater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 978–981.

12.

Onate

et al.

Real-time intersession and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 408–415.

13.

Smith

et al.

Interrater and intrarater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 982–987.

14.

Teyhen

et al.

The functional movement screen: a reliability study. J Orthopaed Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42: 530–540.

15.

Lockie

et al.

Can selected functional movement screen assessments be used to identify movement deficiencies that could affect multidirectional speed and jump performance?

J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 195–205.

16.

McKeown

et al.

Athletic ability assessment: a movement assessment protocol for developing athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014; 9: 862–873.

17.

Conlon

. The relationship between the functional movement screen™ and countermovement jump height, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, 2013.

18.

Fox

O’Malley

Blake

. Normative data for the functional movement screen™ in male Gaelic field sports. Phys Ther Sport 2014; 15: 194–199.

19.

Parchmann

McBride

. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 3378–3384.

20.

Burgess

Naughton

Hopkins

. Draft-camp predictors of subsequent career success in the Australian football league. J Sci Med Sport 2012; 15: 561–567.

21.

Young

Grace

Talpey

. Association between leg power and sprinting technique with 20-m sprint performance in elite junior Australian football players. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2014; 9: 1153–1160.

22.

Young

Pryor

. Relationship between pre-season anthropometric and fitness measures and indicators of playing performance in elite junior Australian Rules football. J Sci Med Sport 2007; 10: 110–118.

23.

Young

et al.

Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of starters and non-starters and playing positions in elite Australian Rules football: a case study. J Sci Med Sport 2005; 8: 333–345.

24.

Frost

et al.

FMS scores change with performers' knowledge of the grading criteria – are general whole-body movement screens capturing “dysfunction”?

J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 3037–3044.

25.

Rogers DK, et al. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the athletic ability assessment in sub-elite Australian Rules football players. J Strength Cond Res. Epub ahead of print

26.

Hopkins

. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance test. Sportscience 2004; 8: 1–7.

27.

Kelly, K. The MBSS R package, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MBESS/MBESS (2016, accessed 25 September 2017).

28.

Butler

et al.

Biomechanical analysis of the different classifications of the functional movement screen deep squat test. Sports Biomech 2010; 9: 270–279.

29.

Woods

et al.

The association between fundamental athletic movements and physical fitness in elite junior Australian footballers. J Sports Sci 2017; 35: 1–6.

30.

Mero

Komi

Gregor

. Biomechanics of sprint running. A review. Sports Med 1992; 13: 376–392.

31.

Spencer

Robertson

Morgan

. Modelling within-team relative phase couplings using position derivatives in Australian rules football. Math Comput Modell Dynam Syst 2017; 23: 1–12.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

A preliminary investigation into the discriminant and ecological validity of the athletic ability assessment in elite Australian rules football

Abstract

Objectives:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material