Test-retest reproducibility of a motor tests for paralympic boccia players

  • José Igor Oliveira Graduation in Physical Education. Student of the Graduate Program in Physical Education. Federal University of Pernambuco. Brazil.
  • Lúcia Inês Oliveira Master in Physical Education. Student of the Associated Graduate Program in Physical Education. Federal University of Pernambuco. Member of the Brazilian Paralympic Academy. Brazil.
  • Sidcley Arruda Graduation in Physical Education. Student of the Graduate Program in Physical Education. Federal University of Pernambuco. Brazil.
  • Saulo Melo Oliveira PhD in Physical Education. Professor of the Graduate Program in Physical Education. Academic Center of Vitória. Center for Physical Education and Sport Sciences. Federal University of Pernambuco. Member of the Brazilian Paralympic Academy. Brazil.
Keywords: Athletic performance, Disabled persons, Cerebral Palsy, Para-Athletes

Abstract

Objective: the paralympic boccia is a modality based on motor control, decision making and precision. Although there is an increase in the number of participants and in the performance presented by athletes in world events, unlike other paralympic sports, the modality does not yet have specific motor assessment protocols for practitioners. Our objective was to assemble and evaluate the reproducibility of a battery of tests to assess motor skills in the paralympic bocce ball.

Method: The selected tests considered characteristics relevant to the practice of the modality: a) hand coordination test; b) hand reaction time test; c) aerobic capacity test; and d) “eight” format agility test, chosen for practicality. Ten players participated in the battery application, being evaluated 7 days apart. The bias (Bland-Altman method), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (EPM) were determined.

Results: Data analysis revealed excellent stability characteristics of the measures ([hand coordination: bias = -3.700; ICC = 0.87; EPM = 5.53]; [hand reaction time: bias = -0.500; ICC = 0.99; EPM = 1.53]; [aerobic capacity: bias = 8.333; CCI = 0.98; EPM = 16.44]; [agility in the "eight" format: bias = 2.980; CCI = 0.93; EPM = 5.28]).

Conclusion: We recommend evaluations on other athletes in order to create normative standards based on the functional classes and the level of performance of the practitioners.

Published
2020-07-06
Section
Originals
Page/s
70-76