Correlation Between Elite Women’s Wheelchair Basketball Skills Testing And Future Success In The Sport
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Wheelchair basketball practices are built around developing technical and tactical skills required in game situations. To assess performance of these skills, testing protocols have been developed. This allows both player and coach to determine improvements. However, does achieving high scores on skills tests translate to success on the basketball court during competition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the relationship between skills test results and performance during competition as determined by the average efficiency scores. METHODS: In April, 2013, 25 female wheelchair basketball players were invited to compete for positions on the 2014 National Wheelchair Basketball Association (NWBA) Senior Women’s National Team. Skills tests were similar to those used at NWBA/PVA National Wheelchair Basketball Camps. Strength testing assessments were developed by a panel of NWBA Coaches with a history of National and International coaching experience. The results were then correlated with the box scores and player efficiency ratings obtained during the playoffs at the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF) Women’s World Wheelchair Basketball Championship in Toronto, June, 2014. The USA Women’s team was divided into two groups by classification (players with functional classifications of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 represented Group 1 and players with functional classification of 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 represented Group 2) for analysis. RESULTS: Player efficiency was differentially related to skills tests based on player classification. Among Group 1 players, higher player efficiency ratings during the World Championship games corresponded directly with better non-dominant passing (accuracy r = .95, p = .05; stationary distance r = 1.00, p < .001; moving distance r = 1.00, p < .001). In contrast, higher percentage of free throws was directly related to better player efficiency for the players in Group 2 (r = 1.00, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings may represent differential skill sets needed by lower and higher class players. Passing, in particular non-dominant passing skills, may give players with a lower classifications an advantage on the court; whereas, accuracy of free throws (and more opportunity) may be a skill that sets players with higher classification apart.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».