Relationships Between the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test and Anaerobic Performance Tests in Adolescent Handball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate relationships between a performance index derived from the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) and other measures of physical performance and skill in handball players. The other measures considered included peak muscular power of the lower limbs (Wpeak), jumping ability (squat and counter-movement jumps (SJ, CMJ), a handball skill test and the average sprinting velocities over the first step (VS) and the first 5 m (V5m). Test scores for 25 male national-level adolescent players (age: 17.2 ± 0.7 years) averaged 4.83 ± 0.34 m·s(-1) (maximal velocity reached at the Yo-Yo IR1); 917 ± 105 Watt, 12.7 ± 3 W·kg(-1) (Wpeak); 3.41 ± 0.5 m·s(-1) and 6.03 ± 0.6 m·s(-1) (sprint velocities for Vs and V5m respectively) and 10.3 ± 1 s (handball skill test). Yo-Yo IR1 test scores showed statistically significant correlations with all of the variables examined: Wpeak (W and W·kg(-1)) r = 0.80 and 0.65, respectively, p≤0.001); sprinting velocities (r = 0.73 and 0.71 for VS and V5m respectively; p≤0.001); jumping performance (SJ: r = 0.60, p≤0.001; CMJ: r= 0.66, p≤0.001) and the handball skill test (r = 0.71; p≤0.001). We concluded that the Yo-Yo test score showed a sufficient correlation with other potential means of assessing handball players, and that intra-individual changes of Yo-Yo IR1 score could provide a useful composite index of the response to training or rehabilitation, although correlations lack sufficient precision to help in players' selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".