Relationships between the handball-specific complex test, non-specific field tests and the match performance score in elite professional handball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the validity of the handball-specific complex test (HBCT) and two non-specific field tests in professional elite handball athletes, using the match performance score (MPS) as the gold standard of performance. METHODS: Thirteen elite male handball players (age: 27.4±4.8 years; premier German league) performed the HBCT, the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery (YYIR) test and a repeated shuttle sprint ability (RSA) test at the beginning of pre-season training. The RSA results were evaluated in terms of best time, total time, and fatigue decrement. Heart rates (HR) were assessed at selected times throughout all tests; the recovery HR was measured immediately post-test and 10 minutes later. The match performance score was based on various handball specific parameters (e.g., field goals, assists, steals, blocks, and technical mistakes) as seen during all matches of the immediately subsequent season (2015/2016). RESULTS: The parameters of run 1, run 2, and HR recovery at minutes 6 and 10 of the RSA test all showed a variance of more than 10% (range: 11-15%). However, the variance of scores for the YYIR test was much smaller (range: 1-7%). The resting HR (r2=0.18), HR recovery at minute 10 (r2=0.10), lactate concentration at rest (r2=0.17), recovery of heart rate from 0 to 10 minutes (r2=0.15), and velocity of second throw at first trial (r2=0.37) were the most valid HBCT parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Much effort is necessary to assess MPS and to develop valid tests. Speed and the rate of functional recovery seem the best predictors of competitive performance for elite handball players.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".