Search

Maximum running speed is a performance determinant in para-athletics and cerebral palsy football. Sixty international para-athletes with brain impairments completed five activity-limitation tests (standing broad jump, four bounds for distance, split jumps, 10-m speed skip, and running in place) and two criterion tests (40-m sprint and modified agility test). The same three tests (standing broad jump, four bounds for distance, and 10-m speed skip) that correlated with running performance in nondisabled runners (.67 < r < -.82; p < .05; 75% of variance) also correlated in para-athletes with brain impairments (.41 < r < -.62; p < .01; 55% of variance). Standing broad jump, four bounds for distance, split jumps, and running in place also correlated with change-of-direction speed (.43 < r < -.63; p < .01; 58% of variance). Results indicate that methods of classification for para-athletics with nondisabled runners are also valid with para-athletes with brain impairments, and new sport-specific relationships were found for assessing the performance of rapid and short sprints toward different directions, specific of a team para-sport like cerebral palsy football.

Background: The Para athletics wheelchair-racing classification system employs best practice to ensure that classes comprise athletes whose impairments cause a comparable degree of activity limitation. However, decision-making is largely subjective and scientific evidence which reduces this subjectivity is required., Aim: To evaluate whether isometric strength tests were valid for the purposes of classifying wheelchair racers and whether cluster analysis of the strength measures produced a valid classification structure., Methods: Thirty-two international level, male wheelchair racers from classes T51-54 completed six isometric strength tests evaluating elbow extensors, shoulder flexors, trunk flexors and forearm pronators and two wheelchair performance tests-Top-Speed (0-15 m) and Top-Speed (absolute). Strength tests significantly correlated with wheelchair performance were included in a cluster analysis and the validity of the resulting clusters was assessed., Results: All six strength tests correlated with performance (r=0.54-0.88). Cluster analysis yielded four clusters with reasonable overall structure (mean silhouette coefficient=0.58) and large intercluster strength differences. Six athletes (19%) were allocated to clusters that did not align with their current class. While the mean wheelchair racing performance of the resulting clusters was unequivocally hierarchical, the mean performance of current classes was not, with no difference between current classes T53 and T54., Conclusions: Cluster analysis of isometric strength tests produced classes comprising athletes who experienced a similar degree of activity limitation. The strength tests reported can provide the basis for a new, more transparent, less subjective wheelchair racing classification system, pending replication of these findings in a larger, representative sample. This paper also provides guidance for development of evidence-based systems in other Para sports., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: Classification in Paralympic Sport aims to minimize the impact of 10 eligible types of impairment on the outcome of competition. Methods for assessing the extent to which a given body structure or function has been impaired are required, but are challenging because it is not possible to directly measure an absence or loss. Rather, impairment must be inferred by measurement of extant body structures or functions., Methods: This manuscript reviews the literature concerning the assessment of strength with the aim of identifying and describing the most appropriate method for inferring strength impairment in para-athletes., Results: It is posited that the most appropriate voluntary strength assessment method for inferring strength loss in para-athletes will be multi-joint, isometric tests performed at joint angles that facilitate maximum force production., Conclusions: Evidence suggests such methods will permit development of tests that are specific to a variety of para-sports and which are reliable, ratio-scaled, and resistant to training. Future research should: develop sport-specific tests which are suitable for assessment of athletes with strength impairments of variable severity and distribution; and scientifically evaluate the extent to which such tests permit strength impairment to be validly inferred, including specific evaluation of the extent to which such measures respond to athletic training., (Copyright © 2016 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Development of evidence-based methods of Paralympic classification requires research quantifying the relative strength of association between ratio-scaled measures of impairment and athletic performance. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent to which muscle strength affects running performance in runners with and without brain impairment., Design: Cross-sectional study., Methods: Participants were 41 male runners: 13 with brain impairments (RBI) and 28 non-disabled (NDR). All participants completed a maximal 60-m sprint and a novel battery of three lower limb isometric strength tests., Results: RBI showed significantly lower strength scores compared with NDR on the more affected side in leg flexion (176 vs. 243 N), leg extension (993 vs. 1661 N) and plantarflexion (824  vs. 1457 N). Significant differences were also seen on the less affected side in plantarflexion (1072 vs. 1508 N). RBI were significantly slower in the acceleration phase (0-15 m) (3.2 s ± 0.3 vs. 2.8 s ± 0.2) and top speed phase (30-60 m) (4.3 s ± 0.6 vs. 3.8 s ± 0.3). Correlation analysis showed stronger relationships between strength and running performance in RBI than NDR; however, the correlations were not significant., Conclusions: This study evaluated measures to assess strength for the purposes of classification and found that the measures were significantly different in RBI compared with NDR indicating the tests were able to capture strength impairment in this population. This study indicates that strength may be an important impairment type to assess in this population, as impairments of muscle strength may influence the outcome of running performance in athletes with more severe impairments.

Introduction: Development of evidence-based methods of paralympic classification requires research quantifying the relative strength of association between ratio-scaled measures of impairment and sports performance. To date, no such research has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent to which range of movement (ROM) and coordination affect running performance in runners with and without brain impairment., Methods: Participants were 41 male runners, 13 with brain impairments (RBI) and 28 nondisabled (NDR). All participants completed a maximal 60-m sprint as well as a novel battery of five lower limb ROM tests and three lower limb coordination tests., Results: In the coordination tests, RBI showed significantly slower mean movement times compared to NDR on all measures (e.g., 0.54 s ± 0.12 s vs 0.34 s ± 0.05 s). Runners with brain impairments had significantly lower range of movement on five of ten measures (e.g., 25.9° ± 5.4° vs 37.0° ± 6.0°) and had significantly slower acceleration (0-15 m) (3.2 s ± 0.3 s vs 2.8 s ± 0.2 s) and top speed (30-60 m) (4.3 s ± 0.6 s vs 3.8 s ± 0.3 s). Five ROM measures significantly correlated with sprint performance in RBI and did not significantly correlate with sprint performance in NDR, satisfying convergent and divergent validity criteria. These individual tests explained 38% to 58% of the variance in sprint performance in RBI., Conclusion: This is the first study to quantify the extent to which eligible impairments affect performance in a paralympic sport. Five of the ROM measures significantly affected sprint performance in RBI and were deemed valid for the purposes of classifying impairments in classes T35-T38. This study is an important methodological step toward development of evidence-based methods of classifying impairments in classes T35-T38 and provides practical methodological guidance to researchers in this field.

Paralympic throwing events for athletes with physical impairments comprise seated and standing javelin, shot put, discus and seated club throwing. Identification of talented throwers would enable prediction of future success and promote participation; however, a valid and reliable talent identification battery for Paralympic throwing has not been reported. This study evaluates the reliability and validity of a talent identification battery for Paralympic throws. Participants were non-disabled so that impairment would not confound analyses, and results would provide an indication of normative performance. Twenty-eight non-disabled participants (13 M; 15 F) aged 23.6 years (±5.44) performed five kinematically distinct criterion throws (three seated, two standing) and nine talent identification tests (three anthropometric, six motor); 23 were tested a second time to evaluate test-retest reliability. Talent identification test-retest reliability was evaluated using Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots (Limits of Agreement). Spearman's correlation assessed strength of association between criterion throws and talent identification tests. Reliability was generally acceptable (mean ICC = 0.89), but two seated talent identification tests require more extensive familiarisation. Correlation strength (mean rs = 0.76) indicated that the talent identification tests can be used to validly identify individuals with competitively advantageous attributes for each of the five kinematically distinct throwing activities. Results facilitate further research in this understudied area.

Objective: To classify Paralympic athletes, classifiers use test batteries to obtain an objective, pre-competition estimate of an athlete's training level. Five tests were evaluated to determine which combination explained the maximum variance in running performance in a non-disabled population. A non-disabled sample was required to permit psychometric evaluation of the tests without the confounding influence of impairment, and to provide an indication of normative performance., Design: Sixty-seven non-disabled participants (male and female; mean (SD) age 24.78 (6.53) years) completed a six-test battery comprising a 30 m sprint (criterion activity limitation test) and five supplementary activity limitation tests: standing broad jump, four bounds, 10 m skip, running in place and split jumps., Results: Test reliability was high for all tests (intraclass correlations = 0.80-0.99). Pearson correlations with the 30 m sprint were moderate to strong for standing broad jump (-0.82), four bounds (-0.80) and 10 m skip (0.67), but weaker for split jumps (0.35) and running in place (0.19). Multiple regression indicated that standing broad jump, four bounds and 10 m skip explained 75% of the variance in running performance., Conclusions: The test battery is reliable and valid in the non-disabled population and therefore has potential utility in Paralympic classification. Test results were normally distributed, a necessary prerequisite for meaningful interpretation of future studies in athletes with impairments. Further studies evaluating the battery in populations of athletes with impairments of coordination, strength and range of movement are now warranted.