4.4 Article

NORMATIVE REFERENCE OF STANDING LONG JUMP FOR COLOMBIAN SCHOOLCHILDREN AGED 9-17.9 YEARS: THE FUPRECOL STUDY

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 2083-2090

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001633

关键词

field assessment; lower body; muscle power; percentile; normative data

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to generate normative values for the standing long jump (SLJ) test in 9-to 17.9-year olds and to investigate sex and age-group differences. The sample comprised 8,034 healthy Colombian schoolchildren [boys n = 3,488 and girls n = 4,546; mean (SD) age 12.8 (+/- 2.3) years old]. Each participant performed two SLJ. Centile smoothed curves, percentile, and tables for the third, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentiles were calculated using Cole's Lambda-Mu-Sigma method. The 2-way analysis of variance tests and Cohen's d showed that the maximum SLJ (centimeter) was higher in boys than in girls across age groups (p < 0.01), reaching the peak at 13 years. Posthoc analyses within the sexes showed yearly increases in SLJ in all ages. In boys, the 50th percentile SLJ score ranged from 109 to 165 cm. In girls, the 50th percentile jump ranged from 96 to 120 cm. For girls, jump scores increased yearly from age 9 to 12.9 years before reaching a plateau at an age between 13 and 15.9. Our results provide, for the first time, sex-and age-specific SLJ reference values for Colombian schoolchildren aged 9-17.9 years. The normative values presented in this study provide the basis for the determination of the proposed age-and sex-specific standards for the FUPRECOL (Association for Muscular Strength with Early Manifestation of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors Among Colombian Children and Adolescents) Study-Physical fitness battery for children and adolescents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据