Does Predicted Age At Peak Height Velocity Explain Physical Performance In U13-15 Basketball Female Players?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1117510/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Does Predicted Age At Peak Height Velocity Explain Physical Performance In U13-15 Basketball Female Players?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1117510/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 08 Feb, 2022

Read the published version in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: The aims of the study were (i) to identify the physical fitness and basic anthropometric characteristics of Polish female basketball players aged 13 to 15 years, (ii) to show the effect of maturity timing on the performance in motor tests and basic body composition parameters, (iii) to identify the index that contributes most to the prediction of performance in the tests of speed, jumping ability, agility, and endurance.

Methods: The sample included 925 female Polish players (U13-15). In part 1, maturity timing category distribution were examined within across age-groups. In part 2, the relationship between the anthropometric variables, physical fitness performance was assessed based on maturity timing categories (ANCOVA analysis). In part 3, backward stepwise multiple regression analyse quantified the relationship between maturity timing (group of PHV) and physical performance.

Results: ANCOVA results (age, body height, and body mass as covariates) showed in the U13 female basketball players significantly higher sprinting (20m), jumping ability and endurance tests results of the PHV1 group.Better results was observed in U14 female players in PHV1 compared to PHV2 and PHV3 in 20m and jumping tests but opposite trend was observed for 5m sprint and endurance test (distance covered and VO2_max). U15 basketball players from the PHV3 group were characterized by better results of jumping abilities, endurance, 10m and 20m sprint and agility (total, S₄) tests. Maturity timing (10m), chronological age (5 m, 20 m, agility, SVJ, VJ, and VO_2max tests), body height (10m), body mass (10m, 20m, VJ, VO_2max), and the interaction between body mass and height (SVJ) were significant (adjusted R² = 0.02-0.10; p < 0.001) predictors of motor skills.

Conclusion: The results can help the coaches to personalize training programs and to adapt the training content to the biological age of the players.

Physical Medicine & Rehab

Sports Medicine and Kinesiology

maturity timing

adolescent development

athletes

physical fitness

aptitude

Basketball is a sport characterized by intermittent high-intensity exercise [1,2], whereas optimal performance in basketball is achieved through a complex combination of technical and tactical skills and high physical fitness [3]. Athletes who train basketball, the need to analyze many variables such as physical and physiological attributes (body height, body mass, somatotype, body proportions, aerobic profile, strength, anaerobic power, agility, and speed) is emphasized [4]. Talent identification requires multifactorial analyses of several biological [5-7], functional, behavioural and perceptual variables [8] and those related to the training process [9]. Studies indicate the validity and necessity of taking into account chronological age and predicted age at peak height velocity (APHV) of basketball players to optimize the process of identifying gifted individuals [10].

Maturity status (early, on time, late, mature based on skeletal age, stage of puberty) refers to the state of biological maturation of an individual at the time of observation, whereas maturity timing refers to the ages when specific maturational events are attained (ages at peak height velocity and menarche) [11,12].

Among a large group of those willing to participate in the competitions in team sports, very few athletes reach the highest level of sports skills, while talent identification and qualification for a sport are based on broad criteria selected through scientific analysis [13]. Many studies have emphasized biological variability in sports for young athletes and emphasized it as one of the important aspects of talent identification and sports qualification process [14-17].

In recent years, studies of young basketball players have among others focused on the assessment of trends of anthropometric traits and physical performance [18], longitudinal changes of functional capacities [19], analyses of the effects of different training methods and protocols on power, speed, and anaerobic capacity [20-22]. Interactions between body size and composition in predicting basketball performance have also been considered [23]. These studies are often conducted independently of the maturation rate assessment and the interpretation of the performance of young athletes during adolescence is very important for coaching practice because results can be misinterpreted due to discrepancies between chronological age, biological age, and athletic age resulting from training experience [24].

From a somatic point of view, faster-maturing boys and girls are taller and heavier than their peers of the same chronological age, which gives them a huge advantage in sports involving physical contact. This variation is most noticeable between the ages of 11 and 16. Adolescence is the period in which these differences are more pronounced and the age of 13 to 16 years appears to be the most heterogeneous period [13,16,25].

As a factor affecting basketball-specific functional abilities and skills, the interindividual differences in biological maturation have not been regularly evaluated, especially in young female athletes. However, research findings indicate the relative age effect on the success of youth basketball teams [26-28]. Overrepresentation of athletes born in the first months of the year in all age groups has been shown [29]. Relatively older athletes are often characterized by greater body height, which is critical in basketball [30], and an advantage in motor skills, which may bias the assessment of fitness potential of players born in different quarters of the year [31,32]. The above correlations are most commonly reported in basketball players [30], while this effect has not been sufficiently studied in female basketball players to date. Sexual dimorphism underlies much of the physiological response to physical exercise. Physiological characteristics of girls change with age and puberty due to a different hormonal environment that begins early in fetal life [33]. Participation in an intensive training program for girls during the progressive stages of ontogenesis requires a great deal of knowledge from coaches regarding the functional abilities of young athletes in conjunction with taking care of their general health. In the case of basketball, the empirical findings on these issues are quite scarce [33]. Large differences between girls in terms of the time and pace of biological maturation can create difficulties in the correct interpretation of the rate of acquisition of individual motor and technical skills, and psychological preparation for sports competition [19].

Given the available research findings (very few concerning young female basketball players), there is a strong need for physical fitness testing in basketball on large research samples, especially to identify talents [34,35]. Therefore, testing was carried out to evaluate the motor potential and basic anthropometric characteristics of a very large population of young female players aged 13 to 15 years, who were members of Polish basketball clubs. The second study aim was to show the impact of maturity timing on the results of motor tests and basic body composition. The third aim was to identify the index that mostly affects the prediction of performance in the individual tests evaluating speed, jumping ability, agility, and endurance.

Participants

The study sample size was 925 female basketball players aged 13 years (n=277; age: 13.05±0.28; basketball experience: 3.0±0.8 yrs), 14 years (n=374; age: 13.95±0.30; basketball experience: 3.6±1.1 yrs), and 15 years (n=274; age: 14.82±0.28; basketball experience: 4.3±1.3 yrs). All examined athletes belonged to the Caucasian ethnic group. The players were female members of 49 sports clubs competing in the national championship in the age categories U13 and U15. The U14 girls also participated in the national championships at the club and regional competition levels. This group included female basketball players who were members of the national team in their age categories (U13, U14, U15). All girls at this training stage were characterized by a similar training volume (8 h 45 min per week - 3 technical training sessions, 1.5 h each, 3 strength and conditioning sessions, 45 min each, and 2 h a week playing games). The examinations were carried out in 2017-2020 during in regular season in the same periods of the year (from November to February) to complete the measurements before the play-off phase.

Procedure

All of the participants, legal guardians, clubs and Polish Basketball Association were informed in writing about the aims, benefits, and procedure of the research project, and about the possibility to withdraw from the study at any moment. The inclusion criterion was the written informed consent obtained from each participant, and the exclusion criteria were contraindications for the basic anthropometric measurements. Injuries or trauma were also the exclusion criteria. The research was approved by the local Ethics Committee for Scientific Research (SKE 01–28/2016), and the study was conducted according to the rules and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki [36].

Biological maturation

The APHV of the female basketball players analyzed in the study was estimated by subtracting the maturity offset from chronological age at the time of measurement [37]. The predicted maturity offset (years) was calculated as \(-7.709133 +\left(0.0042232 \text{x} \left[\text{a}\text{g}\text{e}*\text{s}\text{t}\text{a}\text{t}\text{u}\text{r}\text{e}\right]\right)\), with standard errors of the equations of 0.542 years [38]. This equation was derived after calibrating the original equation proposed by Mirwald et al. [37]. Early maturers, average maturers, and late maturers were defined as players with an estimated APHV of less than 13.1 years, 13.1-15.1 years, and more than 15.1 years, respectively [39]. Since the average maturers accounted for 97.7% of the basketball players, it was decided to analyze only this group. Due to very low numbers, eight early maturing U13 players, four U14 players (3 early maturers, 1 late maturer), and seven U15 players (6 early maturers, 1 late maturer) were excluded from the analysis. This was followed by grouping with respect to years before/after the observed PHV0 (-0.50 to 0.49), PHV1 (0.50 to 1.49), PHV2 (1.50 to 2.49), PHV3 (2.50 to 3.49) [39]. After this stage, the decision was made to exclude other two U13 female players from the analysis, who were the only female basketball players in the PHV0 group. Finally, 904 basketball players were considered for comparison.

Measurements

Body height (cm) was measured barefoot with the head positioned to the Frankfurt plane, using a stadiometer (Seca 264, Seca GmbH & co. kg, Germany) with a precision of 0.1 cm, as were standing reach measurements (Seca 216, Seca GmbH & co. kg, Germany). Body mass was measured using a JAWON Medical X-Scan Plus II device (Certificate No. EC0197 for medical devices) with a precision of 0.1 kg. The measurements were taken by an anthropometry expert who holds an ISAK Level 1 accreditation according to the standards proposed by the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) [40]. The basic anthropometric measurements and warm-up were followed by physical fitness tests performed each time in the same order (speed test, jumping ability test, agility test, endurance test). Fitness was evaluated in two stages: the morning session (to measure speed, jumping ability, and agility), and the evening session (measurements of endurance) so that adequate rest periods were maintained.

Speed

Speed was measured using a 20 m sprint test with a split time recorded at 5 m (starting speed) and 10 m, when players ran at full speed. Each participant performed two trials, with the best used as a test result [41]. The photoelectric cells Fusion Smart Speed System (Fusion Sport, Coopers Plains, QLD, Australia) were used to record time (s). The photocells were installed at the starting line, 5 m, 10 m, and 20 m. The time measurement was performed with an accuracy of 0.001 sec. Running started from the standing position, with the preferred foot positioned in front. No bouncing and backward movements were allowed before the sprint.

Jumping

The results of both standing jump (SVJ) and the a vertical jump (VJ) were measured using a yardstick vertical jump device [42-45]. The device is used to measure the height to which a player can push away small sticks placed horizontally on a pole during a jump. Reaching height was subtracted from the height reached while jumping. The first step was to perform 2 standing jump tests. Next, the player had 6 attempts (2 jumps with the dominant leg, 2 with the non-dominant leg, and 2 with both legs), with sufficient rests between jumps. The highest attempt scores were retained for analysis. This VJ protocol has established reliability [42-45].

Agility

The design of the agility test is presented in Figure 1. This is a modified Lane Agility Drill [46] test, with the length and width changed to 6x6 m to ensure that the proportions between defensive shuffle and sprint were identical. The position of the photocell at the change of direction line was 1 m from the line. The test was repeated twice, and a 10-minute rest break was administered to minimize fatigue. Before the test, the participant was familiarized with the procedures by performing a trial (pre-test). The best time achieved during the test was recorded for the analysis of the results.

Endurance

The Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) was used to evaluate endurance using a protocol presented in the literature [47, 48]. The total distance covered (m) during Yo-Yo IR1 was the main measure of results and the maximum oxygen uptake (VO₂max) calculated according to the formula: VO₂max = IR distance (m) x 0.0084 + 36.4 [48].

Statistical Analysis

The normality of distribution was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test, whereas the assumption of the equality of variance was verified using the Levene test. The reliability coefficient for the measurements was Cronbach’s α = 0.91. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to show significant differences between the groups of female basketball players. Furthermore, ANCOVA analysis was used to demonstrate the differences in years after observed APHV, with chronological age, height, and mass used as covariates. Bonferroni adjustments were made for post-hoc comparisons. The effect size was evaluated using partial eta squared (η²) and classified as: no effect = 0 to .039, minimum effect = .04 to .24, moderate effect = .25 to .63, and strong effect = ≥ .64 [49].

Backward stepwise multiple regression was used to estimate the relative contributions of chronological age, maturity timing (stage of APHV), body height, body mass, and height x mass interaction (based on residuals) to the variability of individual physical fitness tests. The significance of the effects was set at p<0.05 for all the analyses. All calculations were performed using STATISTICA software (v.13.3, StatSoft, USA).

When analyzing the variation of female basketball players with respect to age (Tab. 1) in the U13 group compared to U14 and U15, there were significantly (p<0.001) lower values of age at PHV (by 0.13/yrs and 0.38/yrs, respectively; F_(2,901)=72.1; η² = 0.14 - minimum effect), body height (1-2%; F_(2,901)=15. 6; η² = 0.03 - no effect), body mass (by 5.5% and 7.7%, respectively; F_(2,901)=21.2; η² = 0.05 - minimum effect) and arm reach (1-2%; F_(2,901)=8.8; η² = 0.02 - no effect). The U14 female basketball players were also characterized by lower (p<0.001) age at PHV (by 0.25/yrs) compared to U15 players.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of female basketball players by chronological age and results of ANOVA analysis comparing age groups
Variables		1. U13 (n=267)	2. U14 (n=370)	3. U15 (n=267)	F (p)	η²	d
Chronological age (years)	M	13.06	13.95	14.82	-	-	-
Chronological age (years)	S.E.	0.02	0.02	0.02	-	-	-
APHV (years)	M	11.65	11.78	12.03	72.1 (***)	0.14	1v2v3
APHV (years)	S.E.	0.02	0.02	0.02	72.1 (***)	0.14	1v2v3
Body height (cm)	M	165.3	167.7	167.8	15.6 (***)	0.03	1v2,3
Body height (cm)	S.E.	0.4	0.3	0.4	15.6 (***)	0.03	1v2,3
Body mass (kg)	M	55.0	58.2	59.6	21.2 (***)	0.05	1v2,3
Body mass (kg)	S.E.	0.5	0.4	0.5	21.2 (***)	0.05	1v2,3
Standing reach (cm)	M	220.6	223.5	223.3	8.8 (***)	0.02	1v2,3
Standing reach (cm)	S.E.	0.6	0.5	0.6	8.8 (***)	0.02	1v2,3
5 m (s)	M	1.243	1.221	1.205	4.6 (*)	0.01	1v3
5 m (s)	S.E.	0.011	0.007	0.005	4.6 (*)	0.01	1v3
10 m (s)	M	2.021	2.028	2.048	2.2	-	-
10 m (s)	S.E.	0.012	0.008	0.007	2.2	-	-
20 m (s)	M	3.585	3.551	3.539	5.8 (**)	0.01	1v3
20 m (s)	S.E.	0.01	0.008	0.011	5.8 (**)	0.01	1v3
Agility - S₁ (s)	M	1.653	1.671	1.677	0.65	-	-
Agility - S₁ (s)	S.E.	0.015	0.013	0.015	0.65	-	-
Agility - S₂ (s)	M	5.768	5.736	5.672	2.2	-	-
Agility - S₂ (s)	S.E.	0.033	0.027	0.034	2.2	-	-
Agility - S₃ (s)	M	7.677	7.601	7.499	6.3 (**)	0.01	1v3
Agility - S₃ (s)	S.E.	0.035	0.03	0.036	6.3 (**)	0.01	1v3
Agility - S₄ (s)	M	10.082	9.953	9.754	13.6 (***)	0.04	1,2v3
Agility - S₄ (s)	S.E.	0.045	0.04	0.043	13.6 (***)	0.04	1,2v3
Agility - S₅ (s)	M	13.678	13.471	13.272	9.3 (***)	0.02	1v3
Agility - S₅ (s)	S.E.	0.063	0.059	0.064	9.3 (***)	0.02	1v3
Agility - Total (s)	M	15.726	15.538	15.314	9.4 (***)	0.02	1,2v3
Agility - Total (s)	S.E.	0.068	0.059	0.062	9.4 (***)	0.02	1,2v3
SVJ_max (cm)	M	255.3	259.8	260.0	17.7 (***)	0.04	1v2,3
SVJ_max (cm)	S.E.	0.7	0.6	0.6	17.7 (***)	0.04	1v2,3
VJ_max (cm)	M	263.7	268.1	268.7	15.6 (***)	0.04	1v2,3
VJ_max (cm)	S.E.	0.7	0.6	0.7	15.6 (***)	0.04	1v2,3
SVJ (cm)	M	34.9	36.2	36.7	7.07 (**)	0.02	1v2,3
SVJ (cm)	S.E.	0.3	0.3	0.4	7.07 (**)	0.02	1v2,3
VJ (cm)	M	43.1	44.5	45.3	5.69 (**)	0.01	1v3
VJ (cm)	S.E.	0.5	0.4	0.5	5.69 (**)	0.01	1v3
Yo-Yo Distance (m)	M	736	826	852	8.8 (***)	0.02	1v2,3
Yo-Yo Distance (m)	S.E.	20	18	22	8.8 (***)	0.02	1v2,3
Yo-Yo VO_2max (ml/kg/min)	M	42.6	43.3	43.4	8.3 (***)	0.02	1v2,3
Yo-Yo VO_2max (ml/kg/min)	S.E.	0.2	0.1	0.2	8.3 (***)	0.02	1v2,3
Notes:
M – mean; S.E. – standard errors; SVJ – standing vertical jump; VJ – vertical jump; d - significant differences between groups;
* p < 0.05, p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001**

Furthermore, in the speed test, the U13 female players were slower than those from U15 group in 5m run test (by 3.1%; p<0.05; F_(2,901)=4.6; η² = 0.01 - no effect) and 20m run test (by 1.3%; p<0.01; F_(2,901)=5.8; η² = 0.01 - no effect). Analysis of the results of the agility test revealed that the U13 female basketball players were slower compared to U15 for S₃ (by 2.4%; p<0.01; F_(2,901)=6.3; η² = 0.01 - no effect), S₄ (by 3.4%; p<0.001; F_(2,901)=13.6; η² = 0.04 - minimum effect), S₅ (by 3.1%; p<0.001; F_(2,901)=9.3; η2=0.02 - no effect) and considering the total test completion time (by 2.7%; p<0.001; F_(2,901)=9.4; η² = 0.02 - no effect). The U14 group was slower than U15 in S₄ and total test completion time (1-3%).

Analysis of the results in the context of the jumping tests showed significantly lower values (1-5%) in SVJ_max,, VJ_max (p<0.001; minimum effect) and SVJ, VJ (p<0.01; no effect) obtained by U13 compared to U15 players. An identical relationship (lower values within 1-4%) was observed in U13 compared to U14 in SVJ_max, VJ_max, and SVJ.

Compared to U14 and U15, female basketball players from the U13 group were also characterized by significantly (p<0.001) lower values of the distance covered (10-14%, F_(2,901)=8.8; η² = 0.02, no effect) and VO₂max (1-2%, F_(2,901)=8.3; η² = 0.02; no effect) in the physical capacity test.

Table 2 shows the age-adjusted characteristics of female basketball players in relation to years after PHV (Tab. 2). In the group of U13 basketball players who were in PHV2, significantly (p<0.001) higher values of body height (by 6.5%; F_(1,263)=28.7; η² = 0.18; minimum effect), arm reach (by 6.4%; F_(1,263)=18.2; η² = 0.12; minimum effect), SVJmax (by 5.4%; F_(1,263)=8.1; η² = 0.06; minimum effect), and VJmax (by 4.7%; p<0.05; F_(1,263)=3.7; η² = 0.03; no effect) were found compared to PHV1. In contrast, the PHV2 group performed worse in the 5m speed test (by 2.3%; p<0.01; F_(1,263)=5.5; η² = 0.04; minimum effect) and endurance test, both in terms of the distance covered and VO₂max (2-13%; p<0.05; F_(1,263)=3.3; η² = 0.02; no effect).

Table 2

Age-adjusted means (standard errors in parentheses) by maturity timing within age groups and results of ANCOVAs with decimal age as the covariate
Variables	U13		F (p)	η²	U14			F (p)	η²	d	U15		F (p)	η²
Variables	PHV1 (n=154)	PHV2 (n=113)	F (p)	η²	PHV1 (n=22)	PHV2 (n=264)	PHV3 (n=84)	F (p)	η²	d	PHV2 (n=63)	PHV3 (n=204)	F (p)	η²
Body height (cm)	160.7 (0,3)	171.2 (0,4)	28.7 (***)	0.18	154.4 (1,3)	166.2 (0,2)	176.6 (0,7)	27.2 (***)	0.18	1v2v3	160.5 (0,6)	170.5 (0,3)	30.5 (***)	0.19
Body mass (kg)	51.6 (0,6)	59.8 (0,8)	2.2	-	48.8 (2,5)	57.0 (0,5)	65.7 (1,3)	3.6 (*)	0.03	1v2v3	54.4 (1,2)	61.4 (0,6)	2.1	-
Standing reach (cm)	214.8 (0,6)	228.6 (0,8)	18.2 (***)	0.12	204.1 (2,3)	221.7 (0,4)	235.1 (1,2)	17.5 (***)	0.13	1v2v3	213.5 (1,1)	227.1 (0,5)	20.3 (***)	0.13
5 m (s)	1.228 (0,016)	1.256 (0,020)	5.5 (**)	0.04	1.217 (0,047)	1.215 (0,009)	1.214 (0,024)	0.7	-	-	1.198 (0,012)	1.205 (0,006)	0.8	-
10 m (s)	2.030 (0,017)	2.018 (0,021)	2.3	-	2.014 (0,050)	2.028 (0,009)	2.033 (0,026)	0.1	-	-	2.043 (0,016)	2.047 (0,008)	1.0	-
20 m (s)	3.571 (0,015)	3.611 (0,018)	1.2	-	3.542 (0,052)	3.546 (0,010)	3.556 (0,026)	1.0	-	-	3.515 (0,025)	3.543 (0,013)	0.2	-
Agility - S₁ (s)	1.643 (0,022)	1.659 (0,027)	0.2	-	1.776 (0,083)	1.672 (0,016)	1.648 (0,042)	4.3 (**)	0.03	1v2,3	1.664 (0,037)	1.678 (0,019)	0.8	-
Agility - S₂ (s)	5.718 (0,047)	5.805 (0,059)	0.7	-	5.968 (0,172)	5.711 (0,032)	5.771 (0,088)	0.1	-	-	5.774 (0,081)	5.682 (0,041)	3.5 (*)	0.03
Agility - S₃ (s)	7.617 (0,049)	7.711 (0,062)	2.5	-	7.722 (0,193)	7.598 (0,036)	7.604 (0,099)	0.5	-	-	7.515 (0,086)	7.534 (0,043)	2.3	-
Agility - S₄ (s)	10.014 (0,063)	10.142 (0,079)	2.5	-	10.122 (0,252)	9.945 (0,047)	9.964 (0,129)	0.6	-	-	9.851 (0,102)	9.781 (0,051)	3.5 (*)	0.03
Agility - S₅ (s)	13.583 (0,090)	13.769 (0,113)	1.8	-	13.822 (0,377)	13.450 (0,071)	13.475 (0,192)	1.1	-	-	13.389 (0,153)	13.304 (0,077)	2.1	-
Agility - Total (s)	15.625 (0,097)	15.844 (0,121)	2.2	-	15.815 (0,376)	15.518 (0,071)	15.586 (0,192)	0.7	-	-	15.392 (0,148)	15.351 (0,075)	1.8	-
SVJ_max (cm)	249.7 (0,8)	263.1 (1,0)	8.1 (***)	0.06	240.9 (2,9)	258.1 (0,5)	271.3 (1,5)	7.1 (***)	0.06	1v2v3	251.1 (1,3)	263.5 (0,6)	13.6 (***)	0.09
VJ_max (cm)	258.4 (0,9)	270.6 (1,1)	3.7 (*)	0.03	248.8 (3,2)	266.4 (0,6)	279.1 (1,6)	4.2 (**)	0.03	1v2v3	257.8 (1,5)	272.5 (0,7)	10.3 (***)	0.07
SVJ (cm)	34.9 (0,5)	35.1 (0,6)	0.8	-	36.7 (2,0)	36.4 (0,4)	36.2 (1,0)	1.3	-	-	37.6 (0,9)	36.5 (0,4)	0.1	-
VJ (cm)	43.6 (0,7)	42.0 (0,9)	2.3	-	44.6 (2,5)	44.8 (0,5)	43.9 (1,3)	1.7	-	-	44.3 (1,1)	45.5 (0,6)	0.4	-
Yo-Yo Distance (m)	780 (29)	682 (36)	3.3 (*)	0.02	916 (109)	833 (20)	730 (56)	6.7 (***)	0.05	1v2v3	867 (51)	833 (26)	0.9	-
Yo-Yo VO_2max (ml/kg/min)	43.0 (0,2)	42.1 (0,3)	3.3 (*)	0.02	44.1 (0,9)	43.4 (0,2)	42.5 (0,5)	6.7 (***)	0.05	1v2v3	43.4 (0,4)	43.3 (0,2)	1.0	-
Notes:
SVJ – standing vertical jump; VJ – vertical jump; d - significant differences between groups;
* p < 0.05, p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001**

Furthermore, compared to groups PHV1 and PHV2, U14 female basketball players in PHV3 had higher body height (by 14.4% and 6.3%, respectively; p<0.001; F_(2,364)=27.2; η² = 0.18; minimum effect), body mass (by 34.6% and 8.7%, respectively; p<0.05; F_(2,364)=3.6; η² = 0.03; no effect), arm range (by 15.2% and 6%, respectively; p<0.001; F_(1,263)=17.5; η² = 0.13; minimum effect), SVJ_max (by 12.6% and 5.1% respectively; p<0.001; F_(2,364)=7.1; η² = 0.06; minimum effect) and VJ_max (by 12.6% and 4.8%, respectively; p<0.01; F_(2,364)=4.2; η² = 0.03; no effect). An identical trend was recorded in the same variables in favor of PHV2 compared to PHV1, ranging from 7 to 17%. Compared to PHV1 and PHV2, significantly lower values (p<0.001; F_(2,364)=6.7; η² = 0.05; minimum effect) of distance covered (by 20.3% and 12.4%, respectively) and VO₂max (by 3.6% and 2.1%, respectively) in endurance test were observed in the PHV3 group. Also in these two parameters, favorable results were obtained by the PHV1 group compared to PHV2 (1-10%).

Compared to PHV2, the U15 basketball players from group PHV3 showed higher values of body height (by 6.2%; p<0.001; F_(1,263)=30.5; η² = 0.19; minimum effect), arm reach (by 6.4%; p<0.001; F_(1,263)=20.3; η² = 0.13; minimum effect), SVJ_max (by 4.9%; p<0.001; F_(1,263)=13.6; η² = 0.09; minimum effect), VJ_max (by 5.7%; p<0.001; F_(1,263)=10.3; η² = 0.07; minimum effect), and more favorable results in two sections of the agility test S₂, S₄ (within 1-2%; p<0.05; F(_1,263)=3.5; η² = 0.03; no effect).

Comparison of age-, height-, and weight-adjusted means (ANCOVA) with reference to years after PHV (Tab. 3) showed favorable results in 20m speed test and higher results in all jumping ability and endurance tests (1-6%) in the group of U13 female basketball players in PHV1. An identical trend of higher values was observed in U14 female players in PHV1 compared to PHV2 and PHV3 in arm reach (1-2%; p<0.05; minimum effect), SVJ_max (7-9%; p<0.01; minimum effect), VJ_max (1-3%, p<0.01; minimum effect), SVJ (42-53%, p<0.05; no effect) and a more favorable result in the 20m speed test (2-5%; p<0.01; minimum effect). The opposite trend was observed for 5m speed (3-10%; p<0.05; no effect), distance covered during the endurance test (17-19%; p<0.01; minimum effect), VO2_max (12-13%; p<0.01; minimum effect). Compared to PHV3, U15 basketball players from the PHV2 group were characterized by lower values of all variables of jumping abilities (1-10%), endurance (3-15%), and weaker time in 10m and 20m speed tests (1-3%), and on the S4 section and in the entire agility test (2-4%).

Table 3

Age-adjusted means (standard errors in parentheses) by PHV within age groups and results of ANCOVAs with decimal age, hight and body mass as the covariate
Variables	U13		F (p)	η²	U14			F (p)	η²	d	U15			F (p)	η²
Variables	PHV1 (n=154)	PHV2 (n=113)	F (p)	η²	PHV1 (n=22)	PHV2 (n=264)	PHV3 (n=84)	F (p)	η²	d	PHV2 (n=63)		PHV3 (n=204)	F (p)	η²
Standing reach (cm)	221.1 (0,7)	221.3 (0,8)	1.0	-	225.4 (5,6)	221.4 (0,3)	221.2 (1,8)	2.7 (*)	0.05	1v2,3		218.1 (1,3)	219.9 (0,5)	1.7	-
5 m (s)	1.244 (0,025)	1.258 (0,031)	0.2	-	1.326 (0,177)	1.216 (0,009)	1.284 (0,056)	1.8 (*)	0.03	1v2,3		1.216 (0,023)	1.202 (0,009)	1.3	-
10 m (s)	2.028 (0,027)	2.023 (0,033)	1.7	-	1.805 (0,190)	2.029 (0,009)	2.082 (0,060)	0.8	-	-		2.083 (0,030)	2.039 (0,012)	2.8 (**)	0.04
20 m (s)	3.579 (0,022)	3.619 (0,028)	2.9 (**)	0.06	3.473 (0,192)	3.548 (0,009)	3.624 (0,061)	2.9 (**)	0.06	1v2v3		3.539 (0,048)	3.513 (0,019)	3.2 (**)	0.05
Agility - S₁ (s)	1.674 (0,034)	1.674 (0,043)	0.3	-	1.704 (0,318)	1.673 (0,016)	1.635 (0,101)	1.6	-	-		1.678 (0,072)	1.665 (0,028)	1.0	-
Agility - S₂ (s)	5.716 (0,074)	5.771 (0,092)	0.4	-	5.341 (0,657)	5.712 (0,032)	5.858 (0,210)	0.6	-	-		5.788 (0,157)	5.641 (0,061)	1.7	-
Agility - S₃ (s)	7.653 (0,077)	7.617 (0,097)	1.1	-	7.005 (0,739)	7.598 (0,037)	7.650 (0,236)	0.5	-	-		7.745 (0,165)	7.479 (0,064)	1.6	-
Agility - S₄ (s)	10.063 (0,099)	10.049 (0,124)	1.1	-	9.630 (0,962)	9.946 (0,047)	10.096 (0,307)	0.6	-	-		10.067 (0,196)	9.734 (0,077)	2.5 (*)	0.03
Agility - S₅ (s)	13.607 (0,141)	13.614 (0,176)	1.0	-	12.344 (1,436)	13.455 (0,071)	13.563 (0,458)	0.9	-	-		13.676 (0,294)	13.276 (0,115)	1.7	-
Agility - Total (s)	15.646 (0,152)	15.676 (0,190)	1.1	-	14.725 (1,435)	15.522 (0,071)	15.612 (0,458)	0.8	-	-		15.670 (0,285)	15.265 (0,112)	2.1 (*)	0.03
SVJ_max (cm)	256.4 (1,0)	255.0 (1,2)	2.0 (*)	0.05	277.2 (8,5)	257.8 (0,4)	255.2 (2,7)	4.9 (**)	0.09	1v2,3		254.8 (2,1)	257.6 (0,8)	3.3 (*)	0.03
VJ_max (cm)	264.8 (1,1)	262.6 (1,4)	6.1 (**)	0.06	270.4 (9,9)	266.1 (0,5)	264.2 (3,2)	4.8 (**)	0.09	1v2,3		260.2 (2,5)	266.2 (1,0)	3.4 (**)	0.03
SVJ (cm)	35.3 (0,7)	34.7 (0,9)	2.6 (*)	0.05	51.8 (7,4)	36.3 (0,4)	34.0 (2,4)	3.3 (*)	0.03	1v2,3		36.7 (1,6)	37.7 (0,6)	3.4 (**)	0.03
VJ (cm)	43.6 (1,0)	41.3 (1,3)	4.6 (**)	0.09	45.0 (9,3)	44.7 (0,5)	43.0 (3,0)	3.1 (*)	0.02	1v3		42.1 (2,2)	46.3 (0,8)	3.1 (**)	0.03
Yo-Yo Distance (m)	783 (43)	742 (54)	3.6 (**)	0.05	686 (117)	830 (20)	844 (127)	5.6 (**)	0.04	1v2,3		765 (97)	900 (38)	3.5 (**)	0.04
Yo-Yo VO_2max (ml/kg/min)	43.0 (0,4)	42.6 (0,5)	3.5 (**)	0.05	38.0 (3,3)	43.4 (0,2)	43.5 (1,0)	5.6 (**)	0.04	1v2,3		42.2 (0,8)	43.7 (0,3)	3.6 (**)	0.05
Notes:
SVJ – standing vertical jump; VJ – vertical jump; d - significant differences between groups;
* p < 0.05, p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001**

The results of the backward stepwise multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 4. The presented model explained 2-10% of the variance in individual strength and conditioning tests (adjusted R² = 0.02-0.10; p < 0.001). The time from PHV was a significant predictor (positive value of the normalized β coefficient) only for the 10m test. Furthermore, age was a significant predictor for the 5m speed test, 20m speed test, agility test (negative β coefficient), and SVJ, VJ, and VO₂max (positive β coefficient) tests. The predictor of interactions of body height and body mass was significant only for the SVJ test (negative coefficient β). Body mass alone was a significant predictor in the 10m and 20m tests (positive direction) and VJ, VO₂max (negative direction). It was also found that body height was a significant predictor only in the 10m speed test.

Table 4

Summary of the backward regression for motor skills and anthropometric variables by the female basketball players aged 13-15 years.
Attempt	Predictor	Standardized β	Adjusted R²	F (p)
5 m	Chronological age	-0.111	0.02	11.2 (*)
10 m	Body height	-0.161	0.02	7.2 (*)
	Body mass	0.154
	APHV	0.100
20 m	Chronological age	-0.156	0.06	27.1 (*)
20 m	Body mass	0.214	0.06	27.1 (*)
Agility_Total	Chronological age	-0.160	0.03	23.7 (*)
SVJ	Chronological age	0.161	0.04	17.2 (*)
SVJ	Mass*height interaction	-0.143	0.04	17.2 (*)
VJ	Chronological age	0.170	0.06	26.5 (*)
VJ	Body mass	-0.201	0.06	26.5 (*)
Yo-Yo VO_2max	Chronological age	0.201	0.10	42.8 (*)
Yo-Yo VO_2max	Body mass	-0.261	0.10	42.8 (*)
Notes:
SVJ – standing vertical jump; VJ – vertical jump;
* p < 0.001

The aims of this study were (i) to identify the physical fitness and basic anthropometric characteristics of Polish female basketball players aged 13 to 15 years, (ii) to show the effect of maturity timing on the performance in motor tests and basic body composition parameters, (iii) to identify the index that contributes most to the prediction of performance in the tests of sprint, jumping ability, agility, and endurance.

The first aim of the study was to identify motor potential and basic anthropometric characteristics of the population of young female basketball players aged 13 to 15 years. Determination of these parameters is a starting point in the search for candidates for the participant of national teams or defining the characteristics needed or conducive to high performance. Talent identification programs are an integral part of the selection process for elite-level athletes and every sport has its set of variables being an important part of success [50]. Many sports clubs have their individual systems of selection according to the most important features in a given discipline or event. This rationale underlies the emergence of various recruitment and selection programs aimed at seeking, identifying, and developing talented individuals [51,52]. Polish female basketball players from the U15 group achieved slightly better (compared to peers, the best basketball female players in Europe, participating in the youth championships of European Division A), or identical results (compared to female basketball players participating in the youth championships of European Division B) in 20m sprint test [53]. Further, Polish female athletes were characterized by lower values of body height and body mass. On the other hand, a comparison of the values after correcting with body height revealed no significant differences [53]. Such a trend may indicate that the Polish players are more similar to their peers from Division B (2nd European League) teams than to Division A (1st European League). The basketball players from the U13 group also achieved better results (even considering age-adjusted values) in the 20m sprint compared to their peers from Portugal [7].

The second study aim was to show the impact of maturity timing on the results of motor tests and basic body composition. Somatic built and physical fitness potencial determines, on the one hand, factors necessary to qualify an athlete for a given sport and, on the other hand, having optimal parameters for success in the sport. Analysis of values related to age-adjusted characteristics showed that in the PHV2 under 13-year-old group observed significantly higher SVJ_max, VJ_max values but worse sprint (5m) and endurance results (distance covered, VO_2max) than PHV1 group. U14 female basketball players in PHV3 had significantly higher SVJ_max, VJ_max results compared to groups PHV1 and PHV2 and lower values of endurance test (distance covered and VO2_max). Limited study suggest that less mature girls perform better than more maturing girls in some tasks, but overall maturity - associated variation is not consistent across tasks and ages [54]. The U15 basketball players from PHV3 compared to PHV 2 group showed higher values of SVJ_max, VJ_max and agility test (S₂, S₄). This is consistent with previous researche where more mature players are typically characterized by higher performance in speed, agility, and lower limb power [7, 55].

Similar trend was shown in ANCOVA results (age, body height, and body mass as covariates) where in the U13 female basketball players observed significantly higher sprinting (20m), jumping ability and endurance tests results of the PHV1 group. Better results was observed in U14 female players in PHV1 compared to PHV2 and PHV3 in 20m and jumping tests but opposite trend was observed for 5m sprint and endurance test (distance covered and VO2_max). U15 basketball players from the PHV3 group were characterized by better results of jumping abilities, endurance, 10m and 20m sprint and agility (total, S₄) tests. In this context, it is important to take biological development into account, since differences resulting from this development are most often overlooked and thus early maturers are promoted. Selection carried out in this way is often flawed if decisions are made before the maturation process is complete [56].

The third aim of the study, which was to identify the indices most useful in predicting the level of motor preparation, allowed for the conclusion that chronological age, height, weight, weight-height interaction, and the time from PHV accounted for 2-10% of the variance in individual physical fitness tests. Maturity timing was a significant predictor only in sprint test (10m) but body height and body mass were the most significant predictors in this test. Rest results showed that chronological age (5 m, 20 m, agility, SVJ, VJ, and VO_2max tests), body height (10m), body mass (10m, 20m, VJ, VO_2max), and the interaction between body mass and height (SVJ) were significant (adjusted R² = 0.02-0.10; p < 0.001) predictors of motor skills. In general, considering the adjusted R² value, most of the differences in the results obtained by female basketball players were not explained by these variables. There is extensive literature on the analysis of selected motor and functional fitness characteristics in correlation with the level of physical development in adolescent girls, however mainly in general non-athlete populations [57,58]. In contrast, the results of our study are consistent with previous findings and show that much of the variation in sport-specific functional abilities and skills is not explained by age, puberty, and body size [8,10] and for young training girls, understanding the complex interactions of physical development, especially body mass and height, with sport-specific motor abilities and biological age is a key component of sporting success [7].

The objectivity of inferring developmental capabilities depends largely on a comprehensive assessment of the status of various functional systems involved in a specialized task. Such an assessment of physical and mental preparation, in addition to the generally accepted indicators, should take into account chronological and biological age, individual rate of performance development, indicators of physical development and motor activity at the stage before the examination and the assessment of their prospective capabilities [59]. Particular caution should be exercised in the selection based on index values obtained before puberty. Most of the changes occurring during puberty (e.g. aerobic and anaerobic capacity, fitness, body composition) are non-linear [60]. Results showed that only a third of international pre-junior athletes reappeared as senior athletes, confirming the difficulties of predicting late success based on early identification and selection [61].

The present study has some limitations that must be acknowledged. The menarche age was not included in the study. Both somatic, motor and developmental parameters should not be treated as an absolute selection criterion, especially in sports where the results are an effect of multidimensional dependencies of various variables [62]. The superior performance here may result from individually varying relationships between innate determinants of athletic performance and environmental factors [59]. All equations used to predict APHV (maturity shift) or APHV have the same major limitations [63,64]. The advanced maturity timing and the relatively narrow range of variation in predicted age at peak height velocity may undermine its utility and effectiveness in talent identification and development programs when applied at a specific time point [6,15].

Given the above, it seems that knowledge of APHV of players is important to identify differences in motor potential caused by developmental changes [65]. However, it must be complemented by the use of methods related to the evaluation of technique within individual specializations [66]. In future studies of this type, especially considering adolescent girls' groups, an attempt should be made to combine factors determining performance, such as hormonal status, body components, perceptual-cognitive elements, and tactical skills. Study the relation of APHV and performance in competition should be provided.

The results of this study improve our understanding how maturity timing influences on the performance in motor tests and basic body composition parameters in youth female basketball players. The status of reference to years after PHV has a particular effect on performance during jumping test, endurance test, and 20m speed test in all three (U13-U15) age categories. The time from peak height velocity (PHV) was a significant predictor only in the 10 m speed test, but height and weight were the most significant. Chronological age (5 m, 20 m, agility, SVJ, VJ, and VO_2max tests), body height (10m), body mass (10m, 20m, VJ, VO_2max), and the interaction between body mass and height (SVJ) were significant predictors of motor skills. The results can help the coaches to personalize training programs and to adapt the training content to the biological age of the players.

APHV – age at peak height velocity; PHV – peak height velocity; SVJ – standing vertical jump; VJ – vertical jump;

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was conducted in accordance with the approval from the local Ethics Committee for Scientific Research of the University of Physical Education in Warsaw (SKE 01–28/2016), and the study was completed according to the rules and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and material

Full access to data on request ([email protected])

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

No funding was received.

Authors' contributions

Research concept and study design: KG, JGA, AK, JLC, ALC, KM.

Literature review: KG, JLC ALC.

Data collection: KG, JGA, AK.

Data analysis and interpretation: KG, AK, KM.

Statistical analyses: KG, JGA, JLC.

Writing of the manuscript: KG, JGA, AK, JLC, ALC, KM.

Review and editing: KG, JGA, AK, JLC, ALC, KM.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Polish Basketball Association for their assistance in this study.

Drinkwater EJ, Pyne DB, McKenna MJ. Design and interpretation of anthropometric and fitness testing of basketball players. Sports Med. 2008;38:565–78.
Nowak A, Pytel A, Molik B, Marszałek J. Characteristics of injuries of young adult male basketball players. Advances in Rehabilitation. 2019;33(3):35–46. doi:10.5114/areh.2019.87747.
Gryko K, Mikołajec K, Marszałek J, Adamczyk JG, Molik B, Waśkiewicz Z, Nikolaidis P, Knechtle B. How did basketball teams win EuroBasket 2015? A non-standard analysis of performance based on passes, dribbling and turnovers. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport. 2020;20(3):339–356. DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2020.1749013
Ziv G, Lidor R. Physical attributes, physiological characteristics, on-court performances and nutritional strategies of female and male basketball players. Sports Med. 2009;39(7):547–68. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200939070-00003.
Arede J Ferreira AP, Gonzalo-Skok O, Leite N. Maturational Development as Key Aspect in Physical Performance and National Team Selection in Elite Male Basketball Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018;20:1–24.
Arede J, Fernandes J, Moran J, Norris J, Leite N. Maturity timing and performance in a youth national basketball team: Do early-maturing players dominate? Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2021;16(3):722–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954120980712
Arede J, Oliveira I, Ángel Gomez MA, Leite N. A Multi-Block Multivariate Analysis to Explore the Influence of the Somatic Maturation in Youth Basketball. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:602576. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602576
Coelho E Silva MJ, Moreira Carvalho H, Gonçalves CE, Figueiredo AJ, Elferink-Gemser MT, Philippaerts RM, Malina RM. Growth, maturation, functional capacities and sport-specific skills in 12-13 year-old- basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2010;50(2):174–81.
Weaving D, Jones B, Till K, Abt G, Beggs C. The Case for Adopting a Multivariate Approach to Optimize Training Load Quantification in Team Sports. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1024. doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.01024
Malina RM, Cumming SP, Kontos AP, Eisenmann JC, Ribeiro B, Aroso J. Maturity-associated variation in sport-specific skills of youth soccer players aged 13-15 years. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(5):515–22. doi: 10.1080/02640410410001729928
Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, Maturation, and Physical Activity (2nd ed.) (Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL 2004).
Myburgh GK, Cumming SP, Malina RM. Cross-Sectional Analysis Investigating the Concordance of Maturity Status Classifications in Elite Caucasian Youth Tennis Players. Sports Med Open. 2019;5(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s40798-019-0198-8.
Gonçalves CEB, Rama LML, Figueiredo AB. Talent identification and specialization in sport: an overview of some unanswered questions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7(4):390–3. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.7.4.390.
Guimarães E, Baxter-Jones ADG, Williams AM, Tavares F, Janeira MA, Maia J. The role of growth, maturation and sporting environment on the development of performance and technical and tactical skills in youth basketball players: The INEX study. J Sports Sci. 2021;39(9):979–991. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1853334
Ramos SA, Massuça LM, Volossovitch A, Ferreira AP, Fragoso I. Morphological and Fitness Attributes of Young Male Portuguese Basketball Players: Normative Values According to Chronological Age and Years From Peak Height Velocity. Frontiers in sports and active living, 2021;3:629453. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.629453
Malina RM. Growth and maturity status of young soccer players. In: Reilly T, Williams AM, eds. Science and Soccer. London: Routledge; 2003, 287–306.
Torres-Unda J, Zarrazquin I, Gravina L, Zubero J, Seco J, Gil S, Gil J, Irazusta J. Basketball performance is related to maturity and relative age in elite adolescent players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016;30:1325–1332.
Drinkwater EJ, Hopkins WG, McKenna MJ, Hunt PH, Pyne DB. Modelling age and secular differences in fitness between basketball players. J Sports Sci. 2007;25(8):869–78. doi: 10.1080/02640410600907870.
Carvalho HM, Leonardi TJ, Soares ALA, Paes RR, Foster C, Gonçalves CE. Longitudinal Changes of Functional Capacities Among Adolescent Female Basketball Players. Front. Physiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00339
Balčiūnas M, Stonkus S, Abrantes C, Sampaio J. Long term effects of different training modalities on power, speed, skill and anaerobic capacity in young male basketball players. J Sports Sci Med. 2006;5(1):163–70.
Vučković I, Gadžić A, Sladojević V, Kukrić A, Mikić M, Stojanović M. Influence of a pre-shot dynamic stretching routine on free throw performance. Biomedical Human Kinetic. 2019;11(1):181–188. doi: 10.2478/bhk-2019-002
Arede J, Leite N, Bradley B, Madruga-Parera M, Saéz de Villarreal E, Gonzalo-Skok O. Mechanical, Physiological, and Perceptual Demands of Repeated Power Ability Lower-Body and Upper-Body Tests in Youth Athletes: Somatic Maturation as a Factor on the Performance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:1888. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01888
Nedeljkovic A, Mirkov DM, Kukolj M, Ugarkovic D, Jaric S. Effect of maturation on the relationship between physical performance and body size. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(1):245–250.
McNarry MA, Lester L, Brown J, Mackintosh KA. Investigating the Modulatory Role of Chronological and Biological Age on Performance Predictors in Youth Swimmers. J Sci Sport Exercise. 2020;2:349–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978-020-00082-1
Baxter-Jones ADG, Eisenmann JC, Sherar LB. Controlling for maturation in pediatric exercise science. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2005;17(1):18–30.
Rubajczyk K, Świerzko K, Rokita A. Doubly Disadvantaged? The Relative Age Effect in Poland's Basketball Players. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(2):280–285.
de la Rubia Riaza A, Lorenzo Calvo J, Mon-López D, Lorenzo A. Impact of the Relative Age Effect on Competition Performance in Basketball: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(22):8596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228596
Kelly AL, Jiménez Sáiz SL, Lorenzo Calvo A, de la Rubia A, Jackson DT, Jeffreys MA, Ford C, Owen D, Santos SDLd. Relative Age Effects in Basketball: Exploring the Selection into and Successful Transition Out of a National Talent Pathway. Sports 2021;9:101. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports9070101
Arrieta H, Torres-Unda J, Gil SM, Irazusta J. Relative age effect and performance in the U16, U18 and U20 European basketball championships. J Sports Sci. 2016;34:1530–1534.
Torres-Unda J, Zarrazquin I, Gil J, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Kortajarena M, Seco J, Irazusta J. Anthropometric, physiological and maturational characteristics in selected elite and non-elite male adolescent basketball players. J. Sports Sci. 2013;31:196–203.
Lockie RG, Jeffriess MD, McGann TS, Callaghan SJ, Schultz AB. Planned and reactive agility performance in semiprofessional and amateur basketball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:766–771.
Sisic N, Jelicic M, Pehar M, Spasic M, Sekulic D. Agility performance in high-level junior basketball players: the predictive value of anthropometrics and power qualities. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2016;56:884–893.
Mcmanus AM, Armstrong N. Physiology of elite young female athletes. Med. Sport Sci. 2011;56:23–46. doi: 10.1159/000320626
te Wierike SC, de Jong MC, Tromp EJ, Vuijk PJ, Lemmink KA, Malina RM, Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher C. Development of repeated sprint ability in talented youth basketball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(4):928–34. doi: 10.1097/JSC.0000000000000223
Jakovljević S, Pajić Z, Gardašević B, Višnjić D. Some anthropometric and power characteristics of 12 and 13 years old soccer and basketball players. Proceedings 2010. 2011;2:42-48. doi:10.5550/SP.2.2010.06
Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001;79:373–374.
Mirwald RL, Baxter-Jones ADG, Bailey DA, Beunen GP. An assessment of maturity from anthropometric measurements. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(4):689–94. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200204000-00020
Moore SA, McKay HA, Macdonald H, Nettlefold L, Baxter-Jones AD, Cameron N, Brasher PM. Enhancing a somatic maturity prediction model. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47:1755–64.
Kozieł S, Malina RM. Modified Maturity Offset Prediction Equations: Validation in Independent Longitudinal Samples of Boys and Girls. Sports Med. 2018;48:221–236.
Marfell-Jones MJ, Stewart AD, De Ridder JH. International standards for anthropometric assessment. Wellington, New Zealand: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry; 2012.
Kirkendall D, Gruber J, Johnson R. Measurement and Evaluation for Physical Educators; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 1987.
Buckthorpe M, Morris J, Jonathan P. Folland. Validity of vertical jump measurement devices. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(1):63–69, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2011.624539
Brooks ER, Benson AC, Bruce LM. Novel Technologies Found to be Valid and Reliable for the Measurement of Vertical Jump Height With Jump-and-Reach Testing. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(10):2838–2845. DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002790
Gabbett T, Kelly J, Pezet T. Relationship between physical fitness and playing ability in rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1126–1133. DOI: 10.1519/r-20936.1
Coutts AJ, Reaburn P, Piva TJ, Rowsell G.J. Monitoring for overreaching in rugby league players. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2007;99:313–324.
Gryko, K. Effect of maturity timing on the physical performance of male Polish basketball players aged 13 to 15 years. Sci Rep 2021;11,22019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01401-4
Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: a useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Med. 2008;38(1):37-51. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838010-00004. PMID: 18081366.
Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe A, Montalvo A, Latinjak A, Unnithan V. Physical characteristics of elite adolescent female basketball players and their relationship to match performance. J. Hum. Kinet.. 2016;53:167–178.
Hopkins W. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. Sports Science. 2006, Retrieved from http://www.sportsci. org/resource/stats/effectmag.html
Johnston K, Wattie N, Schorer J, Baker J. Talent Identification in Sport: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2018;48:97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2
Balyi I, Hamilton A. Long-Term Athlete Development: Trainability in Childhood and Adolescence. Windows of Opportunity. Optimal Trainability. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: National Coaching Institute British Columbia and Advanced Training and Performance Ltd, 2004.
Ford P, De Ste Croix M, Lloyd R, Meyers R, Moosavi M, Oliver J, Till K, Williams C. The long-term athlete development model: physiological evidence and application. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(4):389–402. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.536849.
Erčulj F, Blas M, Bračič M. Physical Demands on Young Elite European Female Basketball Players With Special Reference to Speed, Agility, Explosive Strength, and Take-off Power. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(11):2970–2978 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e38107
Myburgh G, Cumming S, Coelho-e-silva MJ, Cooke K, Malina RM. Maturity-associated variation in functional characteristics of elite youth tennis players. Pediatr. Exer. Sci. 2016;28:542–552. doi: 10.1123/pes.2016- 0035
Sherar LB, Cumming SP, Malina RM. Adolescent biological maturity and physical activity: biology meets behavior. Pediatr. Exer. Sci. 2010;22:332–349. doi: 10.1123/pes.22.3.332
Sekine Y, Hoshikawa S, Hirose N. Longitudinal Age-Related Morphological and Physiological Changes in Adolescent Male Basketball Players. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2019;18(4):751–757.
Armstrong N, Welsman JR, Williams CA, Kirby BJ. Longitudinal changes in young people’s short-term power output. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000;32:1140–1145. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200006000-00017
Geithner CA, Thomis MA, Vanden Eynde B, Maes HH, Loos RJ, Peeters M, Claessens AL, Vlietinck R, Malina RM, Beunen GP. Growth in peak aerobic power during adolescence. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(9):1616–24. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000139807.72229.41
Bouchard C, Malina RM, Perusse L. Genetic of Fitness and Physical Performance. Champaign, Human Kinetics. USA, 1997.
Pearson DT, Naughton GA, Torode M. Predictability of physiological testing and the role of maturation in talent identification for adolescent team sports. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(4):277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.020
Barreiros A, Côté J, Fonseca AM. From early to adult sport success: analysing athletes' progression in national squads. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14 Suppl 1:S178–S182. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.671368
Ford P, Collins D, Bailey R, MacNamara A, Pearce G, Toms M. Participant development in sport and physical activity: The impact of biological maturation. Eur J Sport Sci. 2012;12(6):515–526. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2011.577241
Malina RM, Kozieł SM. Validation of maturity offset in a longitudinal sample of Polish boys. J. Sports Sci. 2014;32(5):424–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.828850
Malina RM, Rogol AD, Cumming SP, Coelho e Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ. Biological maturation of youth athletes: assessment and implications. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015;49(13):852–859. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094623
Müller L, Müller E, Hildebrandt C, Kapelari K, Raschner C. Die Erhebung des biologischen Entwicklungsstandes für die Talentselektion - welche Methode eignet sich? [The assessment of biological maturation for talent selection - which method can be used?]. Sportverletzung Sportschaden: Organ der Gesellschaft fur Orthopadisch-Traumatologische Sportmedizin. 2015;29(1):56–63. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1399043
Koopmann T, Faber I, Baker J, Schorer J. Assessing Technical Skills in Talented Youth Athletes: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2020;50(9):1593–1611. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01299-4

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 08 Feb, 2022

Read the published version in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation →

Editorial decision: Major revision
17 Dec, 2021
Reviews received at journal
06 Dec, 2021
Reviewers agreed at journal
03 Dec, 2021
Reviewers agreed at journal
01 Dec, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
01 Dec, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
01 Dec, 2021
Editor invited by journal
30 Nov, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
30 Nov, 2021
First submitted to journal
26 Nov, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Does Predicted Age At Peak Height Velocity Explain Physical Performance In U13-15 Basketball Female Players?

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Participants

Procedure

Biological maturation

Measurements

Speed

Jumping

Agility

Endurance

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1