VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE NEW

HANDBALL-SPECIFIC COMPLEX TEST

RENÉ SCHWESIG,1 ALEXANDER KOKE,2 DAVID FISCHER,1,3 GEORG FIESELER,4 PHILIPP JUNGERMANN,4
KARL-STEFAN DELANK,1 AND SOUHAIL HERMASSI5
Departments of 1Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery; and 2Sports Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Halle,
Germany; 3Institute for Applied Training Science Department Technique-Tactics, Leipzig, Germany; 4Center for Orthopedic
Surgery (ZOC), Muenden, Germany; and 5Tunisian Researches Laboratory, Sport Performance Optimization, Tunis, Tunisia

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

T
Schwesig, R, Koke, A, Fischer, D, Fieseler, G, Jungermann, P, eam Handball (TH) is an intensive form of inter-
Delank, K-S, and Hermassi, S. Validity and reliability of the new mittent physical activity and a fast paced match of
handball-specific complex test. J Strength Cond Res 30(2): 476– defensive and offensive action that includes spe-
486, 2016—The purpose of this study was to determine the intra- cific movements and repeated explosive muscular
contractions required for sprinting, jumping, turning, chang-
observer reliability (IR) of the handball-specific complex test
ing pace, and ball throwing (24,45). The level of performance
(HBKT) and the validity of the HBKT and nonspecific tests. Thirty
in modern TH is determined by the players’ technical, tac-
experienced players (25.7 6 3.9 years) executed the HBKT twice
tical, psychological/social, and physical characteristics. All
(time interval: 2 days). Lactate, heart rate (HR), time, throwing
these elements are of high importance in TH and also
velocity and number of errors were measured. Afterwards, players’ closely interlinked making TH a particularly complex type
match performances (MPs) in 30 matches were evaluated using of sport (26,27).
video analysis to compare it with the test parameters. Resting HR Team Handball games are characterized by repeated
between first half and second half (r2 = 0.26), standing long jump periods of intense anaerobic activity (20), and it is thus log-
(r2 = 0.18), jump and reach (r2 = 0.16), and HR before second ical to evaluate a player’s overall ability in terms of his or her
half (r2 = 0.14) were proven to be the most valid tests or param- tolerance of repeated bouts of intensive exercise. However, it
eters. The amounts of explained variance concerning the MP of all is unclear which part of variance is explained by those fac-
other tests/parameters were below 10%. Overall, 41% (12/29) of tors regarding match performance (MP). Despite the knowl-
the parameters showed a high relative intraclass correlation coef- edge of these factors, only conditional tests (e.g., 30-m sprint
ficient (ICC . 0.75) and absolute coefficient of variation (CV #
test, countermovement jump, squat jump test, vertical jump
test, abdominal strength, Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance Test,
5%) IR. Results suggest that the HBKT can be certified with an
and repeated sprint ability) are normally a part of the per-
insufficient validity and a sufficient absolute (BCV = 11.3%) and
formance diagnostic (1,20,24,29).
relative (BICC = 0.67) IR. The reasons could be insufficient tests Furthermore, there are a lot of studies concerning training
or insufficient score of MP. The current findings suggest that the in handball (4,6,12,13,18,31,39) and contributions of condi-
coaches and scientists should recognize a lot of effort is neces- tional and anthropometric characteristics of professional
sary to measure MP and to develop valid tests. Additional handball (5,14,20,24–26,30,42,44). However, handball-
research should aim to connect test and MP with each other. specific skills (e.g., dribbling, throws, passing, catching the
Before a coach applies a test, he should thoroughly check ball, and feints) are not taken into account within a complex
whether the test is valid (gold standard: MP) and reliable. The test design. Moreover, the different demands of the playing
frequent and long-term test application (very common argument positions (wings, pivots, backs, goalkeepers) are also uncon-
of the coaches in practice) is not a proof of validity. sidered in these tests.
Therefore, the scientific and practical situation concerning
KEY WORDS test performance, match performance, heart rate, handball-specific performance diagnostic is poor and unsat-
blood lactate, team sports isfactory. Currently, we are not able to measure the MP (first
step). But there are no alternatives to this gold standard
because it is the practical and key question for coaches and
Address correspondence to Souhail Hermassi, [email protected]. scientists on the way to valid tests (second step) and
30(2)/476–486 sufficient handball-specific training programs (third step).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research We can observe in science and practice a great contradiction
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association between the often-described complex requirement profile of
the TM

476 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TH and the nonspecific and noncomplex performance court, where ambient temperature ranged from 10 to
diagnostic however. There are few publications within the 128 C. To reduce the interference of uncontrolled variables,
last 16 years regarding validity or reliability of tests used in TH players maintained their normal intake of food and fluids
(7,9,20–25,36,39,41–43,45). Merely, Massuca et al. (24) and during the trial. However, they abstained from physical
Wagner et al. (45) validated performance-based test for TH. exercise for 1 day before testing, drank no caffeine-
To date, little is known about the relationship between MP containing beverages in the 4 hours preceding testing,
and test performance. Match analyses showed that TH and ate no food for 2 hours before testing. Additionally,
involves a great deal of intermittent high-intensity activities the athletes should drink 2 liters of water (only water)
that are undertaken by players throughout the game. To our during the last 2 hours for the test.
knowledge, only 1 (45) comparable match-based performance Test time and investigators were identical (observational
test for TH does exist. Thus, the purpose of this study was to equivalence). On the day between the first and second
(a) to develop a handball-specific complex test (HBKT), (b) to examination, the athletes completed a 45-minute continuous
validate this test, and (c) to prove the intraobserver reliability run with a load limit of 75% of maximum heart rate in the
of the HBKT. Information in this context may result in great HBKT. In detail, the examination proceeded on the test day
interest for training prescription and talent evaluation in TH. as follows:
 Presentation of the study design and the study
METHODS objectives
Experimental Approach to the Problem  Test presentation (oral, video) and test demonstration
This study was designed as longitudinal and prospective  10-minute rest period in a sitting position
investigation to examine the assessments of physical perfor-  Resting heart rate and resting lactate measurement
mance on the specific profile of sports. However, most of the  15-minute warm-up of the entire team
tests in handball are unspecific and not comprehensively  Individual test execution (time per athlete: 5–7 minutes)
evaluated (i.e., lacks information about their reliability and and simultaneous warm-up of the following individual
validity). Before the development of a handball-specific test athletes
(second step), it is inalienable to parameterize the MP (first  14-minute follow-up period
step). Therefore, we simultaneously developed an MP score Thus, the duration of investigation per athlete was about
(dependent variable/gold standard) and a new HBKT 50 minutes.
(independent variable) (33). The parameterization of the
MP (key issue) is the precondition for development and Subjects
validation of tests. The assessments of physical performance In our investigation, 30 male handball professional and
are the basis for development and evaluation of training semiprofessional handball players were recruited (mean:
programs (approach to the problem). The described study 25.7 6 3.9 years; age range: 19–33 years). All handball play-
is part of a comprehensive study on performance analysis in ers were from the 2 German Third League teams (goalkeep-
handball. Other aims are to assess the effectiveness of the ers, n = 4; pivots, n = 6; backs, n = 13; wings, n = 7). Four
preseason (examination 2 vs. examination 3) using the handball players (13%) were left-handed. Their age and
HBKT (33) and to evaluate the strength and flexibility of anthropometric data are listed in Table 1.
the shoulder for injury prognosis (11). For this purpose, we In line with Krüger et al. (20), the inclusion criteria for
tested 2 handball teams of the Third German League in 3 participation were the engagement of all subjects in com-
examinations during the preseason (July and August 2013): petitive handball for at least 5 years and their participation
baseline, 48 hours after baseline, 6 weeks after baseline (end in more than 3 training sessions per week. The players of
of the preseason). both teams accomplished 8–10 training sessions per week
Regarding the reliability study, the first 2 examinations during the preseason and 5–7 training sessions per week
were compared. The first examination was also used for the during the season. The players trained on average before
validation of the HBKT, the nonspecific handball tests, and the intervention period 11.9 (63.8) h$wk21. The training
the evaluation of the predictive value of the internal and included 7.5 (63.2) hours for handball bouts and 1.2 (60.3)
external rotation in the shoulder. The players were closely hours were for general strength training, which was per-
observed during the following season (September 2013 to formed at the end of some handball sessions. Both teams
May 2014). Each player (wings, pivots, backs, or goalkeepers) had the same amount of this strength training in which the
was evaluated during match play using video recording and subjects performed only sit-ups, push-ups, dips, squat
subsequently performing match analysis (Figure 1). jumps, etc. None of the participants reported any current
Testing of players was performed at the same time of the or ongoing neuromuscular diseases or musculoskeletal in-
day (5–9 PM), and under the same experimental conditions, juries specific to the ankle, knee, or hip joints, and none of
at least 3 days after the most recent competition. All tests them were taking any dietary or performance supplements
took place during the preseason (first day, third day, and 6 that might be expected to affect performance during the
weeks later) and were conducted on an indoor handball study.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2016 | 477

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of New Handball Test

 First active pause (35 sec-

onds): 10 impact throws
with step against an inclined
target surface (area: 1 3
1 m, distance: 3 m; slope:
608) with measurement of
throwing speed (minimum
speed: 50 km$h21).
 Activity series 4: Measure-
ment of throwing speed.
 Activity series 4: Use of
hurdles (height: 20 cm)
for the implementation of
the jump throws.
 Activity series 4: Third
throw (high jump throw
Figure 1. Study design of the whole project. after break through feint
to throw hand) in the
entire goal.
All the players were at the competitive phase of their  One second penalty per technical error or missed
periodization. Before any participation, the experimental shot.
procedures, potential risks, and benefits of the project were With the HBKT, the following parameters were mea-
fully explained to the participants, and they all provided written sured: number of technical errors, time (e.g., 10-m sprint),
informed consent before entering the study. The study was throwing velocity, lactate, and heart rate. Furthermore,
approved by the local research ethics committee and con- a lot of dimensions can be evaluated: speed with and
formed to the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. without ball, anaerobic capacity (handball specific),
speed endurance with and without ball, recuperativeness
Procedures (handball specific), and handball-specific skills under
Handball-Specific Complex Test. The HBKT ((35), Figure 2) pressure of time or accuracy (e.g., ball handling and
consists of 4 activity series (AS): agility parcours, defensive throw accuracy).
action, sprint (10, 20 m) and throw on goal parcours. The 4 Data acquisition was performed by means of following
AS were to be completed twice and containing 5 active assessments:
pauses (3 times for 30 seconds, 35 seconds twice), which Time: Time was recorded using photoelectric cells (AF Sport,
reflects the intermittent load character during the match. Wesel, Germany), paced at the start (0 m) and at 10
The 14-minute follow-up is based on the duration of the and 20 m from the start. The AS 1, 2, 4 and the active
halftime (15 minutes) and is used for measuring the recovery pauses were measured manually with a stopwatch by 2
ability of the handball players in this period. The following trained raters.
modifications were made during the tests: Throwing velocity: The maximum throwing velocity was
 Activity series 1: Prone with brief lifting of the arms off determined by a Speed Check Radar (Stalker Solo 2;
the floor. Stalker, Plano, TX, USA). The reliability of the radar

TABLE 1. Demographic and anthropometric characteristics of handball players (n = 30) by position of wings, pivots,
goalkeepers, and backs from 2 Third German League teams. All values are mean 6 1 SD.*

Position Age (y) Body mass (kg) Body height (m) BMI (kg$m22)

Goalkeepers (n = 4) 29.3 6 2.9† 93.0 6 15.3 1.88 6 0.03 26.4 6 3.7

Pivots (n = 6) 24.0 6 2.2 94.7 6 10.5 1.88 6 0.08 26.8 6 1.3
Wings (n = 7) 25.8 6 3.9 89.1 6 15.9 1.84 6 0.09† 26.2 6 2.4
Backs (n = 13) 25.3 6 4.3 99.7 6 31.8 1.90 6 0.05 27.7 6 8.7

*BMI = body mass index.

†Significantly different compared with all other positions; h2 . 0.10.

the TM

478 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Standing Long Jump (Broad

Jump). The athlete stands
behind a line marked on the
ground with feet slightly apart.
A 2-foot takeoff and landing is
used, with swinging of the
arms and bending of the knees
to provide forward drive. The
subject attempts to jump, as
far as possible, landing on both
feet without falling backwards.
Best of 3 attempts is used.
Parameter: distance in centi-
meter (distance start line/clos-
est heel).

Jump and Reach (Vertical Jump).

The athlete stands side on to
a wall and reaches up with the
hand closest to the wall. Keep-
ing the feet flat on the ground,
the point of the fingertips is
marked or recorded. The ath-
lete then leaps vertically as
high as possible using both
arms and legs (countermove-
ment allowed). Attempt to
touch the wall at the highest
point of the jump. Best of 2
attempts is used. Parameter:
jump score in centimeter (dis-
tance standing reach height/
jump height).

Three Hop Test (One-Leg Jump).

The athlete starts by standing
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the HBKT and description of the test sequences. behind a line with feet in step
position. When ready, they are
to perform 2 consecutive one-
leg broad jumps non-stop using
system was checked by measuring rolling balls by the a forward and a vertical jump style. They are allowed to use
radar and checking them over a given distance using their arms assist the explosive movement and for balance.
photoelectric cells. Intraclass correlation coefficient The landing is parallel on both feet. Parameter: jump
(ICC) and CV for the test were 0.92 and 3%, respec- distance in centimeter (best of 2 attempts each leg 2 dis-
tively (14). tance start line/closest heel).
Heart rate: Heart rate was measured using a real-time mon-
itoring system (RS 400; Polar Electro GmbH, Rope Skipping. The subject is to perform forward and
Büttelborn, Germany). backward rope skipping (stance: shoulder width) 15
Lactate: Lactate measurements were performed using a lac- seconds each. The inversion of direction is to be executed
tate analyzer (Super GL easy; Dr. Müller Gerätebau without a break. Parameter: number of hops (best of 2
GmbH, Freital, Germany). attempts).
Number of technical errors: manually (3 trained raters, majority
decision). Eight-Shaped Dribbling Circuit. The player starts in step
Nonspecific handball tests were only conducted with 1 position (right hander: left foot at front; left hander: right
handball team (n = 14) on examination 1. foot at front) at the start line and runs through a 3 3 5 m

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2016 | 479

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of New Handball Test

circuit marked by 5 poles (8 shaped) in 3 consecutive laps. A Parameterization of the Match Performance. We calculated
compliant ball handling is essential. The time is electronic a match performance score (MPS) for field players and
recorded. Parameter: time for 3 laps in seconds. goalkeepers as followed: MP = addition of positive actions
(e.g., goals, assists, and steals) and subtraction of negative
Shuttle Run Test (Beep Test). This test involves continuous actions (e.g., technical errors, missed throws, and time
running between 2 lines 20 m apart (touch lines of the penalty). The calculation for goalkeepers was different (per-
handball field) in time to recorded beeps. The subjects stand centage caught throws based on the total number of
behind one of the lines facing the second line and begin throws). Hence, the higher the calculated score the higher
running when instructed by the recording. The subject the MP of the athlete. The MPS was the dependent variable
continues running between the 2 lines turning when signaled within the linear regression model. Test parameters were
by the recorded beeps. After 1 minute (continuing), a sound used as independent variable.
indicates an increase in speed. Running speed as to be
adjusted at the given pace. The test is stopped if the subject Statistical Analyses
fails to reach the line (within 2 m) for 2 consecutive ends All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version
after a warning. Parameter: distance in meter. 22.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive

TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD) calculated for each stress and load parameter.

Examination 1 Examination 2

Parameter Mean SD Mean SD

Stress parameters
Resting heart rate (b$min21) 73 12 63 9
Heart rate after round 1 (b$min21) 189 8 185 7
Heart rate before round 2 (b$min21) 184 8 177 9
Heart rate after round 2 (b$min21) 189 7 188 8
Heart rate recovery minute 2 (b$min21) 140 14 131 10
Heart rate recovery minute 6 (b$min21) 120 10 111 9
Heart rate recovery minute 10 (b$min21) 117 10 107 9
Heart rate recovery minute 14 (b$min21) 116 10 105 9
Resting lactate (mmol$L21) 0.88 0.23 0.87 0.29
Lactate recovery minute 2 (mmol$L21) 15.7 3.25 13.3 1.99
Lactate recovery minute 6 (mmol$L21) 15.9 3.36 13.8 2.85
Lactate recovery minute 10 (mmol$L21) 15.1 2.90 12.7 3.05
Lactate recovery minute 14 (mmol$L21) 13.9 3.28 11.3 2.72
Load parameters—First half
Agility (s) 24.3 1.41 24.3 1.70
Defensive action (s) 16.8 1.22 17.1 1.40
Sprint: 10 m (s) 1.90 0.14 1.88 0.11
Sprint: 20 m (s) 3.32 0.25 3.30 0.22
Overall throwing time (s) 42.6 2.97 42.9 3.35
Throwing velocity first throw (km$h21) 88.9 8.11 94.9 8.46
Throwing velocity second throw (km$h21) 78.6 7.28 86.6 6.44
Throwing velocity third throw (km$h21) 79.7 8.46 84.3 7.64
Missed throws 0.79 0.77 0.45 0.51
Technical errors 1.00 1.08 0.73 0.74
Load parameters: second half
Agility (s) 27.7 2.26 26.3 1.85
Defensive action (s) 18.4 1.73 17.5 1.21
Sprint: 10 m (s) 2.08 0.24 1.95 0.14
Sprint: 20 m (s) 3.64 0.37 3.47 0.26
Overall throwing time (s) 45.0 3.37 43.0 3.14
Throwing velocity first throw (km$h21) 84.3 9.33 93.4 7.64
Throwing velocity second throw (km$h21) 76.0 8.42 83.6 7.46
Throwing velocity third throw (km$h21) 75.3 10.5 83.4 9.50
Missed throws 0.41 0.57 0.31 0.54
Technical errors 1.63 1.99 0.90 1.03

the TM

480 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

statistics (mean, SD, 95% CI) were ascertained for the HBKT small number of cases (e.g., position-specific analysis, Table 1),
parameters. Mean differences (examination 1 vs. examination decisions of significance were made primarily based on h2 val-
2) of HBKT parameters were tested using a general linear ues. The statistical power was calculated using the GPOWER
model. Differences between mean values were considered sta- software (10). The statistical power for all the statistical tests
tistically significant if p values were less than 0.05 and partial was 0.95 (a error) and 0.80 (b error). The effect size for the
eta-squared (h2) values were higher than 0.10. Because of the correlation coefficient was large (0.65). Therefore, 30 subjects

TABLE 3. Relative (ICC) and absolute (CV) Intraobserver reliability of stress parameters (heart rate, lactate) and load
parameters within the HBKT (n = 30).*†

Relative reliability Absolute reliability

95% CI 95% CI (%)

Parameter ICC LL UL CV (%) LL UL

Stress parameter: heart rate

Resting heart rate (b$min21) 0.61 20.18 0.86 8.9 7.4 12.7
Heart rate after round 1 (b$min21) 0.84 0.23 0.95 1.6 1.3 2.2
Heart rate before round 2 (b$min21) 0.76 20.09 0.92 2.2 1.8 3.0
Heart rate after round 2 (b$min21) 0.93 0.86 0.97 1.3 1.1 1.8
Heart rate recovery minute 2 (b$min21) 0.57 0.05 0.81 6.2 5.1 8.8
Heart rate recovery minute 6 (b$min21) 0.70 20.21 0.91 3.9 3.2 5.4
Heart rate recovery minute 10 (b$min21) 0.66 20.19 0.88 4.8 3.9 6.6
Heart rate recovery minute 14 (b$min21) 0.57 20.24 0.85 4.9 4.0 6.8
Mean 0.71 4.23
Stress parameter: lactate
Resting lactate (mmol$L21) 0.42 20.25 0.73 28.7 25.7 47.1
Lactate recovery minute 2 (mmol$L21) 0.56 20.08 0.81 12.7 10.6 18.6
Lactate recovery minute 6 (mmol$L21) 0.78 0.13 0.92 10.7 8.90 15.4
Lactate recovery minute 10 (mmol$L21) 0.77 20.16 0.93 10.2 8.50 14.8
Lactate recovery minute 14 (mmol$L21) 0.71 20.16 0.90 13.0 10.9 19.1
Mean 0.65 15.1
Load parameters: first half
Agility (s) 0.92 0.83 0.96 2.5 2.0 3.4
Defensive action (s) 0.72 0.26 0.88 3.2 2.6 4.3
Sprint: 10 m (s) 0.87 0.73 0.94 3.1 2.5 4.3
Sprint: 20 m (s) 0.95 0.89 0.97 2.3 1.8 3.1
Overall throwing time (s) 0.89 0.77 0.95 3.4 2.7 4.6
Throwing velocity first throw (km$h21) 0.74 0.04 0.91 5.0 4.0 7.1
Throwing velocity second throw (km$h21) 0.48 20.22 0.79 6.2 5.0 8.7
Throwing velocity third throw (km$h21) 0.86 0.12 0.96 3.6 2.8 5.0
Missed throws 0.23 20.49 0.62 30.0 21.9 84.0
Technical errors 0.48 20.07 0.75 62.6 56.6 181
Mean 0.71 12.2
Load parameters: second half
Agility (s) 0.78 0.04 0.92 3.5 2.8 4.8
Defensive action (s) 0.90 0.77 0.95 4.8 3.9 6.7
Sprint: 10 m (s) 0.66 0.17 0.85 5.6 4.6 7.8
Sprint: 20 m (s) 0.75 0.35 0.89 4.7 3.8 6.6
Overall throwing time (s) 0.80 0.26 0.92 3.5 2.8 4.8
Throwing velocity first throw (km$h21) 0.51 20.19 0.80 7.2 5.8 10.3
Throwing velocity second throw (km$h21) 0.55 20.13 0.81 7.3 6.0 10.5
Throwing velocity third throw (km$h21) 0.72 20.08 0.90 6.9 5.6 9.8
Missed throws 20.19 21.60 0.45 30.8 20.3 142.2
Technical errors 0.51 0.02 0.76 68.4 65.7 188.1
Mean 0.60 14.3

*ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; CV = coefficient of variation; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
†ICC interpretation: .0.75 = high reliability; 0.40–0.75 = sufficient reliability; ,0.40 = low reliability (29). CV interpretation:
#5.0% = high reliability (5).

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2016 | 481

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of New Handball Test

were necessary for a sufficient reliability analysis. Relative Based on the confidence intervals (LL ICC . 0.75 and UL
(ICC) and absolute (CV) reliability were calculated and inter- CV # 5%), this proportion decreased from 36% (12/33) to
preted based on Shrout and Fleiss (38), Hopkins (17), and 12% (4/33). For the following 4 parameters, a high reliabil-
Buchheit et al. (3), respectively. The ICC indicated excellent ity could be shown: heart rate after round 2, agility of first
reliability if the value was above 0.75, fair-to-good reliability half, sprint 20 m of first half, overall throwing time of first
between 0.40 and 0.75, and poor reliability when less than half. The heart rate showed to be more reliable than lactate
0.40 (38). The typical or random error of measurement in direct comparison (BICC = 0.71 and BCV = 4.2% vs.
(within-subject variation for 2 sessions) was expressed as BICC = 0.65 and BCV = 15.1%). The average IR of the
a CV (in percentages) and derived from log-transformed data load parameters in the first half was 0.71 (ICC) and 12.2%
(16,17). Based on numerous earlier studies (8,15,19), a CV , (CV) (second half: BICC = 0.60 and BCV = 14.3%). A low
5% was set as the criterion to declare a variable as reliable. IR (ICC , 0.40 and CV . 5%) was seen in the following
The 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each CV parameters: missed throws in the first half and missed
and ICC. The validation was performed using linear regres- throws in the second half.
sion analysis (model: inclusion). The test parameters were When the parameters missed throws, the first and second
used as independent variable and the MPS was the dependent half were excluded and the IR further increased (BICC =
variable. 0.67 vs. 0.71 and BCV = 11.3 vs. 10.1%). Overall, the HBKT
demonstrates sufficient absolute (BCV = 11.3%) and relative
RESULTS
(BICC = 0.67) IR. Without the 2 above-mentioned param-
Reliability eters, the IR increases significantly (BICC = 0.71 and
From examination 1 to examination 2, improvements in BCV = 10.1%). The test-retest analysis based on the
almost all parameters were observed in Table 2. Bland-Altman plots (Figures 3A, B) showed for the heart
This does not include 3 parameters in the first half (agility, rate parameters the largest mean differences and SDs
defensive action, overall throwing time). Twenty-four per- (mean = 7.7, SD = 14.0). The smallest differences between
cent of the parameters (8/33) showed significant differences the 2 sessions were found for the load parameters in the first
(p # 0.05 and h2 . 0.10) comparing the 2 sessions. The half (mean = 21.85, SD = 4.71).
marked difference between the first half (5/10) and the sec- The limits of agreement differed very significantly. They
ond half (9/10) is remarkable. changed on average between 9.44 (load parameters of first
The results of the reliability analysis were mentioned in
half ) and 28.0 (heart rate) and corresponded with the ICC
Table 3.
and CV analysis (Table 3) where the parameters had the
On the basis of the cut points for the relative (ICC .
greatest reliability at the first half. After all 7 parameters
0.75) and absolute (CV # 5%) reliability, it is noted that the
(70%) in the first half had a mean of the difference whose
absolute reliability (52% [17/33] reliable parameter) was
amount was smaller than 1.
greater than the relative reliability (42% [14/33] reliable
parameter). Twenty-three percent (3/13) of the stress pa- Validity
rameters and 45% (9/20) of the load parameters showed The validity of overall 40 parameters or tests was assessed
a high relative and absolute IR (ICC . 0.75 and CV # 5%). through linear regression analysis (Table 4).

Figure 3. A and B, Bland-Altman plots of the parameter with the lowest and highest reliability (ICC and CV, Table 3).

the TM

482 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 4. Validation of the test performance by means of the gold standard match performance (30 matches of the
season 2013–14) using linear regression analysis (model: inclusion).*†

Parameter Functional equation CI R2

Nonspecific handball tests (n = 14)

Standing long jump (cm) y = 20.91 3 x + 270 21.91 to 0.09 0.18
Jump and reach (cm) y = 22.25 3 x + 178 24.90 to 0.40 0.16
Three hop test left (cm) y = 20.22 3 x + 202 20.71 to 0.27 20.01
Three hop test right (cm) y = 20.02 3 x + 59.7 20.15 to 0.12 20.08
Rope skipping (number) y = 0.24 3 x + 21.4 20.90 to 1.38 20.06
Eight shaped dribbling circuit (s) y = 0.01 3 x + 48.3 223.9 to 24.0 20.08
Shuttle run test (m) y = 0.01 3 x + 33.1 20.06 to 0.08 20.08
HBKT: stress parameters (n = 27)
Resting heart rate (b$min21) y = 0.04 3 x + 45.9 21.44 to 1.51 20.04
Heart rate after first half (b$min21) y = 21.46 3 x + 324 23.45 to 0.53 0.05
Heart rate before second half (b$min21) y = 22.07 3 x + 427 23.95 to 20.19 0.14
Heart rate after second half (b$min21) y = 21.87 3 x + 402 24.14 to 0.40 0.07
Heart rate recovery minute 2 (b$min21) y = 0.14 3 x + 29.6 21.01 to 1.29 20.04
Heart rate recovery minute 6 (b$min21) y = 0.14 3 x + 32.5 21.59 to 1.86 20.04
Heart rate recovery minute 10 (b$min21) y = 0.49 3 x 2 7.98 21.14 to 2.11 20.02
Heart rate recovery minute 14 (b$min21) y = 0.18 3 x + 28.1 21.41 to 1.77 20.04
Resting lactate (mmol$L21) y = 248.1 3 x + 90.4 2119 to 22.5 0.04
Lactate recovery minute 2 (mmol$L21) y = 20.47 3 x + 56.0 25.59 to 4.65 20.04
Lactate recovery minute 6 (mmol$L21) y = 1.17 3 x + 30.0 23.82 to 6.16 20.03
Lactate recovery minute 10 (mmol$L21) y = 4.21 3 x 2 15.0 21.35 to 9.77 0.05
Lactate recovery minute 14 (mmol$L21) y = 2.92 3 x + 8.02 22.13 to 7.96 0.02
Recovery heart rate (relative), end of first half-start y = 20.3 3 x 2 11.6 7.19 to 33.4 0.26
of the second half 2
Recovery heart rate (relative), recovery minute 2 to y = 21.67 3 x + 113 24.98 to 1.66 0.01
recovery minute 14
Recovery lactate (relative), recovery minute 2 to y = 20.77 3 x + 61.6 22.34 to 0.80 0.01
recovery minute 14
Lactate degradation rate per minute, recovery y = 19.4 3 x + 42.2 286.6 to 126 20.03
minute 2 to recovery minute 14
HBKT: loading parameters round 1 (n = 27)
agility (s) y = 2.17 3 x 2 4.16 29.49 to 13.8 20.03
defensive action (s) y = 21.65 3 x + 76.3 215.6 to 12.3 20.04
Sprint: 10 m (s) y = 36.7 3 x 2 21.3 275.7 to 149 20.02
Sprint: 20 m (s) y = 4.30 3 x + 34.3 260.7 to 69.3 20.04
Overall throwing time (s) y = 20.73 3 x + 79.4 26.45 to 5.00 20.04
Throwing velocity first throw (km$h21) y = 1.28 3 x 2 66.4 20.86 to 3.42 0.02
Throwing velocity second throw (km$h21) y = 1.49 3 x 2 97.9 20.28 to 3.97 0.09
Throwing velocity third throw (km$h21) y = 0.30 3 x + 24.8 21.75 to 2.35 20.04
HBKT: loading parameters round 2 (n = 27)
Agility (s) y = 21.49 3 x + 90.0 29.05 to 6.08 20.03
Defensive action (s) y = 0.59 3 x + 37.9 29.27 to 10.5 20.04
Sprint: 10 m (s) y = 8.99 3 x + 30.2 263.8 to 81.8 20.04
Sprint: 20 m (s) y = 23.38 3 x + 60.9 247.9 to 41.2 20.04
Overall throwing time (s) y = 22.38 3 x + 155 26.93 to 2.16 0.01
Throwing velocity first throw (km$h21) y = 0.53 3 x + 3.68 21.28 to 2.34 20.03
Throwing velocity second throw (km$h21) y = 1.12 3 x 2 37.4 20.87 to 3.11 0.02
Throwing velocity third throw (km$h21) y = 0.24 3 x + 30.4 21.43 to 1.91 20.04

*CI = confidence interval.

†Highlighted in bold are only variables with a R2 . 0.10.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2016 | 483

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of New Handball Test

For the following 10% (4/40) parameter, an explained the requirements of the sport handball. In close cooperation
variance higher than 10% could be calculated: with Souhail et al. (39), the aim of our group is to address
 Recovery heart rate (relative), end of the first half to these issues and to seek meaningful solutions to make the
start of the second half: R2 = 0.26 performance analysis in handball more powerful.
 Standing long jump: R2 = 0.18 Buchheit et al. (3) investigated the reliability of a repeated
 Jump and Reach: R2 = 0.16 shuttle-sprint and jump ability (RSSJA) test. Semiprofes-
 Heart rate before second half: R2 = 0.14 sional handball players (n = 14) acted as sample group.
The time interval between 2 tests was 7 days. The CVs
DISCUSSION ranged from 1.0% (sprint) and 2.9% (jump) and thus were
The main finding of this study was that the IR of the HBKT often lower than in the HBKT (range: 1.3–68.4%). The indi-
must be regarded as sufficient and the validity as insufficient. ces based on the mean and best values, however, showed
This study revealed 4 highly reliable parameters (heart rate significantly higher CVs (21.2–34.8%). Regarding the previ-
after second half, agility of first half, 20-m sprint of first half, ously described research, Buchheit et al. (3) discuss their
overall throwing time of first half ) and 2 parameters with findings exclusively sport unspecific. They point to similar
a low reliability (missed throws of first and second half ). evidence for repeated isolated sprint tests from other team
Only in 2 parameters of the HBKT, the correlation of sports. Sheppard et al. (37) found in male elite volleyball
variation (recovery heart rate [relative], end of the first half players a CV of 2.4% for the repetitive sprint ability. Impel-
to start of the second half; heart rate before the second half ) lizzeri et al. (19) found a CV of 0.8% for professional football
was higher than 10%. Standing long jump and Jump and players (n = 22). Sattler et al. (32) addressed volleyball-
Reach were the most powerful unspecific tests. specific jumping procedures and tests. They found the high-
Consequently, based on these results, the discussion of the est reliability for specific jumping tests (ICC range: 0.93–0.97;
external examination results is very difficult so far, because CV range: 2.1–2.8%).
only 1 comparable test is described in the scientific literature Mirkov et al. (28) evaluated the reliability of soccer-
(45). Wagner et al. (45) developed a match-based perfor- specific field tests. Most often, the tests revealed high ICCs
mance test for TH. Regarding test-retest reliability (interval: (i.e., .0.80) and small interindividual variations (CV , 4%).
7 days; n = 17), they found an ICC . 0.70 for the peak blood Regarding the throwing-in and standing-kick tests, which
lactate concentration, heart rate, and ball velocity. To assess showed a markedly lower reliability, direct measurement of
validity, Wagner et al. (45) disposed percentage running the ball velocity (e.g., with standard radar gun in the HBKT)
speed over the match as dependent variable (gold standard). is recommended (28).
A high correlation with the percentage running speed in the In accordance with Buchheit et al. (3), Spencer et al. (40)
game-based performance test is shown. recommend as a result of their investigation not to use
Remarkably critical is the fact that the complexity of the indexes as these go hand-in-hand with a reduction of reli-
MP is limited to the conditional parameter running speed. ability (CV: 14.9%, CI: 10.8–31.3%). Instead, the total sprint
Souhail et al. (39) investigated the direct validity of the Yo-Yo time (total of 6 runs) should be used. The lower reliability of
Intermittent Recovery Test (level 1) in 18 adolescent hand- HBKT compared with RSSJA is probably explained by its
ball players (14.3 6 0.5 years) on the basis of MP. As said by higher complexity. A higher test complexity implies more
Wagner et al. (45), they also reduced the MP to just 1 con- grades of freedom in the performance of the test.
ditional parameter (total game distance). Yo-Yo IR perfor- Krüger et al. (20) showed based on parameter throw rate
mance (1.831 6 373 m) was significantly related (r = 0.88, that the position-specific differences increase with the com-
p , 0.01) to total game distance (1.921 6 325 m). In contrast plexity of the test task. The mean throw velocity was
to Wagner et al. (45), which at least were able to specify the between 72.7 and 90.7 km$h21, depending on type of throw
independent variable (game-based performance test), the and position of the player, and was comparable with this
specificity is missing for both of the variables (total test study (range: 75.3–94.9 km$h21).
and total game distance) in the test design of Souhail et al. In accordance with this study, Impellizzeri et al. (19)
(39). These 2 examples are representative for a fundamental defined also a minimum interval between the 2 test days of
and wide-spread problem: despite the unanimous scientific 48 hours. Numerous authors (2,15,29) examined the test-
references, that handball is characterized as a very complex retest reliability of different agility tests (hexagon test,
sport (e.g., jogging, sprinting, backwards movement, side- repeated-modified agility test, agility T-test). They also used
ways movement, jumps, throws, steals blocks, changes of a time interval of 2 days (2,15) or 1 week (29) and reported
direction, one-on-one-situations, and feints), the MP is liter- excellent reliability for the agility tests (ICC . 0.82).
ally reduced to conditional parameters (total game distance From a test-methodological perspective, it can be noted
or relative running speed). It is not surprising that 2 condi- that there is currently no uniform standard regarding the time
tional parameters highly correlate with each other. Thus, interval used in reliability studies (33,34). A small time win-
this is not a proof of validity, because neither Yo-Yo IR1 dow between test and retest promotes learning effects and
nor the parameterization of MP (distance, speed) meets thus implies a low reliability, whereas too large time windows
the TM

484 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

contain development processes due to exercise, illness, and complexity of the sport (MP) measurable and reflect it in
injury. This also would result in a lower reliability. In this a sensible score. To resolve this problem, we propose the
respect, the comparability of the test results is affected not following procedure and order:
only by the lack of substantive agreement (handball specific,  Parameterization of the MP: development of a score that
complex) but also by different time intervals (2–7 days). reflects the MP metrically and acts as the dependent
The validation of a test is the first step in the process of variable (gold standard) in the process of validation.
evaluation. In this regard, the measure of the MP (dependent  Handball-specific complex test: subsequently, there is to
variable) is the challenge to take at present. The MP can be develop a highly complex and handball-specific test that
described as multifactorial and is roughly subdivided into is based on the evidence of the profile handball.
offensive and defensive actions. Here, the problem is to  Validation: validation of the test parameters (point 2)
measure the individual performance (offensive action: goals, based on MP (point 1). The MP should be measured
assists, one-on-one balance; defensive actions: steals, blocks, prospectively for at least half of the season.
one-on-one balance, penalties) and to put them in a sensible  Iterative loops: an adjustment of the test procedure and
overall score. This purpose is hindered by the position and a revalidation might be necessary.
game system dependency of every single action. However,  Proof of reliability.
the test validity is highly dependent on the quality of the  Reference data collection (position dependent and
parameterization of the MP. league dependent).
Key factors (e.g., influence of opponents, psychological  Design of handball-specific training routines.
distress during competition, and match ability) are also For coaches, we suggest to thoroughly check the validity
disregarded in the HBKT as they elude standardization and reliability of any tests. In practice, we can often observe
(control). However, the HBKT lies regarding its motion- the argumentation of coaches “the test is already used for
structural and temporal intensity profile significantly closer a long time and the other teams conduct the same tests.”
to the requirements of the sport as previously used estab- But, these are not proofs of validity.
lished conditional tests (e.g., sprint tests, jump force tests, However, the described procedure is also valid and useful
treadmill test levels, and shuttle run tests). Like any skill test, for similar Olympic sport ball games (e.g., soccer, hockey,
the HBKT also contains learning and adaptation effects as football, basketball, and volleyball).
evidenced by the performance improvements from exami-
nation 1 to examination 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The observational equivalence regarding the prestart The authors would like to thank Katharina Sannemüller, Mar-
condition could not be fully ensured because the athletes kus Becker, Andreas Wölfel and Prof. Karim Chamari for
were tested in succession, and the warm-up period was support regarding data collection and support help. The au-
individually performed and planned. An individual standard- thors thank the athletes and coaches for their enthusiastic
ized warm-up (24) is generally recommended but usually not participation in the study. The results of this study do not
feasible in handball due to spatial limitations. constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or the
Knowing the maximum test requirements, the retest National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA).
showed a more efficient division of power on the part of the
athletes. Indications are the reduced metabolic stress (param-
REFERENCES
eter: lactate) in the postload period and the small deterio-
1. Andrade, M, Fachina, RJ, Cruz, W, Benedito-Silva, AA, Da
rations in round 1 in the AS 1, 2, and 4 (agility, defensive Silva, AC, and De Lira, CA. Strength field tests performance are
action, throw on goal) for examination 2 (Table 3). The AS 1, correlated with isokinetic strength of shoulder rotator muscles in
2, and 4 were manually measured with a stopwatch by 2 female handball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 54: 403–409, 2014.
trained investigators. Vicente-Rodriguez et al. (42) demon- 2. Beekhuizen, KS, Davis, MD, Kolber, MJ, and Cheng, MSS. Test-
retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the hexagon
strated that manual measurements by a trained investigator agility test. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2167–2171, 2009.
using a stopwatch are a valid method to assess assurance speed 3. Buchheit, M, Spencer, M, and Ahmaidi, S. Reliability, usefulness,
and agility fitness testing in adolescents. They pointed out that and validity of a repeated sprint and jump ability test. Int J Sports
researchers must be trained to minimize measurement error. Physiol Perform 5: 3–17, 2010.
4. Carvalho, A, Mourao, P, and Abade, E. Effects of strength training
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS combined with specific plyometric exercises on body composition,
vertical jump height and lower limb strength development in elite
At present, there are no reliable and valid handball specific male handball players: A case study. J Hum Kinet 41: 125–132, 2014.
tests. The present HBKT also turned out to be inefficient, 5. Chelly, MS, Hermassi, S, Aouadi, R, Khalifa, R, Van den Tillaar, R,
especially regarding its validity. As a result, it seems as if Chamari, K, and Shephard, RJ. Match analysis of elite adolescent
there is no scientific legitimating for specific performance team handball players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2410–2417, 2011.
diagnostics in handball. Test procedures are reduced to 6. Chelly, MS, Hermassi, S, Aouadi, R, and Shephard, RJ. Effects of
8-weeks in-season plyometric training on upper and lower limp
conditional parameters that are easy to assess but highly performance of elite adolescent handball players. J Strength Cond Res
unspecific. However, it was not been possible to make the 28: 1401–1410, 2014.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2016 | 485

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of New Handball Test

7. Chelly, MS, Hermassi, S, and Shephard, RJ. Relationships between performance in male elite team handball players. Int J Sports Med 34:
power and strength of the upper and lower limp muscles and 590–599, 2013.
throwing velocity in male handball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 27. Michalsik, LB, Madsen, K, and Aagaard, P. Match performance and
1480–1487, 2010. physiological capacity of female elite team handball players. Int J
8. Cormack, SJ, Newton, RU, McGuigan, MR, and Doyle, TL. Sports Med 35: 590–599, 2014.
Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated 28. Mirkov, D, Nedeljkovic, A, Kukolj, M, Ugarkovic, D, and Jaric, S.
countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 131–144, 2008. Evaluation of the reliability of soccer-specific field tests. J Strength
9. Debanne, T and Laffaye, G. Predicting the throwing velocity of the Cond Res 22: 1046–1050, 2008.
ball in handball with anthropometric variables and isotonic tests. 29. Munro, AG and Herrington, LC. Between-session reliability of
J Sport Sci 29: 705–713, 2011. four hop tests and the agility T-test. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1470–
10. Erdfelder, E, Faul, F, and Buchner, A. GPOWER: A general power 1477, 2011.
analysis program. Behav Res Methods 28: 1–11, 1996. 30. Póvoas, SC, Seabra, AF, Ascensão, AA, Magalhães, J, Soares, JM,
11. Fieseler, G, Jungermann, P, Koke, A, Irlenbusch, L, Delank, KS, and and Rebelo, AN. Physical and physiological demands of elite team
Schwesig, R. Range of motion (ROM) and isometric strength on handball. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3365–3375, 2012.
shoulder joints of team handball sport athletes during playing 31. Rousanoglou, E, Noutsos, K, Bayios, I, and Boudolos, K. Ground
season, Part II: Changes after midseason. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23: reaction forces and throwing performance in elite and novice
391–398, 2014. players in two types of handball shot. J Hum Kinet 40: 49–55, 2014.
12. Genevois, C, Berthier, P, Guidou, V, Muller, F, Thiebault, B, and 32. Sattler, T, Sekulic, D, Hadzic, V, Uljevic, O, and Dervisevic, E.
Rogowski, I. Effects of 6-week sing-based training of the external Vertical jumping tests in volleyball: Reliability, validity and playing-
rotator muscles on the shoulder profile in high-chool elite female position specifics. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1532–1538, 2012.
handball players. J Sport Rehabil 23: 286–295, 2014.
33. Schwesig, R, Becker, S, and Fischer, D. Intraobserver reliability of
13. Gonzales-Rave, JM, Juarez, D, Rubio-Arias, JA, Clemente- posturography in healthy subjects. Somatosens Mot Res 31: 16–22, 2014.
Suarez, VJ, Martinez-Valencia, MA, and Abian-Vicen, J. Isokinetic leg
strength and power in elite handball players. J Hum Kinet 41: 227– 34. Schwesig, R, Fischer, D, Becker, S, and Lauenroth, A. Intraobserver
233, 2014. reliability of posturography in patients with vestibular neuritis.
Somatosens Mot Res 31: 28–34, 2014.
14. Granados, C, Izquierdo, M, Ibanez, J, Ruesta, M, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Are there any differences in physical fitness and 35. Schwesig, R, Fieseler, G, Jungermann, P, Noack, F, Irlenusch, L,
throwing velocity between national and international elite female Leuchte, S, and Fischer, D. Longitudinal and specific analyses of physical
handball players? J Strength Cond Res 27: 723–732, 2013. performance in handball. Sportverletz Sportschaden 26: 151–158, 2012.

15. Haj-Sassi, R, Dardouri, W, Gharbi, Z, Chaouachi, A, Mansour, H, 36. Schwesig, R, Hartmann, M, Leuchte, S, Fischer, D, and Kuß, O.
Rabhi, A, and Mahfoudhi, ME. Reliability and validity of a new Validity of complex soccer-specific field test and a non-specific
repeated agility test as a measure of anaerobic and explosive power. sprint test—Assessments for test and match performance. Sportverletz
J Strength Cond Res 25: 472–480, 2011. Sportschaden 27: 75–84, 2013.

16. Hopker, J, Myers, S, Jobson, SA, Bruce, W, and Passfield, L. Validity 37. Sheppard, JM, Gabbett, T, Taylor, KL, Dorman, J, Lebedew, AJ, and
and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer. Int J Sports Med 31: Borgeaud, R. Development of a repeated-effort test for elite Men’s
volleyball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2: 292–304, 2007.
731–736, 2010.
38. Shrout, PE and Fleiss, JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing
17. Hopkins, W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.
rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86: 420–428, 1979.
Sports Med 30: 1–15, 2000.
39. Souhail, H, Castagna, C, Mohamed, HY, Younes, H, and
18. Ignjatovic, AM, Markovic, CM, and Radovanovic, DS. Effects of 12-
Chamari, K. Direct validity of the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test in
week medicine ball training on muscle strength and power in young
young team handball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 465–470, 2010.
female handball players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2166–2173, 2012.
40. Spencer, M, Fitzsimons, M, Dawson, B, Bishop, D, and
19. Impellizzeri, FM, Rampinini, E, Castagna, C, Bishop, D, Ferrari
Goodman, C. Reliability of a repeated-sprint test for field-hockey. J
Bravo, D, Tibaudi, A, and Wisloff, U. Validity of a repeated-sprint
Sci Med Sport 9: 181–184, 2006.
test for football. Int J Sports Med 29: 899–905, 2008.
41. Sporis, G, Vucetic, V, Jovanovic, M, Jukic, L, and Omrcen, D.
20. Krüger, K, Pilat, C, Ueckert, K, Frech, T, and Mooren, FC. Physical
Reliability and factorial validity of flexibility tests for team sports.
performance profile of handball players is related to playing position
J Strength Cond Res 25: 1168–1176, 2011.
and playing class. J Strength Cond Res 28: 117–125, 2014.
42. Vicente-Rodriguez, G, Rey-Lopez, JP, Ruiz, JR, Jimenez-Pavon, D,
21. Krustrup, P, Mohr, M, Amstrup, T, Rysgaard, T, Johansen, J,
Bergman, P, Ciarapica, D, Heredia, JM, Molnar, D, Gutierrez, A,
Steensberg, A, Pedersen, PK, and Bangsbo, J. The Yo-Yo intermittent
Moreno, LA, and Ortega, FB. Interrater reliability and time
recovery test: Physiological response, reliability, and validity. Med
measurement validity of speed-agility field tests in adolescents.
Sci Sports Exerc 35: 697–705, 2003.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 2059–2063, 2011.
22. Lidor, R, Argov, E, and Daniel, S. An exploratory study of
43. Vieira, F, Veiga, V, Carita, AI, and Petroski, EL. Morphological and
perceptual-motor abilities of women: Novice and skilled players of
physical fitness characteristics of under-16 Portuguese male
team handball. Percept Mot Skills 86: 279–288, 1998.
handball players with different levels of practice. J Sports Med Phys
23. Lidor, R, Falk, B, Arnon, M, Cohen, Y, Segal, G, and Lander, Y. Fitness 53: 169–176, 2013.
Measurement of talent in team handball: The questionable use of 44. Visnapuu, M and Jürimäe, T. Relations of anthropometric
motor and physical tests. J Strength Cond Res 19: 318–325, 2005. parameters with scores on basic and specific motor tasks in young
24. Massuca, LM, Fragoso, I, and Teles, J. Attributes of top elite team- handball players. Percept Mot Skills 108: 670–676, 2009.
handball players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 178–186, 2014. 45. Wagner, H, Orwat, M, Hinz, M, Pfusterschmied, J, Bacharach, DW,
25. Matthys, SP, Fransen, J, Vaeyens, R, Lenoir, M, and Philippaerts, R. Petelin von Duvillard, S, and Müller, E. Testing game based
Differences in biological maturation, anthropometry and physical performance in team handball. J Strength Cond Res 2014. Epub
performance between playing positions in youth team handball. ahead of print.
J Sports Sci 31: 1344–1352, 2013. 46. Wilhelmsen, K, Strand, LI, Nordahl, SHG, Eide, GE, and
26. Michalsik, LB, Aagaard, P, and Madsen, K. Locomotion Ljunggren, AE. Psychometric properties of the Vertigo symptom
characteristics and match-induced impairments in physical scale—Short form. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 8: 2, 2008.
the TM

486 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.