Publications by authors named "Edin Uzicanin"

4 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Reliability, Validity and Usefulness of a New Response Time Test for Agility-Based Sports: A Simple vs. Complex Motor Task.

J Sports Sci Med 2019 12 19;18(4):623-635. Epub 2019 Nov 19.

Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

The importance of response time (RT) in sports is well known, but there is an evident lack of reliable and valid sport-specific measurement tools applicable in the evaluation of RT in trained athletes. This study aimed to identify the validity, reliability, and usefulness of four newly developed RT testing protocols among athletes from agility-saturated (AG) and non-agility-saturated (NAG) sports. Thirty-seven AG and ten NAG athletes (age: 20.9 ± 2.9; eleven females) volunteered to undergo: three randomized simple response time (SRT-1, SRT-2, and SRT-3) protocols that included a single limb movement, and one complex response time (CRT) protocol that included multi joint movements and whole body transition over a short distance (1.5 and 1.8m). Each RT test involved 3 trials with 5 randomized attempts per trial. Two sensors were placed at the left- and right-hand side for SRT-1 and SRT-2. Three sensors were positioned (left, middle, right) in SRT-3 and CRT. The intra-class-correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. Independent sample t-test, effect size (d), and area-under-the-curve (AUC) were calculated to define discriminative validity of the tests. The results showed the newly developed tests were more reliable and useful in the AG than NAG athletes (i.e., ICC between 0.68 and 0.97 versus 0.31-0.90, respectively). The RT of AG athletes was faster than that of NAG athletes in the CRT test from the left (p <0.01, = 2.40, AUC: 0.98), centre (p < 0.01, = 1.57, AUC: 0.89), and right sensor (p < 0.01, = 1.93, AUC: 0.89) locations. In contrast, there were no differences between the groups in the SRT tests. The weak correlation (i.e., r= 0.00-0.33) between the SRT and CRT tests suggests that response time of the single limb and multijoint limb movements should not be considered as a single motor capacity. In conclusion, this study showed that AG athletes had faster response time than their NAG peers during complex motor tasks. Such enhanced ability to rapidly and accurately reprogram complex motor tasks can be considered one of the essential qualities required for advanced performance in agility-based sports.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873124PMC
December 2019

Positional Role Differences in the Aerobic and Anaerobic Power of Elite Basketball Players.

J Hum Kinet 2015 Dec 30;49:219-27. Epub 2015 Dec 30.

Tuzla University, School of Physical Education and Sport, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The aim of the present study was to compare the aerobic and anaerobic power and capacity of elite male basketball players who played multiple positions. Fifty-five healthy players were divided into the following three different subsamples according to their positional role: guards (n = 22), forwards (n = 19) and centers (n = 14). The following three tests were applied to estimate their aerobic and anaerobic power and capacities: the countermovement jump (CMJ), a multistage shuttle run test and the Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST). The obtained data were used to calculate the players' aerobic and anaerobic power and capacities. To determine the possible differences between the subjects considering their different positions on the court, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni post-hoc test for multiple comparisons was used. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the different groups of players in eleven out of sixteen measured variables. Guards and forwards exhibited greater aerobic and relative values of anaerobic power, allowing shorter recovery times and the ability to repeat high intensity, basketball-specific activities. Centers presented greater values of absolute anaerobic power and capacities, permitting greater force production during discrete tasks. Coaches can use these data to create more individualized strength and conditioning programs for different positional roles.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2015-0124DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723171PMC
December 2015

Acute effects of loaded whole body vibration training on performance.

Asian J Sports Med 2015 Mar 20;6(1):e24054. Epub 2015 Mar 20.

Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Background: The application of whole body vibration (WBV) as a warm-up scheme has been receiving an increasing interest among practitioners.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of loaded and unloaded WBV on countermovement jump, speed and agility.

Patients And Methods: Twenty-one healthy male college football players (age: 20.14 ± 1.65 years; body height: 179.9 ± 8.34 cm; body mass: 74.4 ± 13.0 kg; % body fat: 9.45 ± 4.8) underwent randomized controlled trials that involved standing in a half squat position (ST), ST with 30% of bodyweight (ST + 30%), whole body vibration at f = 50 Hz, A = 4 mm (WBV), and WBV with 30% bodyweight (WBV + 30% BW) after a standardized warm-up. Post measures of countermovement jump, 15-m sprint, and modified t-test were utilized for analyses.

Results: One way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the countermovement jump performance, F (3, 60 = 9.06, η2 = 2.21, P = 0.000. Post-hoc showed that WBV + 30% BW posted significant difference compared to (P = 0.008), ST + 30% BW (P = 0.000) and WBV (P = 0.000). There was also a significant difference in the sprint times among interventions, F (3, 60) = 23.0, η2 = 0.865, P = 0.000. Post hoc showed that WBV + 30% BW displayed significantly lower time values than ST (P = 0.000), ST + 30% BW (P = 0.000) and WBV (P = 0.000). Lastly, there was a significant difference in the agility performance across experimental conditions at F(2.01, 40.1) = 21.0, η2 = 0.954, P = 0.000. Post hoc demonstrated that WBV have lower times than ST (P = 0.013). Also, WBV + 30% BW posted lower times compared to ST (P = 0.000), ST + 30% (P = 0.000) and WBV (P = 0.003).

Conclusions: Additional external load of 30% bodyweight under WBV posted superior gains in countermovement jump, speed and agility compared to unloaded WBV, loaded non-WBV and unloaded non-WBV interventions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.24054DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393544PMC
March 2015

Effect of various warm-up protocols on jump performance in college football players.

J Hum Kinet 2012 Dec 30;35:127-32. Epub 2012 Dec 30.

College of Human Kinetics, University of the Philippines - Diliman, Philippines.

The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of warm-up strategies on countermovement jump performance. Twenty-nine male college football players (age: 19.4 ± 1.1 years; body height: 179.0 ± 5.1 cm; body mass: 73.1 ± 8.0 kg; % body fat: 11.1 ± 2.7) from the Tuzla University underwent a control (no warm-up) and different warm-up conditions: 1. general warm-up; 2. general warm-up with dynamic stretching; 3. general warm-up, dynamic stretching and passive stretching; 4. passive static stretching; 5. passive static stretching and general warm-up; and, 6. passive static stretching, general warm-up and dynamic stretching. Countermovement jump performance was measured after each intervention or control. Results from one way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference on warm-up strategies at F (4.07, 113.86) = 69.56, p < 0.001, eta squared = 0.72. Bonferonni post hoc revealed that a general warm-up and a general warm-up with dynamic stretching posted the greatest gains among all interventions. On the other hand, no warm-up and passive static stretching displayed the least results in countermovement jump performance. In conclusion, countermovement jump performance preceded by a general warm-up or a general warm-up with dynamic stretching posted superior gains in countermovement jump performance.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10078-012-0086-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3588691PMC
December 2012
-->