Assessing the Measurement Sensitivity and Diagnostic Characteristics of Athlete-Monitoring Tools in National Swimmers
Click name to view affiliation
Search for other papers by Stephen Crowcroft in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Erin McCleave in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Katie Slattery in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Aaron J. Coutts in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose:
To assess measurement sensitivity and diagnostic characteristics of athlete-monitoring tools to identify performance change.
Methods:
Fourteen nationally competitive swimmers (11 male, 3 female; age 21.2 ± 3.2 y) recorded daily monitoring over 15 mo. The self-report group (n = 7) reported general health, energy levels, motivation, stress, recovery, soreness, and wellness. The combined group (n = 7) recorded sleep quality, perceived fatigue, total quality recovery (TQR), and heart-rate variability. The week-to-week change in mean weekly values was presented as coefficient of variance (CV%). Reliability was assessed on 3 occasions and expressed as the typical error CV%. Week-to-week change was divided by the reliability of each measure to calculate the signal-to-noise ratio. The diagnostic characteristics for both groups were assessed with receiver-operating-curve analysis, where area under the curve (AUC), Youden index, sensitivity, and specificity of measures were reported. A minimum AUC of .70 and lower confidence interval (CI) >.50 classified a “good” diagnostic tool to assess performance change.
Results:
Week-to-week variability was greater than reliability for soreness (3.1), general health (3.0), wellness% (2.0), motivation (1.6), sleep (2.6), TQR (1.8), fatigue (1.4), R-R interval (2.5), and LnRMSSD:RR (1.3). Only general health was a “good” diagnostic tool to assess decreased performance (AUC –.70, 95% CI, .61–.80).
Conclusion:
Many monitoring variables are sensitive to changes in fitness and fatigue. However, no single monitoring variable could discriminate performance change. As such the use of a multidimensional system that may be able to better account for variations in fitness and fatigue should be considered.
The authors are with the Sport & Exercise Discipline Group, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Moore Park, NSW, Australia. Crowcroft and Slattery are also with the New South Wales Inst of Sport (NSWIS), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
© 2023 Human Kinetics