Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 44, Issue 12, pp 1763–1774 | Cite as

Variability of Competitive Performance of Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review

  • Rita M. MalcataEmail author
  • Will G. Hopkins
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Estimates of the variability that athletes show from competition to competition provide information about the relative contributions of environmental and other factors affecting competitive performance. Smallest and other important thresholds for assessing changes in performance in competitions and field or laboratory tests can also be derived from estimates of variability.

Objectives

To systematically review estimates of within-athlete variability of competitive performance in various sports.

Methods

We searched SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar for studies providing estimates of within-athlete variability between competitions. Estimates are reported here as coefficients of variation (CV) only for the best athletes. Some studies also combined within-athlete variability with between-athlete differences into a measure of predictability expressed as an intraclass correlation coefficient, reported here for the full field of competition.

Results

Skeleton and 1,000-m speed-skating times have the lowest within-athlete variability (CV of 0.15 % and 0.4 %, respectively), apparently because of the effect of the initial phase of the race on race dynamics. Times in sprint and endurance sports also have relatively low variability (0.6–1.4 %), reflecting the predominant contribution of mean power output to performance. The power-velocity relationship tends to make CV for time smaller in sports performed against water or wind resistance, but this effect is offset by variability in the effects of wind and water on individual athletes. Sports requiring explosive power in a single effort, such as field events and weightlifting, have larger CVs for their performance measures (1.4–3.3 %), likely reflecting substantial contributions of skill. Sports with the greatest within-athlete variability (~50 %) were those with subjective scores (e.g. surfing). Predictability correlations ranged from 0.17 (half-pipe snowboarding) to 0.93 (cross-country skiing). There was little difference in variability or predictability between men and women. Application of power-velocity and power-duration relationships allows transformation of the estimates of within-athlete variability of competitive performance into thresholds for smallest and other important changes in performance in laboratory and field tests of power output.

Conclusion

Understanding the contributions of race dynamics, power output, environment, skill, and subjective scoring to the variability of athletic performance should help identify and evaluate strategies for performance enhancement.

Keywords

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Elite Athlete Competitive Performance Mountain Bike Explosive Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Carl Foster for clarification of the dynamics in the winter sport of skeleton and speed skating. Neither author (Rita M. Malcata or Will G. Hopkins) has any conflicts of interest to declare with regard to this publication. No funding was received for the conduct of this study and/or the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:472–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:3–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30:1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendez-Villanueva A, Mujika I, Bishop D. Variability of competitive performance assessment of elite surfboard riders. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:135–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Competitive performance of elite olympic-distance triathletes: reliability and smallest worthwhile enhancement. Sportscience. 2005;9:1–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopkins WG. Competitive performance of elite track-and-field athletes: variability and smallest worthwhile enhancements. Sportscience. 2005;9:17–20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trewin CB, Hopkins WG, Pyne DB. Relationship between world-ranking and Olympic performance of swimmers. J Sports Sci. 2004;22:339–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McGuigan MR, Kane MK. Reliability of performance of elite Olympic weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:650–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bullock N, Hopkins WG, Martin DT, et al. Characteristics of performance in skeleton World Cup races. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:367–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muehlbauer T, Schindler C, Panzer S. Pacing and sprint performance in speed skating during a competitive season. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5:165–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pyne DB, Trewin CB, Hopkins WG. Progression and variability of competitive performance of Olympic swimmers. J Sports Sci. 2004;22:613–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Variation in performance of elite cyclists from race to race. Eur J Sport Sci. 2006;6:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for combining outcomes from several subject groups. Sportscience. 2006;10:51–3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value. Sportscience. 2007;11:16–20.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith TB, Hopkins WG. Variability and predictability of finals times of elite rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:2155–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nibali M, Hopkins WG, Drinkwater E. Variability and predictability of elite competitive slalom canoe-kayak performance. Eur J Sport Sci. 2011;11:125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonetti DL, Hopkins WG. Variation in performance times of elite flat-water canoeists from race to race. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5:210–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flyger N. Variability in competitive performance of elite track cyclists. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spencer M, Losnegard T, Hallén J, et al. Variability and predictability of performance times of elite cross-country skiers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:5–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fulton SK, Pyne DB, Hopkins WG, et al. Variability and progression in competitive performance of Paralympic swimmers. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:535–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med. 2001;31:211–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zanoletti C, La Torre A, Merati G, et al. Relationship between push phase and final race time in skeleton performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:579–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bartlett R, Wheat J, Robins M. Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists? Sports Biomech. 2007;6:224–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hinckson EA, Hopkins WG. Reliability of time to exhaustion analyzed with critical-power and log-log modeling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:696–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.High Performance Sport New ZealandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Sport Performance Research Institute of New Zealand, AUT UniversityAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations