Norm based fleld testing

by Dan Pfaff

[?^ (c by IMF

% % The author outlines the benefits of field testing and explains why norm-based testing is even more meaningful. The luithor discu.sses differeni lypes of lesis and test batteries and ilteir place wiihin the iraining programme. He then looks at faclors that might cause lest results to fiucittale. Finally, the aiahor pro­vides examples of his own test results. ^ ^

Dan Pfaff is Field Events Coach ta the Louisiana Stale Universilv. Loitisiaim, USA.

\ Introduction

Field tests play an imporlant role in ath­letic development. Thev can be used for tal­ent identification, to measure biomotor quali­ties and to analyse training effects. Norms for these tests can be derived from publications or other coaches and used as general guide­lines.

However, in my view, the norms for these tests should be more specific to individual coaching programmes and lake close account of the gender, ability and age of Ihe athleles. The mosl meaningful analysis of field tests will be made using norms from athletes who have trained under Ihc same coach and programme. These norms can only be eslablished by col­lecting lest results over a period of lime.

The objectives of this article are to give some examples of field lests and test balleries which I have used and to discuss some of the faclors which may affeci the results. While it is not my intention lo be too prescriptive, it is my hope thai coaches who read Ihis arlicle will he encouraged to design Iheir own system of norm based field testing.

2 Types of tests

Jump tests provide good examples of field tests. A well designed battcrv of tests can mea­sure absolute and relative strength, elastic qualities, rhythm dynamics, postural mastery and other qualities.

Period specificity may lead to simpler motor lasks, such as the sianding long jump. being employed during general preparation periods and more complex lasks. such as hur­dle hopping over hurdles of various heights

and spacings, being used during a bk>ck of training wilh high technical and coordination demands.

The sianding long jump may also be used throughout the iraining year. Il is particularly useful as an indicator for iraining load control. A deviation from the norm by an athlele would indicate that the planned workload needs lo be modified to preveni overtraining.

Other types of field tests include ihrowing tests, weighl training tests, speed and accelera­tion tests and mobility tesis. Examples from these types of tests can be arranged in a core baiicry. which is used throughoul ihe year (see lable 1), and in period specific batteries, which lake place at specific limes of the year. laking account of their place within the over­all training programme (sec lables 2 -7).

Results from ihese balleries can be used lo analyse long term progress and make adjust­ments to training.

Although I cannot stress enough thai norms and results will be specific to each Iraining group and sysiem. I have included an example of my own field test results for refer­ence, (tables S-9). When examing these tables the reader will note thai I ha \e devised a poinl System which is applied Io the individ­ual tests and to test batteries in the same manner as decalhlon or heptathlon scoring tables.

Table 2: Mulliple throws test battery.

Test

OHB

BLF

HHT

1 Hop & OHB

1 Hop & BLF

Box Hop & BLF

Medicine Ball C&T

Period

All

All

SP. PC

SP, PC, CP

SP, PC, CP

SP, PC

SP, PC

Table 3: Multiple jumps test battery.

Test

SLJ

STJ

LLRR

5 Hops

50m Bounding

10 Hurdle Hops

Period

All

All

SP, PC, CP

PC. CP

SP, PC

PC. CP

Tahle 1: Core test battcrv. Table 4: Weight training test battery.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tests

Overhead Backwards Throw

Between Legs Forward Throw

Standing Long Jump

Sianding Triple Jump

30m from blocks

Olympic Lifts

(To take place throughout the year)

Test

Clean and Jerk

Clean

Snatch

Bench

Speed squais (10 sees)

Single leg squats (10 sees)

Period

SP, PC. CP

GP, SP, PC

SP. PC, CP

All

SP

SP, CP

5'>

Table S: Speed & acceleration tcsl bailery.

Test

30m from blocks

Flying 30m

60m (timed sections)

Period

SP, PC, CP

PC, CP

PC

Tahle 6: Mobilitv test batlerv.

Test

Goniometer test

Dynamic Fiexibiiity and Symmetry test

Period

GP, SP

All

Table 7: Throwing test battery.

Test

Standing reg. weight

Standing Underweight

Standing Overweight

Full Throw Normal

Full Throw Heavy

Full Throw Light

Full Throw Wet Circle

Period

All

SP, PC, PC

GP, SP, PC

SP, PC, CP

PC, CP

PC, CP

PC. CP

Abbreviations used in Tables

SLJ STJ LLRR

OHB

BLF

HHT 1H+BLF

1H+0HB

Sianding long jump Standing triple jump Left hop, left hop. right hop. right hop Overhead backwards throw Between the legs forward throw Hammer hips style throw One hop and then between the legs forward One hop and then overhead backwards throw

1 Box-fBLF

IBox+OHB

Medicine Bali C&T

GP

SP

PC GP

When drawing up their own tests coaches should be aware that the weighis of throwing implements, hurdle heights and box heights depend t)n gender, ability, age and point in the training cycle.

3 Influences «n test results

Fluctuations in tcsl results may occur as a result of N'arious social, en\'ironmenlal and iraining factors. These same factors may also affeci Ihe performance of differeni alhletes in different ways. The coach must be aware of this, and take into accouni all conditions, in order to interpret the test results correctlv.

For example results may fluctuate because of training emphasis during a specific iraining phase, A thrower i n v o h e d in inlense absolute slrenglh development should logi­cally note a decline in test batteries dealing with fine neuromuscular coordinaiion. .\ coach not versed in proprioceptor funclion could seriously misinterpret dala collected under the above condilions. The facl that noi all biomoior qualilies progress linearly or at Ihe same rate must be emphasized here.

The order of lests wiihin a battery can also influence results. An alhlete who has performed several mulliple ihrows tesis mav produce a far superior sianding long jump than an athlete who starts the battery with this specific lest. Neurological (exciiaiion) effects such as this arc also especially notice­able in wcieht lifiine lesi batteries.

Hop from a box and then between the legs forward Hop from a box and then overhead backwards throw

Medicine ball catch and throw

General Phase Preparation Phase Specific Preparation Phase Pre Competition Phase Competition Phase 53

Table 8: Sample lesl scores - Louisiana State University Women.

Overall scoring leader Esther Jones 290 Pts 1989

Event records S U 2.97 Esther Jones 1987 STJ 8.31 Dahlia Duhaney 1990 BLF 16.75 Zina Age 1987 30m 4.07 Sheila Echols 1986

Class records (best total points score)

OHB BLF SLJ STJ

1 st Year Esther Jones (87) 13.71 m 15.57m 2,87m 7.94m

2nd Year Jovennie McDuffie (90) 15,60m 15-34m 2.70m 7.68m

3rd Year Esther Jones (89) 13.25m 15.83m 2.97m 8.09m

4th Year Lavern Eve (86) 17.14m 15,28m 2.65m 7.97m

5th Year Mary Cobb (90) 16,46m 14.72m 2,70m 8.09m

Post Grad Lavern Eve (91) 18.33m 16.78m 2,81m 8.32m

30m

4.15

4.22

4.11

4.59

4,29

4.42

Pts

281

277

290

266

280

314

54

Unfamiliarity w'ith the purpose of tests may affect the alhlele's motivation. A hur­dler wilh little knowledge of power dynamics and neuromuscular development mighl find mulliple throw lests very frustrating, consider the lests useless, and so under perform. It is important ihat the coach clearly explain the value of each test and of the testing process lo his alhletes.

Test phobia or ihe presence of peers can also cause results to flucluate. For example, an athlete tested with oihers of far superior abililies may struggle. These problems can be addressed by testing groups of similar abili­lies and placing the lesls in different training situations. Many athletes repon personal best lifting results during a pyramid weight room session, a week afier they have failed dismal­ly in Ihal parlicular lift under test conditions.

Finally, the influence of sites, weather, etc. may also affeci test results. A hurdle hopping test done in iraining shoes on a wel track on a cold day would produce radically different

results from those of the same alhlete work­ing over hurdles indoors.

4 Conclusion

The value of norm based field testing as I have discussed in this article, is that it is tai­lored to individual training groups and train­ing programmes.

This lype of testing allows ihe coach lo compare the performance of his athleles lo oiher alhleies who have followed the same coaching svstem. Evaluation of the results allows adjustments to be made either lo the Iraining of individuals or the group as a whole. Results can be used to analyse progress over the training year and longer periods of time,

1 have provided examples of tests, lest balleries and resulis from one particular sys­tem which can be a guide for coaches wishing lo develop iheir own.

Table 9: Sample test scores - Louisiana State University Men.

Overall scoring leader Simon Williams 403 pts 1 989

Event records (not including Post Grad marks) SLJ 3.44 Bruce Reid 1987 STJ 10,22 Anthony Druilhet 1986 OHB 20.54 Simon BLF 17,44 Simon 30m

Williams 1989 Williams 1991

3.92 M Rose, C King 1990

Class records (best SLJ 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Post Grad

STJ 1 st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Post Grad

BLF 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year. Post Grad

OHB 1 St Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Posl Grad

30m 1 st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Post Grad

3.21m 3,44m 3.35m 3.44m 3.39m

9.81m 10.04m 10,03m 10,22m 10.24m

16,51m 17.a7m 17.41m 17.44m 16,42m

17,78m 20.54m 19.41m 20,25m 19.09m

3.93 3.94 3,91 3.94 3.89

individual marks)

Bruce Reid (86) Bruce Reid (87) John Nichols (89) Bruce Reid (89) Bruce Reid (90)

Bruce Reid (86) Bruce Reid (87) Johnathan Taylor (86) Anthony Druilhet (86) Bruce Reid (90)

John Nichols (87) Simon Williams (89) Simon Williams (90) Simon Williams (91) Bengt Jarlso (91)

Nell Eubank (86) Simon Williams (89) Simon Williams (90) Simon Williams (91) Milton Williams (86)

Jason Sanders (90) Jason Sanders (91) Chris King (91) Matthew Rose (88) Bruce Reid (90)

55