Background Recording training and match intensities in adolescent sports is crucial in preventing overtraining and injuries while ensuring optimal performance and well-being. Objective To develop a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure training and match intensities in adolescent cricketers. Design The validity and test-retest reliability were determined, and a pilot study was done. Setting High/secondary school's cricket facilities. Participants Players from the 1st and 2nd cricket teams assessed the content and face validity and test-retest reliability, while researchers and coaches assessed the content and face validity of the training and match intensity questionnaire. A pilot study was done where a sample of convenience consisted of 17 adolescent cricketers. Assessment of risk factors The questionnaire recorded session duration and the participants' rating of perceived exertion (RPE), which were used to determine the session RPE (sRPE). Acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) was calculated for all the various aspects of cricket, such as bowling, batting, fielding, and strength and conditioning sessions, as well as all other sports the participants participated in. General mood during each session and the number of deliveries bowled, balls faced in a batting session, and balls thrown in a fielding session were recorded. Main Outcome Measurements not applicable as this study was purely descriptive. Results The developed questionnaire was deemed to be valid (I-CVI score of 0.83) and reliable (Kendall' W score of 0.63). Over the seven-week period, some spikes in the acute training intensities were observed, however, the overall ACWR were all within the norms (0.8–1.3). Bowling reported an average ACWR of 0.91, and other sport reported the highest average of 1.08, while the average for all activities combined was 0.92. Conclusion The questionnaire can be used as a valuable tool to measure training and match intensities adolescent cricketers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grobler et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: