Cross-sectional study compares biological maturity and training effects on motor performance in youth athletes, suggesting different influences across tasks.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the influence of biological maturity status and training experience on motor performance in young athletes of different sport disciplines. Methods: Youth athletes (n = 84, 23 females) from five different sports (basketball, volleyball, track and field, wrestling, and badminton) participated in this study. Jump height was measured for the squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ). Peak torque during maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) and torque steadiness at 20% MVC were assessed during plantar flexion (PF) and dorsiflexion (DF). Postural control was assessed with the one-leg test for both the right and left legs. K-means clustered analysis categorized participants into groups of low and high performers. Results: High performers had greater training experience than low performers for the SJ (p < 0.05), with no difference in maturity status (p > 0.05). Similarly, high performers had greater training experience (p < 0.05) than low performers for the CMJ, with no difference in maturity status (p > 0.05). High performers were more mature than low performers for MVC torque of DF (p < 0.001) and PF (p < 0.001), with no group differences in training experience (DF: p > 0.05; PF: p > 0.05). Maturity status for torque steadiness differed only for DF (p < 0.001), whereas there was no difference for PF (p > 0.05). There were no differences in either maturity status or training experience for one-leg-stance time (p > 0.05). Conclusions: These findings suggest that maturity status and training experience are linked to performance, although their relative roles differ across tasks. These findings reflect an interaction between biological maturity, training background and sports performance in youth athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lykidis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: