Exploratory study explores how coach qualifications affect performance gains in young karate athletes following training.
This exploratory, quasi-experimental study examined how coach educational background influences training-induced adaptations in young elite karate athletes. Forty-five national-level under-15 karatekas were assigned to three non-randomized groups based on their coach profile: sports instructor (School 1), university-trained sports teacher (School 2), or a combined supervision team (School 3). Each coaching unit independently designed an eight-week plyometric and agility program under standardized constraints, allowing the program characteristics to reflect their methodological expertise. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included anthropometry, muscular power, linear sprint time, change-of-direction (COD) speed, and dynamic balance. Data were analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline scores as covariates. Effect sizes were expressed as partial eta squared ( η p 2 ) for between-group effects and Cohen's d for descriptive changes. ANCOVA revealed no significant group effects for BMI, body fat percentage, squat-jump, or 10-m sprint. Conversely, significant between-group differences favoring School 3 were observed in most key performance metrics ( p < 0.01). School 3 demonstrated superior outcomes for muscular power (countermovement jump, drop jump, standing long jump, medicine-ball tests; η p 2 up to 0.67), linear sprint time (15-m sprint; η p 2 = 0.30), modified COD T-test (MCOD-T; η p 2 =0.67), and Y-balance test - composite score (YBT-CS; η p 2 =0.40). Post-hoc tests confirmed School 3 outperformed School 1 and School 2 with large effect sizes across these variables (e.g., MCOD-T: d = 3.59 vs. School 1; 15-m sprint: d = 1.63 vs. School 1). We conclude that integrating academic knowledge with sport-specific practical experience provides a stronger foundation for designing structured, progressive, and effective training programs that maximize positive performance adaptations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Souibgui et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: