The dual-task methodology, conducting two tasks simultaneously, may provide better validity than the traditional single-task tests in the environment that is closely related to real sport competitions. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability and validity of a dual-task test that aims to measure the reaction time and skill proficiency in roundhouse kicks in elite and sub-elite taekwondo athletes. The dual-task results were compared to those in the single-task movements with various levels of complexity. The single-task movements A, B, and C were composed of one, three, and five roundhouse kicks, respectively. The dual-task movement D was composed of movement C and a push of a button in response to a light stimulus as the secondary task. The subjects were 12 elite and 12 sub-elite male taekwondo athletes. The test included four movements with five repeats of each movement in a randomized order. Each subject conducted the same test on two consecutive days. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed moderate-to-high correlation in the premotor time (ICC =0.439-0.634 in elite and ICC =0.681-0.824 in sub-elite), motor time (ICC =0.861-0.956 in elite and ICC =0.721-0.931 in sub-elite), and reaction time (ICC =0.692 in elite and ICC =0.676 in sub-elite) in the secondary task in both groups. The elite athletes had significantly faster premotor time than their sub-elite counterparts in all the four movements (all P<0.05). The largest difference lies in the reaction time in the secondary task, in which the elite group (0.248±0.026 seconds) was 33.0% faster than the sub-elite group (0.370±0.081 seconds) (P<0.001). This study shows that the test developed in this study has reasonable reliability and validity in both single- and dual-task methods. In addition, the dual-task method may be a more appropriate way to assess the reaction time and skill proficiency in taekwondo athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: