aerobic, anaerobic, and skill performance with regard to classification in wheelchair rugby athletes

This article was downloaded by: [Linkopings universitetsbibliotek]On: 11 March 2013, At: 12:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and SportPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Skill Performance With Regard toClassification in Wheelchair Rugby AthletesNatalia Morgulec-Adamowicz a , Andrzej Kosmol b , Bartosz Molik b , Abu B. Yilla c & James J. Laskin da Department of Adapted Physical Activity, Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Educationb Department of Sports for Individuals with Disabilities, Józef Piłsudski University of PhysicalEducationc Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas-Arlingtond School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of MontanaVersion of record first published: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Natalia Morgulec-Adamowicz , Andrzej Kosmol , Bartosz Molik , Abu B. Yilla & James J. Laskin (2011): Aerobic,Anaerobic, and Skill Performance With Regard to Classification in Wheelchair Rugby Athletes, Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 82:1, 61-69

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, orcosts or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of theuse of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599722

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RQES: March 2011 61

Morgulec-Adamowicz, Kosmol, Molik, Yilla, and Laskin

Key words: disability sport, peak oxygen consumption, quadriplegia, Wingate Anaerobic Test

The purpose of classification is to ensure fairness and make competition more equitable among athletes

with various functional abilities and disability types. To ensure fair competition in wheelchair rugby, players are classed into one of seven groups (from 0.5 to 3.5 points) depending on their level of disability (International Wheelchair Rugby Federation [IWRF], 1999). The higher the class, the higher the athlete’s functional level. To en-sure team balance in wheelchair rugby, the total value of

all players on each team cannot exceed eight points. This ensures that the athletes on the court at any one time will represent a mix of functional levels.

Individuals with quadriplegia developed wheelchair rugby as “the quadriplegic equivalent” to wheelchair bas-ketball (Dimsdale & Beck, 1988). The IWRF Classifier’s Manual governs classification (IWRF, 2008). Currently, three components are used to determine players’ clas-sification: (a) the Bench Test, composed of muscle tests, trunk tests—assessing abdominal, back, pelvis, and lower extremity function in all planes and various situations—and hand tests; (b) the Functional Movement Test, which evaluates sport-specific tasks and activities (pushing, turn-ing, stopping, starting, changing directions, holding the chair against resistance, dribbling, passing, catching, re-trieving the ball from the floor, rimming, and transferring) in a noncompetitive environment; and (c) Observations On-Court, consisting of observing an athlete in various situations on the court, during warm-up, training, and competition. Classifiers also observe the athlete off court while working with equipment such as tape, gloves, water bottles, tools, and binders (IWRF, 2008). This system rep-resents a sport-specific classification approach based on medical, functional, and observational criteria. Therefore, the wheelchair rugby classification system is designed to

Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Skill Performance With Regard to Classification in Wheelchair Rugby Athletes

Natalia Morgulec-Adamowicz, Andrzej Kosmol, Bartosz Molik, Abu B. Yilla, and James J. Laskin

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Accepted: November 21, 2009 Natalia Morgulec-Adamowicz is with the Department of Adapted Physical Activity at the Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education. Andrzej Kosmol and Bartosz Molik are with the Department of Sports for Individuals with Disabilities at the Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education. Abu B. Yilla is with the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Texas–Arlington. James J. Laskin is with the School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science at the University of Montana.

The purpose of the study was to examine the sport-specific performance of wheelchair rugby players with regard to their classification. A group of 30 male athletes from the Polish Wheelchair Rugby League participated in the study. The seven International Wheelchair Rugby Federation classes were collapsed into four groups. Standardized measures of aerobic, anaerobic, and skill performance were examined to identify performance differences among the four groups. Major findings were that most differences were between Group I players and all others and that anaerobic performance was the most sensitive to classification differences. Another important find-ing was that for all other groups, with one exception, adjacent groups did not differ in anaerobic, aerobic, and sport-specific skill performance. The results of this study demonstrate the need to investigate other performance measures that will help in evaluating the current wheelchair rugby classification system.

Physiology

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport©2011 by the American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and DanceVol. 82, No. 1, pp. 61–69

Morgulec-Adamowicz.indd 61 2/16/2011 5:40:07 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

62 RQES: March 2011


ensure that winning or losing an event depends on talent, training, skill, fitness, and motivation rather than uneven-ness of disability-related variables among competitors (Vanlandewijck & Chappel, 1996).

Several investigators have agreed that sport classifica-tion for individuals with disabilities needs to be scientifi-cally examined to determine the effects of impairment on the athlete’s performance (Brasile, 1990; DePauw, & Gavron, 1995; Higgs, Babstock, Buck, Parsons, & Brewer, 1990; McCann, 2003, 2006; Sherrill, 1999; Strohkendl, 2001, 2004; Tweedy, 2003). To date, only a few unpub-lished studies have examined the wheelchair rugby clas-sification system (Altman, Hart, & Parkinson, 2006; Hart, 2006; Malone, Collins, & Orr, 2006; Molik, Morgulec, Bebenek, & Kosmol, 2006; Morgulec, Kosmol, & Molik, 2006; Schreiner, 2006; Wu, 2001). Most of these studies, however, were limited to issues of general wheelchair rugby classification principles (Hart; Wu) and procedures (Altman et al.; Schreiner). Some researchers attempted to analyze athletic performance with regard to classification in wheelchair rugby (Malone et al.; Molik et al.; Morgulec et al.), but thus far the results have been inconsistent.

Aerobic Performance

Wheelchair rugby combines short, intense exercise bouts over an extended playing time; thus, it requires aerobic as well as anaerobic capacity (Coutts, Reaburn, & Abt, 2003). Many studies have investigated the aerobic capacity in active men with quadriplegia (Bhambhani et al., 1995; Campbell, Williams, & Lakomy, 2002; Dallmeijer, Hopman, Angenot, & Van der Woude, 1997; Eriksson, Löfström, & Ekblom, 1988; Goosey-Tolfrey, Castle, & Webborn, 2006; Hopman, Dallmeijer, Snoek, & Van der Woude, 1996; Janssen, Dallmeijer, Veeger, & Van der Woude, 2002; Janssen, Van Oers, Hollander, Veeger, & Van der Woude, 1993; Valent et al., 2007). Most authors (Bhambhani, 2002; Eggers et al., 2001; Figoni, 1993; Hop-man et al., 1996) agreed that peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) is reduced for individuals with quadriplegia due to factors specific to the condition, such as reduced muscle mass and an impaired sympathetic nervous system. In general, it has been demonstrated that VO2peak is in-versely related to the lesion levels in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI; Coutts, Rhodes, & McKenzie, 1983; Eriks-son et al., 1988; Janssen et al., 1993, 2002). In a review of several studies on athletes with SCI, Bhambhani (2002) concluded there was considerable overlap in peak aerobic performance among different classification levels across sports in individuals with quadriplegia and paraplegia.

Anaerobic Performance

Many studies attempted to examine the anaerobic performance of individuals with quadriplegia by using a

wheelchair ergometer (WCE) or an arm crank ergometer (ACE) as the exercise mode (Goosey-Tolfrey et al., 2006; Janssen et al., 1993; Morgulec, Kosmol, Vanlandewijck, & Hübner-Wozniak, 2005; Morgulec et al., 2006; Van der Woude, Bakker, Elkhuizen, Veeger & Gwinn, 1997). Janssen et al. (2002) demonstrated that maximal power outputs during ACE were higher than WCE; thus, the testing mode must be considered when evaluating the literature. Therefore, results in studies investigating anaerobic performance of individuals with quadriplegia should include the experimental setup (WCE or ACE) and protocol (resistance) used. Previous studies reported that lesion level is one of the most limiting factors for an increase in anaerobic capacity in the SCI population (Hutzler, Ochana, Bolotin, & Kalina 1998; Janssen et al., 2002; Morgulec et al., 2005). Morgulec et al. (2006) used the Wingate arm ergometer test to examine anaerobic performance in wheelchair rugby players with regard to their classification. It was postulated that the lack of sig-nificant differences in anaerobic performance between 1–1.5 point players and 2–2.5 point players, and 2–2.5 point players and 3–3.5 point players may suggest a need to reexamine the IWRF classification system.

Skill Performance

Few studies have been published related to skill performance in wheelchair rugby players. Malone et al. (2006) suggested that the wheelchair rugby player clas-sification system adequately divides athletes based on functional ability related to the sport. However, the results of that study indicated significant correlation between player classification and the five skill tests (20-m sprint, endurance sprint, up and back, passing, and slalom); the test validity and reliability were not examined. In the present study, the Beck Battery of Quad Rugby Skill Tests was used as a reliable and valid instrument for examining sport-specific skills (Yilla & Sherrill, 1998).

Higgs et al. (1990) suggested there should be statisti-cally significant performance differences between classes. Thus, the relationship between players’ classification and their sport-specific performance should be measurable. Wheelchair rugby is a contact game composed of many skills such as picking, blocking, passing, or wheelchair maneuverability, which depend on strength, speed, en-durance, coordination, and flexibility. Strohkendl (2001) stated that only the athlete’s physical potential should be the subject of classification. Based on this assumption the athletes’ performance (aerobic, anaerobic, and sport-specific skills) should be related to classification.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the wheelchair rugby players’ performance with regard to their classification. The research objective was to iden-tify differences in aerobic, anaerobic, and sport-specific skill performance among the classification groups. We


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

RQES: March 2011 63


hypothesized that the sport-specific performance of wheelchair rugby players would depend on the player’s classification level.

Method

Participants

A group of 30 male athletes from the Polish Wheel-chair Rugby League took part in this study. Athletes were classified according to the IWRF Player Classification System (IWRF, 1999). Due to the relatively small sample size, participants were divided into four groups: Group I, 0.5-point players (n = 7); Group II, 1- and 1.5-point players (n = 9); Group III, 2- and 2.5-point players (n = 6); and Group IV, 3- and 3.5-point players (n = 8). Participants’ demographic information (age, height, body mass, time since injury, and wheelchair rugby experience) is presented in Table 1. All athletes had a similar training status of two sessions (2–3 hr) per week. Each participant provided written informed consent, and the Ethics Com-mittee of the University of Physical Education in Warsaw approved the study.

Instrumentation

Body mass was measured using a scale weight type WPT 8.300BC (Radwag, Radom, Poland). Participants were weighed in normal track clothing while sitting in a wheelchair, and the wheelchair mass was subtracted from the total recorded mass.

Aerobic Performance. Each participant performed a maximal exercise test on a motorized driven treadmill (MDT; Saturn 250-100R, H-P-Cosmos, Nussdorf-Traun-stein, Germany) originally adapted for wheelchairs. The treadmill was connected online to a personal computer. ParaGraphics Software (H-P-Cosmos, Nussdorf-Traun-stein, Germany) was used to monitor and collect treadmill data—speed and exercise time. VO2peak was assessed using the maximal exercise test based on a continuous incremental test protocol to voluntary fatigue. Ventila-tion (VE) and VO2peak were measured via open circuit

spirometry (Vmax metabolic system, SensorMedics, Yorba Linda, USA). Peak oxygen consumption was defined as the highest a participant achieved during the maximal exercise test and was expressed as an absolute value in liters per minute. The relative peak oxygen consumption (rVO2peak) with respect to body mass was expressed as milliliters per minute per kilogram. Ventilation and gas exchange were measured breath-by-breath, and data were averaged over 10 s.

Anaerobic Performance. To determine anaerobic power and capacity, the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) was used with an arm crank ergometer (ACE; Angio; Lode BV, Groningen, The Netherlands). The reliability and validity of arm cranking for measuring anaerobic performance in persons with SCI was established by Jacobs, Mahoney, and Johnson (2003). The ergometer was connected inline to a personal computer. The WAnT Software Package and interface RS232 (Lode BV, Groningen, The Netherlands) were used to collect and calculate data. Four indexes were measured during the WAnT: peak power output (PP), defined as the highest 5-s power output; mean power output (MP), the average power sustained throughout the 30-s period; the lowest power output (LP); the lowest 5-s power output; and time (tPP) to achieve PP. The WAnT Software Package also calculated: fatigue index (FI) as the percentage of decline in power output (FI = PP - LP/PP x 100), relative peak power output (rPP), and relative mean power output (rMP) with respect to body mass.

Skill Performance. To assess sport-specific skill perfor-mance, we used the Beck Battery of Quad Rugby Skill Tests. Yilla and Sherill (1998) established reliability and validity of the Beck Battery of Quad Rugby Skill Tests, and the battery was administered according to the test manual (Yilla, 1993). All tests were performed on a hardwood surface in the same sport hall. Each participant used his own rugby competition chair. The battery included five tests: (a) maneuverability with the ball (Test 1), which measured maneuvering skill through the course of gates while bouncing a ball at least once every 10 s; the score was the total number of gates completed in 30 s; (b) pass for accuracy (Test 2), which measured passing skill for accuracy; the score was the total point value for three at-

Table 1. Demographic information about wheelchair rugby players

Group n Age Height Body mass Time since Wheelchair rugby (years) (m) (kg) injury (years) experience (years) M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

I 7 31 9 1.83 0.10 75.71 8.18 9 6 4 2II 9 31 8 1.81 0.08 69.84 12.43 10 5 4 1III 6 30 5 1.77 0.04 72.45 14.57 11 4 5 1IV 8 32 5 1.79 0.07 81.43 7.77 13 6 4 1

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

64 RQES: March 2011


tempts; (c) picking (Test 3), which measured the skill of setting double picks on each chair in the course; the score was the time taken to complete the 18-m course with six chairs; (d) sprinting (Test 4), which measured sprinting, with the score being the time taken to complete the 20-m sprint; and (e) pass for distance (Test 5), which measured passing skill for distance, with the score being the total point value for three attempts (Yilla & Sherrill, 1998).

Testing Procedure

Testing took place between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The participants were asked to refrain from taking caf-feine, nicotine, and alcohol for at least 5 hr prior to testing and from taking meals for at least 1.5 hr prior to testing. A general practitioner examined participants, which is a standard procedure in Poland prior to beginning labora-tory performance tests. Participants completed a personal questionnaire to provide data on age, height, date of dis-ability, wheelchair rugby classification, and experience. Subsequent to that, data on body mass were collected as described eralier.

Participants then performed the test on a motorized driven treadmill with their own daily use wheelchairs. The test protocol consisted of a 5-min warm-up at 2 km·h-¹. Im-mediately following the warm-up, athletes started the con-tinuous incremental test at a set speed of 4 km·h-¹. After 3 min and every 3 min thereafter, the speed increased by 2 km·h-¹ until voluntary fatigue. Participants were verbally encouraged to give maximal effort.

After a 2-hr rest, participants performed the WAnT with the ACE (Inbar, Bar-Or, & Skinner, 1996). The athletes sat in their own braked wheelchairs held by two research team assistants. The ACE axis height was at par-ticipant’s shoulder level. The horizontal distance from the ACE was chosen to allow for a slight elbow flexion at the furthest point of the cranking movement. For participants with severe hand function impairment, an elastic bandage was used to fix their hands to the handlebars. The test pro-tocol consisted of a 2-min warm-up—cranking at 60 rpm without resistance. The Wingate test resistance equated to 1–3.5% of body mass. Braking force optimization was based on the Jacobs, Johnson, Mahony, Carter, and So-marriba (2004) recommendations of resistance loading during arm WAnT in individuals with quadriplegia. Each participant cranked as fast as possible, and measuring be-gan as soon as the system registered 25 rpm. The counting of revolutions lasted exactly 30 s (Lode BV, 1998). Partici-pants received verbal encouragement throughout the test.

After 2 hr of rest, the athletes took part in the wheelchair rugby skill performance assessment. Before commencing the Beck Battery of Quad Rugby Skill Tests, participants had a 10-min structured group warm-up. Then each athlete completed two trials of all tests, with a minimum 2-min rest between trials. The total score for each test was the average from two trials.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the STATISTICA 7.1 pack-age (StatSoft, Cracow, Poland). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the four groups on the three performance parameters. A Tukey’s post hoc analysis for unequal sample sizes was used to determine group differences. An alpha level of p ≤ .05 was used as the criterion for statistically significant differences among groups. The effect size was determined by calculating the omega squared (ω2) for all statistically significant results. The values of ω2 > .15, > .06, and > .01 were typically con-sidered to represent large, medium, and small meaning-fulness of results, respectively (Keppel, 1991).

Results

Participants’ demographic data are presented in Table 1. A one-way ANOVA indicated no significant dif-ferences among the four groups in age, F(3, 26) = 0.12, p = .95; height, F(3, 26) = 0.52, p = .67; body mass, F(3, 26) = 1.7, p = .19; time since injury, F(3, 26) = 1.07, p = .38; and wheelchair rugby experience, F(3, 26) = 0.4, p = .75. The groups were similar across all demographic variables, although Group IV athletes weighed somewhat more than those in the other groups.

Aerobic Performance

An ANOVA indicated significant differences among the four groups in minute ventilation, F(3, 26) = 4.60, p = .01, ω2 = .265; peak oxygen consumption, F(3, 26) = 4.41, p = .012, ω2 = .254; and exercise time F(3, 26) = 5.37, p = .005, ω2 = .305. However, there was no significant differ-ence among the four groups for relative peak oxygen consumption (rVO2peak), expressed in milliliters, with respect to body mass, F(3, 26) = 2.54, p = .078 (see Table 2). The results of Tukey’s post hoc analyses (see Table 2) revealed significant differences between Groups I and IV for minute VE, VO2peak, and exercise time. There were also significant differences between Groups I and III for exercise time. The effect size (ω2) showed a large meaningfulness (ω2 > .15) of results for VE , VO2peak, and exercise time.


An ANOVA revealed significant differences among the four groups (see Table 3) in peak power, F(3, 26) = 22.14, p < .001, ω2 = .679; relative peak power, F(3, 26) = 17.66, p < .001, ω2 = .622; mean power, F(3, 26) = 20.79, p < .001, ω2 = .664; relative mean power, F(3, 26) = 16.55, p < .001, ω2 = .609; the lowest power, F(3, 26) = 17.20, p < .001, ω2 = .618; and time to achieve peak power, F(3, 26) = 14.74, p < .001, ω2 = .579. There was no significant differ-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

RQES: March 2011 65


ence among the groups for the fatigue index, F(3, 26) = 2.28, p = .102 (see Table 3). Tukey’s post hoc tests showed that Group I was significantly different from Group II (except PP and LP) and Groups III and IV in all anaerobic parameters. There were also differences between Groups II and IV for PP, rPP, MP, rMP, and LP. However, Group II was not significantly different from Group III (except PP), nor was Group III significantly different from Group IV. The meaningfulness of results (effect size) was large (ω2

> .15) for PP, rPP, MP, rMP, LP, and tPP.

Skill Performance

The ANOVAs identified significant differences among the four groups for the five sport-specific tests (see Table 4): Test 1, F(3, 26) = 7.36, p = .001, ω2 = .390; Test 2, F(3, 26) = 4.72, p = .009, ω2 = .271; Test 3, F(3, 26) = 7.20, p = .001, ω2 = .383; Test 4, F(3, 26) = 16.36, p < .001, ω2 = .606; and Test 5, F(3, 26) = 5.05, p = .006, ω2 = .288. Post hoc analysis revealed that Group I significantly differed in all tests from Group III (except Test 2) and Group IV (except Test 5). There were also differences between Groups I and II for Tests 3 and 4. There were no significant differences

in all performance tests between Groups II and III, Groups II and IV, and Groups III and IV. There was a large effect size (ω2 > .15) for all tests.

Discussion

The major finding of this study was that most differ-ences were between Group I (0.5) players and all others. Another important finding was that for all other groups, adjacent groups did not differ, except for one measure (peak power). That is, Group II players (1.0 and 1.5 points) were not significantly different from Group III players (2.0 and 2.5 points), nor were Group III players (2.0 and 2.5) significantly different from Group IV players (3.0 and 3.5) in anaerobic, aerobic, and sport-specific skill.

Aerobic Performance

Aerobic performance identified the fewest differ-ences between groups, all of which were between Group I and other groups. This would indicate it is the least sensi-tive measure for identifying differences between classes.

Table 2. Differences between players’ classification groups in aerobic performance parameters (Tukey’s post hoc analysis)

I II III IV I vs. I vs. I vs. II vs. II vs. III vs. M SD M SD M SD M SD II III IV III IV IV

VE (l·min-¹) 42.1 13.7 58.3 10.5 47.1 6.4 66.3 20.0 * VO2peak (l·min-¹) 1.6 0.4 1.8 0.5 1.8 0.5 2.4 0.5 *rVO2peak (ml·min-¹·kg-¹) 21.1 6.3 26.4 6.1 25.6 5.6 30.2 7.2 Exercise time (min) 13.4 3.0 15.7 2.6 18.1 2.0 18.0 2.3 * *

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; VE = minute ventilation; VO2peak = peak oxygen consumption; rVO2peak = relative peak oxygen consumption. *p < .05.

Table 3. Differences between players’ classification groups in anaerobic performance parameters (Tukey’s post hoc analysis)

I II III IV I vs. I vs. I vs. II vs. II vs. III vs. M SD M SD M SD M SD II III IV III IV IV PP (W) 83.1 35.3 136.7 35.8 199.0 49.8 226.8 28.0 *** *** * ***rPP (W·kg-¹) 1.1 0.4 2.0 0.6 2.8 0.5 2.8 0.4 ** *** *** ***MP (W) 63.4 26.4 108.3 27.2 148.8 38.4 176.7 26.6 * *** *** ***rMP (W·kg-¹) 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.5 2.1 0.5 2.2 0.3 ** *** *** *LP (W) 54.6 23.5 87.2 23.0 109.5 19.5 135.6 23.3 ** *** **tPP (s) 14.1 3.1 8.6 1.3 8.6 1.8 8.4 1.1 *** *** *** FI (%) 34.1 10 35.6 9.5 44.1 4.8 40.4 5.1

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PP = peak power; rPP = relative peak power; MP = mean power; rMP = relative mean power; LP = the lowest power; tPP = time to achieve PP; FI = fatigue index.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

66 RQES: March 2011


Bearing in mind the study by Hopman et al. (1996), which identified aerobic performance as the one least likely to be directly changed by wheelchair rugby training, the findings of the present study were expected.

The results of peak oxygen consumption, which ranged from 1.6 to 2.4 l·min-¹ in this study, are surprisingly higher than the VO2peak values reported for active men with quadriplegia in a review study by Haisma et al. (2006), which ranged from 0.76 to 1.03 l·min-¹. The differences in experimental protocols for VO2peak examinations be-tween the current study and those reviewed by Haisma et al. (2006) may explain this. Recently, Janssen et al. (2002) attempted to prepare normative values of physical capacity in persons with SCI. The VO2peak values in the current study represented “excellent” physical capacity according to Janssen et al.

In the present study, rVO2peak with respect to body mass was not significantly different among the four groups. Interestingly, Group II players achieved higher rVO2peak values than Group III (26.4 ml·min-¹·kg-¹, 25.6 ml·min-¹·kg-¹, respectively). Although several studies (Coutts et al., 1983; Eriksson et al., 1988; Janssen et al., 1993; Janssen et al., 2002) indicated the relationship be-tween lesion level and aerobic capacity in individuals with SCI, it should be noted that sample sizes usually combined persons with quadriplegia and paraplegia, resulting in conclusions limited to differences between individuals with high and low spinal cord lesions. We have not yet found published evidence identifying aerobic capacity sep-arately in active individuals with quadriplegia with regard to their spinal cord lesion or sport classification. Bernard, Mercier, Varray, and Prefaut (2000) reported that in well trained wheelchair athletes with paraplegia the peak car-diorespiratory responses during incremental wheelchair ergometry may not be related to the lesion level. Also, specific cardiorespiratory adaptations that occur during maximal exercise testing in athletes with paraplegia may be different from athletes with quadriplegia because of disrupted sympathetic stimulation to the myocardium.

Further research is needed to determine the influence of neurological level on VO2peak in elite athletes with quadriplegia. In addition, only minute ventilation and VO2peak, expressed as an absolute value in liters per minute, were significantly different between Groups I and IV. These results are in accordance with Vanlandewijck, Spaepen, and Lysens’ (1995) study of aerobic capacity in wheelchair basketball players, in which they observed no differences in rVO2peak among Classes II, III, and IV (in a four-class wheelchair basketball functional system). They questioned whether aerobic capacity is a determin-ing factor in wheelchair basketball performance. Grimby, Broberg, Krotkiewska, and Krotkiewski (1976) docu-mented that a preponderance of Type IIb (fast glycolytic) motor units with a concomitant reduction in Type I (slow oxidative) motor units in the lower extremity muscles (vastus lateralis) and the upper extremities (deltoid) occurs in individuals with quadriplegia. This tendency may explain the limited aerobic capabilities in individu-als with quadriplegia. The lack of significant differences in VO2peak among the four groups of wheelchair rugby players in our study may also be explained by specificity in wheelchair rugby, which is dominated by intense exercise sessions that improve anaerobic, rather than aerobic, ca-pabilities. Because wheelchair rugby includes elements of wheelchair basketball and the assumptions of wheelchair rugby classification are similar to wheelchair basketball classification, it may be important for future studies to compare classification systems in both sports.


Anaerobic performance was the most sensitive in detecting differences between the groups, with a number of comparisons revealing significant differences below the .001 level. A study by Morgulec et al. (2005) concerning the anaerobic power of individuals with quadriplegia re-vealed a significant relationshp between lesion level and relative mean power. However, it should be noted that

Table 4. Differences between players’ classification groups in the Beck battery of skill tests (Tukey’s post hoc analysis)

I II III IV I vs. I vs. I vs. II vs. II vs. III vs. M SD M SD M SD M SD II III IV III IV IV Test 1 (pt) 8.6 1.5 10.0 1.9 12.2 1.8 11.8 1.3 ** **Test 2 (pt) 17.2 8.2 21.4 7.8 26.8 4.5 27.9 1.0 * Test 3 (s) 78.5 15.3 62.2 6.2 55.5 4.1 58.1 11.1 * ** ** Test 4 (s) 10.7 1.3 8.6 1.0 7.3 0.7 7.4 1.0 ** *** *** Test 5 (pt) 12.3 3.2 15.8 4.8 19.8 2.1 17.4 3.1 **

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Test 1 = maneuverability with the ball; Test 2 = pass for accuracy, Test 3 = picking, Test 4 = sprinting; Test 5 = pass for distance. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

RQES: March 2011 67


Morgulec et al. computed correlation coefficients for both sedentary and active men with quadriplegia together. In the present study, the anaerobic performance (rPP, MP, rMP, tPP) of Group I (0.5 point players) differed from the other three groups of wheelchair rugby players. There were also differences between Groups II and IV; however, Group II was not significantly different from Group III, nor was Group III significantly different from Group IV. These results are in agreement with the Hutzler et al. (1998) study of wheelchair basketball players’ anaerobic capacity, in which the authors demonstrated significant differences in peak power only between wheelchair bas-ketball players from Classes 1 and 4.5 and from Classes 2 and 4.5. This suggests that the anaerobic performance of both wheelchair rugby and basketball players does not reflect the differences between athletes from “border classes” (i.e., Classes 0.5 and 1–1.5, 1–1.5 and 2–2.5, and 2–2.5 and 3–3.5 in wheelchair rugby or Classes 1–1.5 and 2–2.5, 2–2.5 and 3–3.5, and 3–3.5 and 4–4.5 in wheelchair basketball). Interestingly, in this study wheelchair rugby players’ aerobic and anaerobic performance did not de-pend on the athletes’ classification points. Thus, future research should be designed to examine the dynamics of wheelchair rugby to determine whether aerobic or anaerobic capacity is more specific to wheelchair rugby. The indications from this study were that anaerobic per-formance was more specific to wheelchair rugby.

Skill Performance

The analysis of sport-specific skills in wheelchair rugby athletes revealed no significant differences between Groups II to IV (Class 1–1.5, 2–2.5, and 3–3.5 points) in all tests. Although there are other differences between players according to the IWRF functional classification system, there seemed to be none among Groups II, III, and IV in executing maneuverability with the ball (Test 1), pass for accuracy (Test 2), picking (Test 3), sprinting (Test 4), and pass for distance (Test 5). Overall, Group I athletes (Class 0.5) differed from the other three. Findings of previous studies investigating the classification system in wheelchair basketball also identified differences between lower and higher functioning athletes but not between all the classes (Hedrick & Brasile, 1996; Molik & Kosmol, 2001; Vanlandewijck et al., 1995).

The results of the present study do not support those of Malone et al. (2006) that the classification system ad-equately divides wheelchair rugby players based on skill. The authors indicated significant correlations among players’ classification and skill test results. In this context, it is important to question whether that correlation is an adequate methodology for examining classification sys-tems in wheelchair rugby. Moreover, in the present study, there was a tendency in all skill tests, with the exception of Test 2, for Group III players to perform slightly better

than Group IV players. In this study, performance was, environmentally, the closest indicator of in-game perfor-mance. Although, the IWRF classification system is based on medical, functional, and observational criteria, it is im-portant to review whether on-court performance should receive greater emphasis in the classification procedure. Currently, the athlete is observed on the court, only if the results of manual muscle tests, functional movement tests, and trunk tests are inconclusive. Thus, a sport-specific part of wheelchair rugby classification (court observation) seems to be applied only exceptionally. We hope a new project using international wheelchair rugby classification databases (Altman et al., 2006) will also include detailed information about the players’ on-court performance.

In summary, the results of this study show that an-aerobic, aerobic, and sport-specific skill performance of wheelchair rugby players is not dependent on a player’s classification. It is evident that 0.5 players present lower performance in comparison with all other players. Gener-ally, there is a tendency for athletes with higher classifica-tion points to perform better. However, lack of significant differences in aerobic, anaerobic and sport-specific skill performance between Groups II –IV (Class 1–1.5, 2–2.5 and 3–3.5) underlines the need for continued examina-tion of the IWRF classification system with an emphasis on on-court performance.

We have little doubt that the tools used in the cur-rent study were insufficient to comprehensively measure the complex factors underlying the classification differ-ences in wheelchair rugby; however, this study lays the foundation for further examinations of wheelchair rugby classification using alternate measures. Other limitations of this study are that we did not examine all seven IWRF classification levels and that our sampling methodology did not reveal interclass differences. It is critical that the academic community continues to develop and refine measurement tools and procedures to help develop eq-uitable classification systems, not only in wheelchair rugby but in all disability sports.

References

Altman, V. C., Hart, A., & Parkinson, A. (2006). Wheelchair rugby classification datebase: Aid to the improvement of classification. Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classifica-tion: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.

Bernard, P. L., Mercier, J., Varray, A., & Prefaut, C. (2000). Influ-ence of lesion level on the cardioventilatory adap tations in paraplegic wheelchair athletes during mus cular exercise. Spinal Cord, 38(1), 16–25.

Bhambhani, Y. (2002). Physiology of wheelchair racing in athletes with spinal cord injury. Sports Medicine, 32, 23–51.

Bhambhani, Y., Burnham, R. S., Wheeler, G., Eriksson, P., Hol-land, L., & Steadward, R. D. (1995). Ventilatory threshold during wheelchair exercise in untrained and endurance-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

68 RQES: March 2011


trained subjects with quadriplegia. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 333–343.

Brasile, F. M. (1990). Performance evaluation of wheelchair athletes: More than a disability classification level issue. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 7, 289–297.

Campbell, I. G., Williams, C., & Lakomy, H. K. A. (2002). Physi-ological responses of endurance-trained male wheelchair athletes to a 10-kilometer treadmill time trial. Adapted Physi-cal Activity Quarterly, 19, 496–508.

Coutts, A., Reaburn, P., & Abt, G. (2003). Heart rate, blood lactate concentration and estimated energy expenditure in semi-professional rugby league team during a match: A case study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 97–103.

Coutts, K. D., Rhodes, E. C., & McKenzie, D. C. (1983). Maximal exercise responses of tetraplegics and paraplegics. Journal of Applied Physiology, 55, 479–485.

Dallmeijer, A. J., Hopman, M. T. E., Angenot, E. L., & Van der Woude, L. H. V. (1997). Effect of training on physical capacity and physical strain in persons with tetraplegia. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 29, 181–186.

DePauw, K. P., & Gavron, S. J. (1995). Disability and sport. Cham-paign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Dimsdale, A., & Beck, A. (1988). Reserved for quads: The first U. S. quad rugby championship. Sports’n’Spokes, 14(2), 28–29.

Eggers, L., Carson, C., Evans, K., Swank, A. M., Adams, K. J., Barnard, K. L., & Berning J. (2001). Limiting factors for increasing VO2 peak for individuals with spinal cord injury. Clinical Exercise Physiology, 3(1), 10–16.

Eriksson, P., Löfström, L., & Ekblom, B. (1988). Aerobic power during maximal exercise in untrained and well-trained persons with quadriplegia and paraplegia. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 20, 141–147.

Figoni, S. F. (1993). Exercise responses and quadriplegia. Medi-cine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25, 433–441.

Goosey-Tolfrey, V., Castle, P., & Webborn, N. (2006). Aerobic capac-ity and peak power output of elite quadriplegic games players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40, 684–687.

Grimby, G., Broberg, C., Krotkiewska, I., & Krotkiewski, M. (1976). Muscle fiber composition in patients with traumatic cord lesion. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 8(1), 37–42.

Haisma, J. A., van der Woude, L. H., Stam, H. J., Bergen, M. P., Sluis, T. A. & Bussmann, J. B. (2006). Physical capacity in wheelchair-dependent persons with a spinal cord injury: A critical review of the literature. Spinal Cord, 44, 642–652.

Hart, A. (2006). Issues in defining minimum eligibility—Wheelchair rugby. Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classification: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.

Hedrick, B. N., & Brasile, F. M. (1996). The relationship of skills of elite wheelchair basketball competitors to the interna-tional functional classification system. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30, 137–148.

Higgs, C., Babstock, P., Buck, J., Parsons C., & Brewer, J. (1990). Wheelchair classification for track and field events: A performance approach. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 7, 22–40.

Hopman, M. T., Dallmeijer, A. J., Snoek, G., & Van der Woude, L. H. (1996). The effect of training on cardiovascular responses to arm exercise in individuals with tetraplegia. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 74, 172–179.

Hutzler, Y., Ochana, S., Bolotin, R., & Kalina, E. (1998). Aero-bic and anaerobic arm-cranking power outputs of males with lower limb impairments: Relationship with sport participation intensity, age, impairment and functional classification. Spinal Cord, 36, 205–212.

Inbar, O., Bar-Or, O., & Skinner, J. S. (1996). The Wingate anaerobic test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

International Wheelchair Rugby Federation. (1999). Internation-al wheelchair rugby classification manual (2nd ed.). Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://iwrf.com/classification.htm

International Wheelchair Rugby Federation. (2008). Internation-al wheelchair rugby classification manual (3rd ed.). Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://iwrf.com/classification.htm

Jacobs, P. L., Johnson, B. M., Mahoney, E. T., Carter, A. B., & Somarriba, G. S. (2004). Effect of variable loading in the determination of upper limb anaerobic power in persons with tetraplegia. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Develop-ment, 41(1), 9–14.

Jacobs, P. L., Mahoney, E. T., & Johnson, B. (2003). Reliability of arm Wingate anaerobic testing in persons with complete paraplegia. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 26, 141–144.

Janssen, T. W. J., Dallmeijer, A. J., Veeger, H. E. J., & Van der Woude, L. H. V. (2002). Normative values and determi-nants of physical capacity in individuals with spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39, 29–39.

Janssen, T. W. J., Van Oers, C. A. J. M., Hollander, A. P., Veeger, H. E. J., & Van der Woude L. H. V. (1993). Isometric strength, sprint power, and aerobic power in individuals with a spinal cord injury. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25, 863–870.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lode BV. (1998). Operator manual: Lode ergometry manager Wing-ate test plus module. Groningen, The Netherlands: Author.

Malone, L. A., Collins, J. M., & Orr, K. (2006). Correlation be-tween player classification and skill performance in rugby. Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classification: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.

McCann, B. C. (2003). Athletic performance: A critical scientific re-examination of underlying principles, including clas-sification. Proceedings of VISTA 2003 Conference on Sports for Youths with Disablities. Bollnas, Sweden.

McCann, B. C. (2006). Scientific foundations for athlete classification. Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classifica-tion: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.

Molik, B., & Kosmol, A. (2001). In search of objective criteria in wheelchair basketball player classification. In G. Doll-Tepper, M. Kröner, & W. Sonnenschein (Eds.), Vista’99—New horizons in sport for athletes with a disability: Proceedings of the international Vista’99 conference (pp. 355–368). Cologne, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

Molik, B., Morgulec, N., Bebenek, J., & Kosmol, A. (2006). Game efficiency as one of classification criterion in wheelchair rugby. Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classifica-tion: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.

Morgulec, N., Kosmol, A., & Molik, B. (2006). Examination of anaerobic performance in wheelchair rugby athletes by classifica-tion level. Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classification: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

RQES: March 2011 69


Morgulec, N., Kosmol, A., Vanlandewijck, Y., & Hübner-Wozniak, E. (2005). Anaerobic performance of active and sedentary male individuals with quadriplegia. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 22, 253–264.

Schreiner, P. (2006). The disappearance of athletes with severe dis-abilities in wheelchair rugby! Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference on Classification: Solution for the Future, Bonn, Germany.

Sherrill, C. (1999). Disability sport and classification theory: A new era. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16, 206–221.

Strohkendl, H. (2001). Implications of sport classification systems for persons with disabilities and consequences for science and research. In G. Doll-Tepper, M. Kröner, & W. Sonnenschein (Eds.), Vista’99—New horizons in sport for athletes with a disability: Proceedings of the international Vista’99 conference (pp. 281–302). Cologne, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

Strohkendl, H. (2004). Klassifizierung als ein grundlegendes Mittel für die Kontinuität der Sportbeteiligung im Be-hindertensport [Classification as a fundamental means for the continuity of participation in disabled sports]. European Bulletin of Adapted Physical Activity, 3. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.eufapa.upol.cz/www/images/stories/files/Journals/Compl_Art_vol3_iss1.pdf

Tweedy, S. M. (2003). Biomechanical consequences of impair-ment: A taxonomically valid basis for classification in a uni-fied disability athletics system. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 9–16.

Valent, L. J. M., Dallmeijer, A. J., Houdijk, H., Slootman, J., Jans-sen, T. W. J., Hollander, A. P., & Van der Woude, L. H. V. (2007). The individual relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake in people with a tetraplegia during exercise. Spinal Cord, 45, 104–111.

Vanlandewijck, Y. C., & Chappel, R. J. (1996). Integration and classification issues in competitive sports for athletes with disabilities. Sport Science Review, 5, 65–88.

Vanlandewijck, Y. C., Spaepen, A. J., & Lysens, R. J. (1995). Re-lationship between the level of physical impairment and sports performance in elite wheelchair basketball athletes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 139–150.

Van der Woude, L. H. V., Bakker W. H., Elkhuizen J. W., Veeger, H. E. J., & Gwinn T. (1997). Anaerobic work capacity in elite wheelchair athletes. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 76, 355–365.

Wu, S. K. (2001). Classifiers and social control in wheelchair rugby. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 17, 90–98.

Yilla, A. B. (1993). Validation of a battery of quad rugby skill tests. Unpublished master’s thesis, Texas Woman’s University, Denton.

Yilla, A. B., & Sherill, C. (1998). Validating the Beck battery of quad rugby skill tests. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 155–167.

Authors’ Notes

This study was supported by grant No DS-127 from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Please ad-dress correspondence concerning this article to Natalia Morgulec-Adamowicz, Józef Piłsudski University of Physi-cal Education, Department of Adapted Physical Activity, ul. Marymoncka 34, 00-968 Warsaw, Poland.

E-mail: [email protected]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

kopi

ngs

univ

ersi

tets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

35 1

1 M

arch

201

3

aerobic, anaerobic, and skill performance with regard to classification in wheelchair rugby athletes

Documents