BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Research Article
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
195 of 206
A tool for assessing the horizontal dribble and jumping throw in young handball players
FERNANDO G. SANTOS
1
| JOSÉ A. R. MAIA
2
| EDUARDO E. GUIMARÃES
2
| MATHEUS M. PACHECO
3
| JOSÉ A.
SILVA
2
| GO TANI
1
1
School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
2
CIFI2D, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
3
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Correspondence to:!Fernando Garbeloto dos Santos.!School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo. Professor Mello Moraes 65, São Paulo, Brazil.
email: fegarbeloto@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v15i3.242
HIGHLIGHTS
• The checklist demonstrated sufficiently
reliable assessments of the dribbling with a
horizontal jumping throw.
• The checklist can be used by raters with
different levels of experience.
• The checklist is a simple and reliable way to
assess dribbling with a horizontal jumping
throw.
ABBREVIATIONS
C1 to C15 Individual components
FMS Fundamental movement skills
ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient
κ Cohen’s κ
P33, P66 and P99 Performance percentiles
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 30 04 2021
Accepted 20 07 2021
Published 01 09 2021
BACKGROUND: Validated tests for the quality of movement patterns are important to help teachers to assess
and induce positive performance changes. However, few tests are available for handball sport skills.
AIM: Therefore, we developed and validated a checklist to assess dribbling with a jumping throw.
METHOD: First, three handball experts were invited to verify if the checklist which contained all the components
that describe the skills, and the logical validity process. Then, fifty participants, aged 8 -12 years old, performed
the skill of dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw, fifteen of them were re-tested one week apart. Two raters
were also selected to conduct an intra- and inter-rater objectivity assessment. McNemar tests were used to
compare the proportion of proficient and non-proficient performance between raters. Cohen’s k tests were used
to test the intra and inter-rater objectivity. The intra-class correlation coefficient was used to estimated reliability
(test-retest).
RESULTS: The results confirmed that the checklist contained the necessary criteria to characterize the skill and
to discriminate children with different proficiency levels. Moderate-to-high inter-and intra-rater agreements were
found. Children's performance pre and post-test were highly reliable.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the proposed checklist can reliably analyze the movement pattern of the dribbling
with horizontal jumping throw – which can be highly useful for teachers and sports coaches.
KEYWORDS: Sport skills | Motor performance | Motor development | Team sport games
INTRODUCTION
It is acknowledged that successful performance in team-handball is dependent on
a complex network of factors, namely, players’ body size and composition, motor
coordination, technical and tactical skills, physical fitness as well as other contextual and
social factors.
1,2
Despite its popularity, and the growing number of scientific reports on the
topic, handball studies remain scarce. Consequently, the number of studies addressing the
development of new tools or tests for specific team-handball motor skills can be
considered rare.
1
Although there is an agreement as to the importance of adequate assessment
tools in the teaching-learning process,
3
most tests available in team sports are directed
towards general physical capabilities (e.g., lower limb strength, physical fitness) detached
from the context of the game.
4,5
Further, the majority of tests specific to team-handball
mostly assess players’ physical performance
6,7
disregarding other essential aspects of the
sport. One essential aspect is the assessment of the movement patterns of the core skills
of the game, such as the dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw, which is the topic of this
paper.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
196 of 206
Dribbling, jumping, and throwing are directly associated with players’
performance
8,9
and have been used in the detection of team-handball talented players.
10
Currently, however, these complex skills are assessed based on either their outcome
effects (e.g., dribbling velocity, throwing precision) or highly technical biomechanical
analyses.
11,12
The former is overly simplistic for identifying component skills that must be
improved and/or corrected, while the latter requires specific hard-to-access equipment.
The skill of dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw occurs in a combined
sequence of the aforementioned skills when attempting to score at the game. There is no
doubt that a proper combination of these skills requires not only systematic practice but
also accurate instructions from coaches and teachers to guide athletes in their learning.
Thus, the availability of tests to properly assess this skill is highly needed to inform
coaches and physical education teachers as to which movement aspects need to be
improved.
8
Yet, we are not aware of available tools to assess young students/athletes’
proficiency in this complex task. When coaching is adequately focused, improving a single
skill component can facilitate the reorganization of the entire movement pattern and affect
overall performance.
13
Thus, in this study we developed and validated an assessment tool,
in the form of a checklist, that could be reliably used to assess dribbling with a jumping
throw.
METHODS
To develop the checklist, we followed Safrit and Wood
14
and Mokkink
15
guidelines
to appraise logical and decision validity, participants’ performance reliability, and intra-and
inter-rater objectivity. The research protocol project was approved by the University of São
Paulo Institutional Review Board (CAAE: 66020517.0.0000.5391).
Participants
We invited all 3
rd
to 7
th
-grade students (8-12 years old) enrolled in mandatory,
twice-per-week, physical education classes in a private school to take part in this study.
Only those whose parents/legal guardians provided signed informed consent were enrolled
as participants. Participants with physical and/or intellectual disabilities that could impair
their ability to respond to all assessment items were excluded. Following guidelines for a
validation process, we recruited fifty students for this study (22 girls; aged 8 [n = 1], 9 [n =
12], 10 [n = 7], 11 [n = 24], and 12 years old [n = 6]) through convenience sampling, and
their descriptive data can be found in Table 1. All participants were also involved in a
separate longitudinal research project investigating fundamental characteristics of their
movement skills development. No participants had previous experience in systematic
team-handball practice.
Procedure
Logical validity
The first step towards the development of the checklist was to verify if it contained
all the components that describe the skill and, thus, would form the basis to assess it – a
procedure termed as logical validity.
14
The first derived components were from available
team-handball books.
9,16,17
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
197 of 206
The second step in building the checklist was to invite three specialists, named
Expert 1, Expert 2, and Expert 3, that held a University degree in Physical Education with
at least, 10 years of team-handball teaching to children and/or adolescents to assess
whether the chosen components were sufficient to describe the skill. They assessed the
representativeness of the included components of the checklist comprising the skill
(dribbling with a jumping throw).
The checklist went through a series of two consecutive versions before a final
consensus was reached on the decisive checklist (the third version). The first version was
based on team-handball literature and comprised 13 components. This version was sent to
the expert panel for adding, changing, or removing any component according to their
degree of relevance. From this initial set, two new components were added, and four
components were suggested to be revised. We then elaborated a second version of the
checklist, which was sent back to the experts so that further changes could be made, if
necessary. In this new version, experts suggested small changes, but no components
were excluded or added. The three experts carried out the evaluations completely
independently.
The final version was sent to the three experts who made a detailed content
analysis. The experts agreed that the components established in the third version were
sufficient to describe the dribbling with a jumping throw. The final version comprised of 15
qualitative dichotomous criteria (Table 2): observance of criterion = 1 (score of one),
otherwise = 0 (score of zero), that represent the dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw.
Dribble with horizontal jumping throw
To perform the dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw test, each participant had
to perform one serial skill with three components (e.g., dribble, sequential steps, and
horizontal jumping throw) successfully transitioning between them (e.g. from dribble to
sequential steps). Participants were instructed to dribble the ball, with their preferred hand,
towards the middle of the court (delimited point). Then, they would hold the ball with one
hand, execute a maximum of three steps, jump and throw the ball to the goal (see Figure
1). After detailed verbal instruction, the experimenter demonstrated the task. Before
starting, participants were instructed to hold a team-handball ball (Team-Handball Ball
Penalty H1 – Children) with the preferred hand facing down for at least 5 seconds. If the
participant could not hold the ball, he or she performed the test with a smaller and lighter
ball (Rubber Penalty Initiation ball N°10).
Table 1 – Percentiles of performance (raw score) for boys and girls separated by age groups (Group 1 < 11 years old;
Group 2 > 11 years old).
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
Median
Age
(SD)
Sample (n)
Tertil
Median
Age
(SD)
Sample (n)
Tertil
33
66
99
(SD)
33
66
99
Boys
9.3 (.50)
12
9
13
13
11 (.48)
16
9
12.4
12.4
Girls
9.2 (.70)
8
5
7
7
11 (.26)
14
7
9
9
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
198 of 206
Table 2 - Criteria (C) and major errors (ME).
C1
Gallop or run during the dribbling phase.
ME
If the participant walks while dribbling, he/she does not score on this C1.
If the participant does not score on this component, he/she does not score on the C4.
C2
Dribble with the preferred hand without losing ball control.
ME
If the participant changes hands, uses both hands, or holds the ball, he/she does not score on C2.
C3
During the dribbling phase, the ball touches the hand at about hip and shoulder height.
ME
If the participant contacts the ball below the hip or above the shoulder line, he/she does not score
on C3.
C4
At the end of the dribbling phase and beginning of the steps phase (transition moment),
the participant holds the ball with one or both hands and starts the steps continuously.
ME
If the participant stops abruptly after the end of the dribbling phase, he/she does not score in C4.
C5
Participant executes between 2 and 3 steps after holding the ball (after the last dribble)
ME
If the participant performs only one or more than three steps, he/she does not score on C5.
C6
During the steps phase, the participant holds the ball with the palm of the hand downwards.
ME
If the participant holds the ball with the palm facing upwards, he/she does not score on C6.
C7
The participant makes the transition from step to jump continuously (in a harmonic way).
ME
If the participant stops the steps abruptly and then executes the jump, he/she does not score on
C7.
C8
At the end of the stepping phase, the participant jumps (take-off) with the leg opposite the arm
of the throw.
ME
If the participant take-off with the leg corresponding to the throwing arm, he/she does not score
on C8 and C14.
If the participant's take-off with both legs, he/she does not score on C8.
C9
The leg corresponding to the throwing arm is flexed (knee flexion) and lifted high
and to the side during the jump.
ME
If the participant flexes both legs, he/she scores on C9.
C10
The participant moves the arm backwards (performing a semicircle or sideways motion of the
hand) placing the ball behind the headline to start the throwing movement during the transition
between the steps and the jump.
ME
If the participant drives the arm forward and then backwards, he/she does not score on C10
C11
At the moment before the throw, hip and shoulder rotate
to a point where the non-throwing side faces the goal.
ME
If the rotation was not enough to face the opposite shoulder in the direction of the goal,
he/she does not score on C11.
C12
Throws the ball to the goal while in suspension.
ME
If the participant shoots after touching one or both feet on the ground,
he/she does not score on C12.
C13
After throwing the ball, the arm follows through beyond release (down and across the body)
ME
If the participant stops the movement after throwing the ball (parallel to the torso),
he/she does not score on C13.
C14
The participant lands with the same leg that made the jump.
ME
If the participant lands with the take-off leg or with both legs, he/she does not score on C14.
C15
The participant strikes the ball into the goal.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
199 of 206
Figure 1. Basic display of the field conditions for assessment.
Once confirmed that the participant clearly understood all the instructions, he/she
performed the first trial (familiarization) followed by two new trials recorded for later
assessment. If the participant showed no understanding of the task, the investigator
demonstrated it once more, and then the child performed the task. All valid trials were
recorded using a fixed camera (Sony HDR-PJ540) positioned 4 m from the end of the
court and 1 m from the sideline (see Figure 1). All videos were analyzed using Kinovea 0.8
software.
Decision validity
After logical validation, Expert 3 assessed 50 participants’ proficiency to verify if
the checklist was sensitive enough to identify children with different levels of performance,
i.e., proficient and non-proficient, thus concluding the decision validity process.
14
Expert 3
was the most experienced one; he had the largest record of handball teaching at college
level being also a professional team-handball coach. Thus, Expert 3 assessments were
considered as the gold standard for further analyses.
Rater objectivity
After defining the final checklist and creating the gold standard, two raters,
designated as Rater 1 and Rater 2, were also selected to conduct an intra-and inter-rater
objectivity assessment. Both had a degree in Physical Education, but no experience in
team-handball teaching. Rater 1 was the Physical Education teacher of 28 out of the 50
children and had extensive previous experience in fundamental skills’ analysis and rating
Rater 2 never had any contact with the participants and had no experience in movement
analysis.
Objectivity reveals whether different raters would provide the same assessment
(inter-rater) and whether the same rater makes the same assessment when rating the
same set of videos at different points in time (intra-rater).
14
To estimate inter-rater
objectivity, we compared the assessments made by Expert 3 (gold standard) with those
made by Rater 1 and Rater 2 as well as assessments made by Rater 1 versus Rater 2.
Intra-rater objectivity was estimated in assessments made in 30 randomly selected
!
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
200 of 206
children one week apart by Raters 1 and 2. Before starting the analysis, the raters
assessed 10 children to clarify potential doubts about the evaluation process. All analyses
were done independently between the raters.
Children performance reliability
Reliability expresses performance consistency within the same examinee when
he/she is tested at different points in time (test/retest). To evaluate this, we randomly
sampled 15 children (10 boys and 5 girls) aged between 7 to 11 years and retested them
one week apart. Both test and retest were done in the same conditions, place, and sets of
instructions.
Statistical Analyses
Performance percentiles (P33, P66, and P99) and the median were calculated
from the raw score data (data from Expert 3) to describe boys’ and girls’ results at different
chronological ages (Table 1). In the descriptive data, the participants were separated into
two groups, below and above 11 years of age. This separation was performed to represent
children with different levels of maturity and motor experience during Physical Education
classes.
Intra and inter-rater objectivity between the expert and the two raters (Expert 3 x
Rater 1, Expert 3 x Rater 2), and between the two raters (Rater 1 x Rater 2) for each
individual component (C1 to C15) was estimated using Cohen’s κ
14,15
. For inter-rater
objectivity for the sum of the components performed proficiently (raw score ranging from 0
- 15), Cohen’s κ weighted (linear) was used. The κ -values were interpreted as weak (κ <
0.41), moderate (0.41 ≤ κ < 0.60), substantial (0.60 ≤ κ < 0.81), or high (0.81 ≤ κ ≤ 1.00).
To compare the proportion of proficient and non-proficient performance in each component
assigned by each of the judges (Expert 3 x Rater 1; Expert 3 x Rater 2, and Rater 1 x
Rater 2), the McNemar-Browker test was used; further, the percent agreement between
and within raters was also calculated. Finally, participants’ reliability (test-retest) was
estimated within the ANOVA-base framework using the intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC). For reliability, the sum of the components performed with proficiency was used (the
raw score that could vary between 0 and 15). This analysis was done to test for possible
differences in the mean performance. SPSS 25.0 and MATLAB were used in all analyses,
and the significance level was set at 5%.
RESULTS
Decision validity
Table 3 reports the proportion of participants classified as proficient by Expert 3
and the two raters in the 15 components. The results of the McNemar test indicate that
only in component 10 Rater 1 diverged from Expert 3 ratings. Although divergence was
found in a single component, the agreement was found between the results sanctioning its
decision validity.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
201 of 206
Objectivity and reliability
Cohen’s κ for each component showed moderate-to-high degree of agreement in
inter-and intra-rater assessments ranging from κ = 0.54 to κ = 1.0, and from κ = 0.44 to κ
= 1.0, respectively (Table 4). Cohen’s κ weighted for the sum of proficient components
showed high agreement between Expert 3 and Rater 1 (κ = 0.73, p < .001), Expert 3 and
Rater 2 (κ = 0.77, p < .001) and Rater 1 and Rater 2 (κ = 0.78, p < .001). There was one
specific case in the intra-rater assessments (Rater 2 in C2) where κ was not estimated
because only 4% of participants were classified as non-proficient in this criterion.
The ICC values suggested high reliability in children performance between
moment 1 and 2 (ICC = 0.92; CI
95%
= [0.82, 0.98], p < .001). The mean sum of proficient
components (raw score) considering boys and girls were 8.67 (± 0.4) in moment 1, and 8.9
(± 3.1) in moment 2.
Table 3 – Relative frequency of children that proficiently performed each component, and McMenar results followed by p-values.
Proficient Proportion (% n=50)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
Exp-3
94
90
92
82
76
76
52
18
54
24
42
70
44
30
96
Rat-1
94
92
94
82
80
84
52
18
50
36
44
70
46
30
96
Rat-2
94
96
96
82
80
84
52
26
42
24
50
64
40
26
96
c
2
(p value)
Rat -1
versus
Exp-3
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.50
(.50)
2.2
(.12)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.50
(.50)
4.1
(.04)*
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
Rat -2
versus
Exp-3
.00
(1.0)
1.3
(.25)
.50
(.50)
.00
(1.0)
.25
(.62)
1.5
(.21)
.00
(1.0)
2.2
(.12)
3.1
(.08)
.00
(1.0)
1.1
(.29)
.80
(.37)
.10
(.75)
.25
(.62)
.00
(1.0)
Rat -1
versus
Rat-2
.00
(1.0)
.50
(.50)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
.00
(1.0)
2.2
(.12)
1.5
(.21)
3.1
(.07)
.57
(.45)
.80
(.37)
.80
(.37)
.25
(.62)
.00
(1.0)
Notes - Exp – 3 = Expert 3; Rat -1 = Rater 1; Rat-2 = Rater 2; c
2
=
McNemar test, (p-values); (*) significant p-value.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
202 of 206
DISCUSSION
The present manuscript developed and validated a checklist to evaluate the
dribbling with horizontal jumping throw skill (handball). In general, our results indicate that
the checklist developedis valid and reliable for the assessment of dribbling with a
horizontal jumping throw in young team-handball players.
Notwithstanding the existence of tools to assess physical fitness components like
agility, strength, and flexibility in handball,
4,6,18
it has been questioned, for example, if these
were sensitive enough to explain differences in game performance independently of the
level and the age of athletes.
19
Further, it is now well-acknowledged that other
performance characteristics need careful attention and assessment: proficiency in
executing handball skills is of utmost importance. To the best of our knowledge, validated
Table 4 – Inter- and intra-objectivity κ-values (standard-errors).
Criteria
Expert 3
versus
Rater-1
Expert 3
versus
Rater-2
Rater-1
versus
Rater-2
Rater-1
versus
Rater-1
Rater-2
versus
Rater-2
Kappa (Standard Error)
C1
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
C2
.87 (.12)
.54 (.22)
.64 (.22)
1.00 (.00)
.00 (.00)
ns
C3
.54 (.23)
.64 (.22)
.79 (.20)
1.00 (.00)
.65 (.00)
C4
1.00 (.00)
.86 (.09)
.86 (.09)
.90 (.10)
.79 (.13)
C5
.88(.08)
.77 (.11)
.87 (.08)
.59 (.18)
.85 (.12)
C6
.75 (.11)
.63 (.13)
.70 (.14)
.89 (.10)
.89 (.11)
C7
1.00 (.00)
.92 (.06)
.92 (.05)
.93 (.06)
1.00 (.00)
C8
1.00 (.00)
.77 (.10)
.76 (.10)
.89 (.11)
.91 (.09)
C9
.92 (.05)
.69 (.10)
.76 (.09)
1.00 (.00)
.92 (.07)
C10
.72 (.10)
.78 (.10)
.62 (.11)
.65 (.00)
.44 (.16)
C11
.95 (.04)
.68 (.10)
.72 (.09)
.86 (.09)
.66 (.00)
C12
1.00 (.00)
.77 (.09)
.77 (.09)
.91 (.09)
.78 (.11)
C13
.80 (.08)
.60 (.11)
.80 (.08)
.80 (.11)
.79 (.11)
C14
1.00 (.00)
.80 (.09)
.80 (.09)
.92 (.07)
.92 (.08)
C15
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
1.00 (.00)
Notes: all p-values were less than .05 except for the highlighted values with “ns”; ns = non-significant.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
203 of 206
tools to assess the quality which team-handball motor skills are performed are almost
non-existent.
4
This has been recently emphasized, especially regarding the amount of
information that is relevant for intervention planning by the coaching staff.
10
According to the analysis carried out by the expert panel (logical validation results),
the checklist covers the required components to capture the dribble with a horizontal jump
throw fundamental aspects. Also, the assessments carried out by Expert 3 and the two
raters indicated that the checklist is sensitive to differentiate proficient and non-proficient
participants in each of the fifteen components evaluated. Further, raters with different
levels of experience in handball were able to differentiate proficient from non-proficient
subject´s performance, independently of their familiarity with the participants.
Despite the large inter-and intra-rater agreement, two issues need to be discussed.
First, McNemar’s exact tests showed that there was a difference in the proportions of
responses on proficiency between Rater 1 and Expert 3 in component 10 (Table 3).
Second, we could not estimate intra-rater agreement for criteria 2 (C2) for Rater 2 (Table
4). For the first case, although the proportion of agreement between Expert 3 and Rater 1
was high (88% of agreement), and the agreement values between Expert 3 and Rater 2
expressed by Cohen's κ were substantial, it might be necessary to give greater attention to
component 10 during the training of the application of the checklist. For the second case, a
possible explanation might be that the proportion of non-proficient children in this criterion
in our sample was only 10% (see Table 3). The lack of variation in performance combined
with the small sample size for the analysis could have biased the statistics to provide the
intra-rater result for component 2. Alternatively, if we rely on the percentage of
agreement,
20
then a good agreement is evident in all criteria, including C10 (88% of
agreement) and C2 (92% of agreement).
Children test-retest reliability showed that no significant changes were noticed in
their performance a week apart from the first assessment, i.e., components did not change
from proficient to non-proficient or vice versa in a period in which systematic practice did
not occur. Similar results with samples and time intervals analogous to ours were found in
other sports.
21,22
In sum, these results show not only that children's performance is
consistent, but also that outcome measures were not influenced by putative factors like
familiarization or fatigue between trials.
Relative to the performance presented by the participants, some results should be
highlighted. Considering all participants, the age range of our sample, from 8 to 12 years,
we found substantial proficiency variability between criteria. The criteria C8, C10, and C14
were the components with the lowest frequency of children showing proficiency (18, 24,
and 30%, respectively) with C1, C3, and C15 presenting the highest frequency (94, 92,
and 96%). The added value of the present checklist is exactly the possibility to identify
aspects of the movement that must be learned for a given individual allowing coaches to
formulate appropriate interventions. It is worth mentioning that due to the interaction
between the components of the skill under scrutiny in this article, the improvement of a
single component can lead to the reorganization of the entire skill, causing the subject to
improve his performance level.
13
The checklist can also shed light on how movement pattern components are
acquired during the learning process, allowing for theoretical interpretations on the
acquisition of complex (sport-specific) motor skills. Besides, individuals that did not
achieve a given level of proficiency in the fundamental movement skills (FMS) would show
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
204 of 206
poor performance in sport-specific skills,
23
a phenomenon known as the proficiency
barrier.
24
By involving the combination of some FMS (e.g., jumping and throwing), this
checklist will also allow investigating the relationship between performance levels in a set
of FMS with a sport-specific skill performance, thus allowing to investigate the proficiency
barrier.
Although the test may prove to be an important checklist that facilitates the
teaching-learning process, some limitations must be highlighted. The first one refers to the
number of participants who took the retest. Unfortunately, during the retest period,
participants were in a period of formal examination at the school, which limited their free
time and space for data collection. However, other studies that validated sporting tools
used similar sample sizes and were also able to report good levels of reliability.
21,24
In any
case, the performance on the test did not appear to be influenced by the small sample size.
A second limitation refers to the fact that we did not investigate if the checklist is sensitive
enough to detect changes in performance when subjects are involved in intervention
programs, the responsiveness of the test. Although we have not assessed the
responsiveness, data in Table 1 showed that older children, who had the greatest amount
of handball-related motor experiences, tend to outperform their younger peers. This
suggests a minimum degree of responsiveness in the test.
The last limitation refers to the feasibility, being a common problem in tests that
assess the quality of movement.
3
In our study, Expert 2 reported that recording the test
before the actual analysis could limit the use of the checklist. Yet, this situation is a
necessary trade-off between test feasibility and objectivity. That is, video analyses (and
current software tools) show higher values of intra-and inter-rater objectivity because they
allow the evaluator to review the movement as many times as necessary, increasing the
chances of detecting less prominent errors. Removing video-based aspects of the
analyses would decrease the objectivity of the tool. Nevertheless, with more experience,
raters spent around five minutes per child which decreases the burden of recording the
skills for later analyses.
Even with the limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this checklist is probably
the first to assess the patterns of movement in dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw in
young individuals. In addition to being considered feasible by the experts' panel, our
checklist does not require the purchase of any specific material which makes the test
inexpensive and applicable in different contexts. Besides, this checklist is highly relevant
not only because this technique in sports is representative of high-performance levels, but
also as a proper mean for coaches and physical education teachers to assess team-
handball-specific skills. This checklist can also be further applied to understand motor
development processes beyond team-handball, i.e., skill acquisition in motor development.
CONCLUSION
Based on the present results, we conclude that the present checklist can be used
by teachers and coaches with different levels of experience, independently of their
familiarity with the individuals being assessed. The checklist demonstrated sufficiently
reliable assessments of the dribbling with a horizontal jumping throw – a core skill of team
handball.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
205 of 206
REFERENCES
1. Saavedra JM. Handball Research: State of the Art. J Hum Kinet. 2018;63(1):5–8.
10.2478/hukin-2018-0001
2. Haugen TA, Breitschädel F, Seiler S. Sprint Mechanical Properties in Handball and
Basketball Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(10):1388–94.
10.1123/ijspp.2019-0180
3. Eddy LH, Id LHE, Bingham DD, Crossley KL, Shahid NF, Ellingham-khan M, et al. The
validity and reliability of observational assessment tools available to measure fundamental
movement skills in school-age children: A systematic review. 2020;(August).
10.1371/journal.pone.0237919
4. Muehlbauer T, Pabst J, Granacher U, Büsch D. Validity of the jump-and-reach test in
subelite adolescent handball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(5):1282–9.
10.1519/JSC.0000000000001607
5. Zapartidis I, Vareltzis I, Gouvali M, Kororos P. Physical Fitness and Anthropometric
Characteristics in Different Levels of Young Team Handball Players. Open Sports Sci J.
2009;2(1):22–8. 10.2174/1875399X00902010022
6. Schwesig R, Koke A, Fischer D, Fieseler G, Jungermann P, Delank KS, et al. Validity and
reliability of the new handball-specific complex test. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(2):476–
86. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001061
7. Wagner H, Orwat M, Hinz M, Pfusterschmied J, Bacharach, W D, von Duvillard SP, et al.
Testing game-based performance in team-handball. J Strength Cond Res.
2016;30(10):2794–801. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000580
8. Lidor R, Falk B, Arnon M, Cohen Y, Segal G, Lander Y. Measurement of talent in team
handball: the questionable use of motor and physical tests. J Strength Cond Res.
2005;19(2):318–25. 10.1519/1533-4287(2005)19[318:MOTITH]2.0.CO;2
9. Radić N. Handball: From Beginner to Top Player. self-publishing N. Radic; 2013. 199 p.
10. Serrien B, Baeyens JP. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Proximal-to-Distal
Sequencing in Team Handball: Prospects for Talent Detection? J Hum Kinet.
2018;63(1):9–21. 10.2478/hukin-2018-0002
11. Wagner H, Pfusterschmied J, Tilp M, Landlinger J, von Duvillard SP, Müller E. Upper-body
kinematics in team-handball throw, tennis serve, and volleyball spike. Scand J Med Sci
Sport. 2014;24(2):345–54. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01503.x
12. Skejø SD, Møller M, Bencke J, Sørensen H. Shoulder kinematics and kinetics of team
handball throwing: A scoping review. Hum Mov Sci. 2019;64(February):203–12.
10.1016/j.humov.2019.02.006
13. Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA. Individual pathways in the development of forceful
throwing. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73(3):245–56. 10.1080/02701367.2002.10609018
14. Safrit MJ, Wood TM. Introduction to measurement in physical education and exercise
science. William C. Brown; 1995.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
!
Santos et al.
2021
VOL.15
N.3
206 of 206
15. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN
checklist manual. VU Univ Med. 2012;56. 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
16. Martini K, Prudente A. Andebol: técnica, táctica, metodologia. 1980.
17. Knijnik JD. Handebol: Agôn: o espírito do esporte. São Paulo: Odysseus; 2009.
18. Wagner H, Sperl B, Bell WJ, von Duvillard S. Testing specific physical performance in
male team handball players and the relationship to general tests in team sports. J Strength
Cond Res. 2019;33(4):1056–64. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003026
19. Hermassi S, Chelly MS, Wollny R, Hoffmeyer B, Fieseler G, Schulze S, et al. Relationships
between the handball-specifc complex test, non-specifc feld tests and the match
performance score in elite professional handball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
2018;58(6):778–84. 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07373-X
20. Grant MJ, Button CM, Snook B. An Evaluation of Interrater Reliability Measures on Binary
Tasks Using d-Prime. Appl Psychol Meas. 2017;41(4):264–76.
10.1177/0146621616684584
21. Spasic M, Krolo A, Zenic N, Delextrat A, Sekulic D. Reactive agility performance in
handball; development and evaluation of a sport-specific measurement protocol. J Sport
Sci Med. 2015;14(3):501–6. PMCID: PMC4541112
22. Pate RR, Freedson PS, Sallis JF, Taylor WC, Sirard J, Trost SG, et al. Compliance with
physical activity guidelines: Prevalence in a population of children and youth. Ann
Epidemiol. 2002;12(5):303–8. 10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00263-0
23. Clark JE, Metcalfe JS. The mountain of motor development: A metaphor. In: Jane E. Clark
JHH, editor. Motor Development: Research and Reviews. NASPE Pulications: Reston;
2002. p. 163-190.
24. Seefeldt V. Developmental motor patterns: implications for elementary school physical
education. Psychol Mot Behav Sport. 1979;314–23.
25. Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd L, Aughey RJ. The Validity and Reliability of
GPS Units for Measuring Distance in Team Sport Specific Running Patterns Denise. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5:328–41.!10.1123/ijspp.5.3.328
Citation: Santos FG, Maia JAR, Guimarães EE, Pacheco MM, Silva JA, Tani G. (2021). A Tool for Assessing the
Horizontal Dribble and Jumping Throw in Young Handball Players. BJMB, 15(3): 195-206.
Editors: Dr Fabio Augusto Barbieri - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil; Dr José Angelo Barela -
São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, SP, Brazil; Dr Natalia Madalena Rinaldi - Federal University of
Espírito Santo (UFES), Vitória, ES, Brazil.
Copyright:© 2021 Santos, Maia, Guimarães, Pacheco, Silva and Tani and BJMB. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International
License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Funding: There was no funding for this study.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
DOI:!https://doi.org/!0.20338/bjmb.v15i3.242