| Literature DB >> 35409476 |
Safouen Chaabouni1, Rihab Methnani1, Badria Al Hadabi2, Majid Al Busafi2,3, Mahfoodha Al Kitani2, Khalifa Al Jadidi2, Pierre Samozino4, Wassim Moalla1, Nabil Gmada2,5.
Abstract
Over the years, the foot tapping test protocol has been proposed by scientists to identify the capabilities of the lower limb neuromuscular system in the medical context; however, to our knowledge, no studies have established its usefulness and relationship to athletic performance. The aim of the present study was to test the reliability, criterion validity and sensitivity of a new foot tapping (TAP) test, and to examine its relationship with proxies of athletic performance in soccer players. Forty voluntary soccer players of two different levels participated in this study (20 players from the national level: age: 22.6 ± 2.5 years and 20 players from regional level: 25.1 ± 3.6 years). They performed the TAP test on two separate occasions to test its relative and absolute reliability. To examine the criterion validity of the TAP test, all participants performed four types of jumps, sprint tests, agility tests, the Wingate test and the finger tapping test considered a gold standard tapping test. The sensitivity was assessed with national and regional player levels. The TAP test presented a high relative and absolute reliability with intra-class correlation coefficient ICC > 0.90, standard errors of measurement SEM < 5% and mean difference ±95% limits of agreement equal to 0.2 ± 0.8 tap·s-1. National level players showed a higher TAP score (p < 0.001; dz = 1.96, large) compared to regional players (9.68 ± 1.41 tap·s-1 vs. 7.28 ± 1.01 tap·s-1, respectively) and the value of area under curve measured by the receiver operating characteristic curve technique was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.827-0.990). The TAP test showed a significant association with the finger tapping test (r = 0.84, p < 0.001), whereas no correlation was seen between the TAP test and all the other physical tests measured. The TAP test could be considered a valid and reliable test to assess lower limb neuromuscular ability in soccer players.Entities:
Keywords: foot tapping test; neuromuscular function; reliability; soccer players; validity
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409476 PMCID: PMC8998105 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19073792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Schematic diagram of experiment.
Figure 2TAP test. In standing up position, the players are asked to tape the feet as quickly as possible on the ground with two alternating limbs for 4 s using Optojump Next (Microgate Next, Bolzano, Italy).
Anthropometric and physiological parameters in soccer player groups.
| Parameters | N | Age | Height | Body Mass | BMI | Body Fat | ΔHR | Δ[Lac] (mmol/L) | TAP | TAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National level | 20 | 22.6 ± 2.5 | 172.9 ± 8.4 | 66.1 ± 8 | 22.05 ± 1.63 | 10.9 ± 1.2 | 36.2 ± 13.3 | 2.1 ± 1.8 | 9.68 ± 1.41 | 1.96 |
| Regional level | 20 | 25.1 ± 3.6 | 174.3 ± 3.3 | 65.9 ± 4.9 | 21.69 ± 1.58 | 11.3 ± 1.4 | 32.8 ± 11.3 | 2.5 ± 1.4 | 7.28 ± 1.01 |
**: p < 0.001. BMI: Body mass index; HR: Heart rate; Δ[Lac]: Average difference in the blood lactate concentration; TAP: Foot tapping test; Dz TAP: Cohen effect size.
Reliability results of TAP.
| Parameters |
|
| ICC (95% CI) | SEM (tap·s−1) | SEM (%) | SWC0.2 (tap·s−1) | SWC0.6 (tap·s−1) | MDC95% (tap·s−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.35 ± 1.74 | 8.33 ± 1.71 | 0.71 | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | 0.28 | 3.52 | 0.34 | 1.03 | 0.8 |
TAP: Foot Tapping Test; ICC: Intra Class Correlation; CI: Confidence Interval; SEM: Standard Error of Measurement; SWC: Smallest worthwhile change; MDC95%: Minimal detectable change.
Mean ± SD of players performances, Intraclass Correlation between trials 1 and 2 (ICC), correlation coefficient (r) between TAP test and other physical qualities and associated probability values (p).
| Test | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | ICC | Best Performance | R (95%CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAP (tap·s−1) | 8.35 ± 1.74 | 8.33 ± 1.71 | 0.98 | 8.48 ± 1.71 | - | - |
| FGTT (tap·s−1) | 7.77 ± 1.19 | 7.81 ± 1.07 | 0.96 | 7.95 ± 1.1 | 0.84 (0.77 to 0.89) | <0.001 |
| 5 m sprint(s) | 1.21 ± 0.12 | 1.22 ± 0.11 | 0.85 | 1.19 ± 0.17 | −0.16 (−0.44 to 0.14) | 0.32 |
| 20 m sprint(s) | 3.26 ± 0.14 | 3.24 ± 0.15 | 0.86 | 3.21 ± 0.15 | −0.17 (−0.45 to −0.12) | 0.28 |
| 30 m sprint(s) | 4.33 ± 0.19 | 4.30 ± 0.19 | 0.91 | 4.28 ± 0.19 | −0.12 (−0.42 to 0.25) | 0.44 |
| MICOD(s) | 10.66 ± 0.51 | 10.51 ± 0.45 | 0.93 | 10.48 ± 0.46 | −0.1 (−0.4 to 0.22) | 0.52 |
| SJ (cm) | 37.08 ± 4.53 | 35.44 ± 4.71 | 0.97 | 37.16 ± 4.62 | 0.02 (−0.31 to 0.35) | 0.85 |
| CMJ arms akimbo (cm) | 39.28 ± 5.35 | 39.19 ± 5.55 | 0.96 | 39.98 ± 5.45 | −0.04 (−0.32 to 0.19) | 0.78 |
| CMJ free arms (cm) | 44.82 ± 6.2 | 45.16 ± 6.71 | 0.95 | 45.98 ± 6.67 | 0.09 (−0.17 to 0.35) | 0.58 |
| SLJ (m) | 2.16 ± 0.21 | 2.17 ± 0.22 | 0.94 | 2.2 ± 0.21 | 0.05 (−0.33 to 0.42) | 0.75 |
| VDJ (cm) | 33.91 ± 4.9 | 34.75 ± 5.57 | 0.95 | 35.31 ± 5.43 | 0.24 (0.03 to 0.43) | 0.12 |
| RSI | 94.20 ± 26.29 | 97.07 ± 31.71 | 0.85 | 96.52 ± 32.2 | −0.12 (−0.35 to 0.1) | 0.45 |
| Ppeak (watts) | 821.62 ± 144.6 | - | - | 821.62 ± 144.6 | −0.15 (−0.46 to 0.2) | 0.34 |
| Pmean (watts) | 581.9 ± 99.4 | - | - | 581.9 ± 99.4 | −0.08 (−0.42 to 0.34) | 0.59 |
| RPpeak (watts/kg) | 12.19 ± 1.41 | - | - | 12.19 ± 1.41 | −0.04 (−0.34 to 0.25) | 0.79 |
| RPmean (watts/kg) | 8.62 ± 0.77 | - | - | 8.62 ± 0.77 | 0.08 (−0.24 to 0.39) | 0.62 |
| EUR | 1.08 ± 0.08 | - | - | 1.08 ± 0.08 | −0.12 (−0.38 to 015) | 0.45 |
5–20–30 m sprint: Sprint time test; MICODT: Agility test; RPpeak: Relative peak power; RPmean: Relative mean power; SJ: Squat jump; CMJ: Countermovement jump (arms akimbo), Countermovement jump (free arms); EUR: Eccentric utilization ratio; SLJ: Standing long jump; VDJ: Vertical drop jump; RSI: Reactive strength index; TAP: Foot Taping Test; FGTT: Finger Tapping test; CI: Confidence Interval.
Figure 3Bland and Altman plots with limit of agreement (dashed line) of test–retest of the TAP. The differences between test–retest scores (TAP score2–TAP score1) plotted against their mean (dot line) for each subject.
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the TAP test between national and regional group level indicating that an equal or higher TAP score than 8.26 tap·s−1 is considered a high TAP score performance.