Concurrent Validity of the Backwards Overhead Medicine Ball Throw as a Test of Explosive Power in Adolescents

Michael J. Duncan, Joanne Hankey

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Introduction: Medicine ball throws have been used as a field based test of explosive power. However, few authors have compared medicine ball throw performance to actual power output in young people. The aim of this study was to compare backwards overhead medicine ball (BOMB) throw performance with actual power output in a group of adolescents. Materials and methods: Following parental informed consent, 47 adolescents (22 boys, 25 girls, mean age ± S.D. = 12.7 ± 1.5 years) performed the BOMB with a 3kg medicine ball, a counter movement jump (CMJ) and a weighted (7kg bar) squat jump (WSJ) in a randomized order. Power output was determined using a force platform (Kistler, Amherst, New York) and a linear position transducer (Fittech Inc, Australia) in the case of the CMJ and WSJ respectively. Results: BOMB throw distance was significantly related to CMJ peak power (r = .806, P = 0.001) and WSJ peak power (r = .632, P = 0.01). CMJ power (R2 = 0.59, F1, 46 = 66.6, P = 0.01) was a better predictor of BOMB throw distance than WSJ power (R2 = 0.39, F1, 46 = 29.9, P = 0.01). Conclusions: These results suggest that the BOMB demonstrates concurrent validity with power output of the lower body (glueteals, quadriceps, hamstrings, calves) in adolescents.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)102-107
    JournalMedicina Sportiva
    Volume14
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Sept 2010

    Bibliographical note

    The full text of this item is not available from the repository.

    Keywords

    • counter movement jump
    • force platform
    • squat jump
    • medicine ball
    • adolescents

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Concurrent Validity of the Backwards Overhead Medicine Ball Throw as a Test of Explosive Power in Adolescents'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this