↓ Skip to main content

Change of Direction Ability Performance in Cerebral Palsy Football Players According to Functional Profiles

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Change of Direction Ability Performance in Cerebral Palsy Football Players According to Functional Profiles
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00409
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raúl Reina, Jose M. Sarabia, Javier Yanci, María P. García-Vaquero, María Campayo-Piernas

Abstract

The aims of the present study were to evaluate the validity and reliability of the two different change of direction ability (CODA) tests in elite football players with cerebral palsy (CP) and to analyse the differences in performance of this ability between current functional classes (FT) and controls. The sample consisted of 96 international cerebral palsy football players (FPCP) and 37 football players. Participants were divided into four different groups according to the International Federation of Cerebral Palsy Football (IFCPF) classes and a control group (CG): FT5 (n = 8); FT6 (n = 12); FT7 (n = 62); FT8 (n = 14); and CG (n = 37). The reproducibility of Modified Agility Test (MAT) and Illinois Agility Test (IAT) (ICC = 0.82-0.95, SEM = 2.5-5.8%) showed excellent to good values. In two CODA tests, CG performed faster scores compared with FPCP classes (p < 0.01, d = 1.76-3.26). In IAT, FT8 class comparisons regarding the other classes were: FT5 (p = 0.047, d = 1.05), FT6 (p = 0.055, d = 1.19), and FT7 (p = 0.396, d = 0.56). With regard to MAT, FT8 class was also compared with FT5 (p = 0.006, d = 1.30), FT6 (p = 0.061, d = 0.93), and FT7 (p = 0.033, d = 1.01). No significant differences have been found between FT5, FT6, and FT7 classes. According to these results, IAT and MAT could be useful and reliable and valid tests to analyse CODA in FPCP. Each test (IAT and MAT) could be applied considering the cut point that classifiers need to make a decision about the FT8 class and the other FT classes (FT5, FT6, and FT7).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Lecturer 7 8%
Professor 6 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 35 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,158,245
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,440
of 13,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,674
of 393,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#47
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.