122 Chapter 6 Table 2. Cross-tabulation analyses of the relationship between performance level group at early senior and late junior age of male and female swimmers. Total (N) High-performing juniors (n) Lower-performing juniors (n) Males 12 (100%) 10 (83%) 2 (17%) High-performing seniors 6 (50%) 6 (100%) 0 (0%) Lower-performing seniors 6 (50%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%) Females 17 (100%) 13 (76%) 4 (24%) High-performing seniors 10 (59%) 10 (100%) 0 (0%) Lower-performing seniors 7 (41%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%) Note. Swimmers whose relative season best performaces at late junior age (males 16-17 years, females 15-16 years) fell within the performance benchmark) were categorized as high-performing juniors. Conversely, those swimmers who were not fast enough were classified as lower-performing juniors. Developmental models according to performance level group at early senior age Table 3 shows the developmental models on rST, rStart, rTurn, rSprint, rSI and rLBP created for males and females. Each model consists of two age effects, which allows for different rates of development between high- and lower-performing seniors. The “age” term denotes the development of lower-performing seniors, whereas “age + age × high-level performance group” denotes the development of high-performing seniors. To illustrate (using the fixed effects of the model only), the rST for a high-performing senior male at age 17 will be predicted as follows: Given the study's primary focus on differences between high- and lower-performing swimmers, particular emphasis will be placed on analyzing the interaction term (age × high-level performance group). A significant interaction term would indicate a faster rate of development of high-performing swimmers compared to their lower-performing peers. In males, high-performing senior swimmers showed significant faster progression over time on rST (p < 0.001), rTurn (p < 0.01) and rSprint (p < 0.001) compared to lower-performing senior swimmers. In females, high-performing senior swimmers showed significant faster progression over time on rST (p < 0.01) and rSI (p < 0.01). No significant developmental differences between groups were found on rStart and rLBP (males and females), rSI (males only) and rTurn and rSprint (females) (p > 0.05). Figure 2 (males) and Figure 3 (females) reflect the predicted development of high- and lower-performing seniors during the juniorto-senior transition.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw