Development of Physical Fitness Evaluation Indicator of Female Dragon Boat Athletes in China

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the factors that influence the evaluation index of Chinese female dragon boat athletes. Analyzing the relationship between the influencing factors, Development of physical fitness evaluation indicator of female dragon boat athletes in China；Validate the physical fitness evaluation Indicator model。Quantitative and qualitative studies using mixed research methods (mixed methods study).Using the interviews as a research tool, The confidence value of the study tool was 0.929；66 Chinese female dragon boat athletes were selected as the test subjects, and the reliability coefficient of the study data was 0.850, greater than 0.8, indicating that the reliability of the study data was of high quality, For the Corrected Item Total Correlation（CITC） value, the CITC value of all indicators is greater than 0.4, indicating that the correlation between indicators is high, and the test method adopted is feasible, and the data can be used for further analysis. Data from this study were analyzed and collected using SPSS21.0 and Excel Table.

The result of this study is to development of physical fitness evaluation indicators of female dragon boat athletes in China.

1. Factors influencing the development of the physical fitness evaluation indicators for Chinese female dragon boat athletes. Through previous research, theoretical combing and interviews, The results show that the construction of this model involves 3 dimensions, 12 factors and 95 sub-factors. The reliability and empirical data of all variables are reliable, consistent and empirical data, with a credit value>0.929.

2. Explain the whole process of physical fitness evaluation indicators construction of Chinese female dragon boat athletes, Using Delphi method, 13 experts were invited to conduct three rounds of screening of first, second and third indicators using five-point Likert scale. The results showed that 3 first level indicators (body shape, physical function, sports quality), 11 second level indicators (length, width, Girth, Body principal component, Cardio-pulmonary function, Energy supply system, endurance, Strength, speed, flexibility, Sensitive) and 36 third level indicators (Upper extremity length (cm), Calf length (cm), Arm span (cm), ower limb length (cm), Shoulder width (cm), Hip width (cm), Upper arm tension (cm), Calf circumference (cm), Waist circumference (cm), Thigh circumference (cm), Chest circumference (cm), Body fat percentage (%), The Ketole indicators (kgcm), Height (cm), Quiet heart rate (mintime), Heart Function indicators (Lmin㎡), Maximal oxygen uptake (mlcmkg), Maximum anaerobic power (W), Vertical jump touch height (cm), Core ventral bridge level 8 (level), 1RM pull-out (kg), Back muscle endurance (S), 1RM bench press (kg), Standing long jump (cm), 1RM Squat (kg), 1min pull-ups (time), 3000 m run (min), 800 m run (min), Seated forward bend (cm), Cross fork (cm), Shoulder mobility (cm), 400 m run (s), 30 m Sprint (s), 1 min jump rope (time), Cross-shaped change direction run (s), 30s burpees (time)) were selected. The average of 36 third level indicators is above 4, between 4.23 and 4.92; The coefficients of variation are all below 0.25 and range from 0.06 to 0.17. From the numerical point of view, experts on the third round of third Level indicators are very recognized, to determine the final indicators. The analytic hierarchy process is used to calculate the weight value of each indicators. The first level indicators (Body form 0.1179, Physical function0.2014, Sports quality 0.6806), the second level indicators (Length 0.0803, Width 0.0059, Girth 0.0124, Body principal component 0.0194, Cardio-pulmonary function 0.0671, Energy supply system 0.1343, Strength 0.2895. Endurance 0.1782, Flexibility 0.0317, Speed 0.1110, Sensitive 0.0702), and the weight value of 36 third-level indicators (Upper extremity length (cm) 0.0433, Calf length (cm) 0.0049, Arm span (cm) 0.0223, Lower limb length (cm) 0.0096, Shoulder width (cm) 0.0019, Hip width (cm) 0.0039, Upper arm tension (cm) 0.0050, Calf circumference (cm) 0.0011, Waist circumference (cm) 0.0036, Thigh circumference (cm) 0.0018, Chest circumference (cm) 0.0007, Height (cm) 0.0018, Body fat percentage (%) 0.0120, The Ketole index (kgcm) 0.0055, Quiet heart rate (mintime) 0.0067, Heart function index (Lmin㎡) 0.0604, Maximal oxygen uptake (mlcmkg) 0.1119, Maximum anaerobic power (W) 0.0223, Vertical jump touch height (cm) 0.0091, Core ventral bridge level 8 (level) 0.0696, 1RM Pull-out (kg) 0.0947, Back muscle endurance (S) 0.0252, 1RM bench press (kg) 0.0139, Standing long jump (cm) 0.0101, 1 RM Squat (kg) 0.0493, 1 min pull-ups (time) 0.0173, 3000 m run (min) 0.1188, 800 m run (min) 0.0594, Seated forward bend (cm) 0.0197, 30 Cross fork (cm) 0.0043, Shoulder mobility (cm) 0.0076, 400 m Run (s) 0.0185, 30 m Sprint (s) 0.0925, 1 min Jump rope (time) 0.0120, Cross-shaped change direction run (s) 0.0054, 30s Burpees (time) 0.0526).

3. Verify the physical fitness evaluation indicators model of Chinese female dragon boat athletes. Through the test, the physical fitness data of Chinese female dragon boat athletes, By using the standard percentage method to assign each indicators and formulate the scoring standard of each individual indicators ,Using the fifth class evaluation method for grade classification, development the physical fitness grade evaluation standard of Chinese female dragon boat athletes, The grading range is determined as 5 grades: excellent, good, medium, lower medium and poor. Combined with weight, establish the grade standard of comprehensive evaluation of physical fitness. the results show that: Comprehensive score ≧11.7033 as excellent, 10.9560-11.7033 as good, 10.2585-10.9560 as medium, 9.4612-10.2085 as lower medium, ≦9.4612 as poor. The scores of body shape, physical function, sports quality and comprehensive scores of 66 Chinese female dragon boat athletes were compared with the comprehensive rating standard table. Result display : There are 13 people in the excellent grade, 15 people in the good grade, 12 people in the medium grade, 15 people in the lower middle grade, and 11 people in the poor grade.

-