• Home
  • Submit Paper
  • Check Paper Status
  • Download Certificate/Paper
  • FAQs
  • Feedback
  • Contact Us
Email: ijraset@gmail.com
IJRASET Logo
Journal Statistics & Approval Details
Recent Published Paper
Our Author's Feedback
 •  ISRA Impact Factor 7.894       •  SJIF Impact Factor: 7.538       •  Hard Copy of Certificates to All Authors       •  DOI by Crossref for all Published Papers       •  Soft Copy of Certificates- Within 04 Hours       •  Authors helpline No: +91-8813907089(Whatsapp)       •  No Publication Fee for Paper Submission       •  Hard Copy of Certificates to all Authors       •  UGC Approved Journal: IJRASET- Click here to Check     
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Aim & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Call For Papers
    • Submit Paper Online
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issue
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Paper
    • Download Certificates
    • Check Paper Status
    • Paper Format
    • Copyright Form
    • Membership
    • Peer Review
  • Past Issue
    • Monthly Issue
    • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
    • Indian Authors
    • International Authors
  • Topics
ISSN: 2321-9653
Estd : 2013
IJRASET - Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Aim & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Call For Papers
    • Submit Paper Online
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issue
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Paper
    • Download Certificates
    • Check Paper Status
    • Paper Format
    • Copyright Form
    • Membership
    • Peer Review
  • Past Issue
    • Monthly Issue
    • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
    • Indian Authors
    • International Authors
  • Topics

Ijraset Journal For Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology

  • Home / Ijraset
  • On This Page
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Copyright

Effect of Different Training Methods on Selected Motor Fitness Variables of College Level Basketball Players

Authors: Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulata Nayak, Sanjoy Dolai, Prof. Sakti Ranajan Mishra

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.41276

Certificate: View Certificate

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to know the effect of different training methods on selected motor fitness variables of college level basketball players. One hundred twenty college level basketball players age ranging between 19 to 22 years acted as subjects and assigned to four groups (three experimental and one control group) with 30 students each. The three experimental groups were Circuit Training, Plyometric Training and Interval Training groups. Motor fitness variables such as Abdominal Muscle Strength (Sit Up), Flexibility (Sit and Reach) and Cardiovascular Endurance were measured before and after training. All the experimental Groups (Circuit training, Plyometric training and Interval training) was administered with the selected training programme, thrice in a week for a duration of 6 weeks under direct supervision of the researcher. The analysis of data revealed that the three experimental groups, showed significant gains in performance of selected motor fitness variables after administration of training for duration of 6 weeks. The control group did not show any significant increase in the performance.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

A fit body is an asset to any game. The present era stresses upon sports and games involving high skill and expertise. Super performances not only depends upon skill and expertise but also requires a high degree of physical fitness of the players. Thus, fitness is the key factor and base of the super performances.

Preparing a skilled player depends upon the provision of type of training to the player. Sports training refer to specialized strategies and methods of exercise used in various sports to develop players and athletes and prepare them for performing in sporting events. The purpose of this study was to know effect of different training methods on selected motor fitness variables of college level Basketball players

II. METHODOLOGY

One hundred twenty college level basketball players, age ranging between 19 to 22 years acted as subjects and were randomly assigned to four groups i.e., three experimental groups and one control group, consisting of 30 students each. The experimental treatments were also assigned to the groups at random.

The Experimental Groups (three groups) were given Circuit Training, Plyometric Training and Interval Training respectively. The control group being kept away from the training schedule and continued in performing normal college programme. Keeping the feasibility criterion in mind, especially in the case of availability of instruments, the following variables of motor fitness were chosen: 1. Muscle Strength (Sit Up), 2. Flexibility (Sit and Reach) and 3. Cardiovascular Endurance (1 Mile Run), All the experimental Groups (Circuit training, Plyometric training and Interval training) were administered with the selected exercises, thrice in a week for a duration of 6 weeks under direct supervision of the researcher.

III. FINDINGS

The statistical analysis of data on motor fitness components of subjects belonging to three experimental groups and one control group, each comprising of thirty subjects, is presented below.

TABLE – 1(Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Ups)

Groups

Pre-test mean±SE

Post-test mean±SE

Diff. between means

SE

‘t’ ratio

Circuit training

24.667±0.830

26.867±0.803

2.200

0.443

4.965*

Plyometric training

24.767±0.756

28.567±0.474

3.800

0.416

9.127*

Interval training

24.967±0.968

25.967±0.828

1.000

0.418

2.392*

Control

24.633±0.977

24.367±0.796

0.266

0.258

1.034

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence,  ‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045. Table 1 clearly reveals that all the experimental groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 4.965, 9.127 and 2.392 with regard to circuit training, plyometric training and interval training, respectively, where as the control group did not show any significant improvement in sit ups performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 1.034. The needed ‘t’ value for significance at 0.05 level of confidence with 29 degrees of freedom was 2.045.

TABLE – 2 (Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Ups)

 

Circuit training

Plyometric training

Interval training

Control

 

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F ratio

Pre-test means

24.667±0.830

24.767

±0.756

24.967±0.968

24.633±0.977

B  2.025

W 2741.967

3

116

0.675

23.638

0.029

Post-test means

26.867±0.803

28.567

±0.474

25.967±0.828

24.367±0.796

B  276.825

W 1904.767

3

116

92.275

16.420

5.620*

Adjusted post-test means

26.935±0.323

28.560

±0.323

25.810±0.323

24.460±0.323

B  271.697

W 360.672

3

115

90.566

3.136

28.877*

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, N = 120, B = Between group variance, W = Within group variance. The analysis of covariance for sit ups showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.029 was not significant in case of pre test means. The post test means yielded ‘F’ ratio of 5.620, which was found to be significant.  The adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 28.877 and was found significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 3, 116) was 2.680.

TABLE – 3 (Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Ups)

Circuit training

Plyometric training

Interval training

Control

 

Difference between means

Critical dif. for adjusted mean

26.935

28.560

 

 

1.525*

1.323

26.935

 

25.810

 

1.125

1.323

26.935

 

 

24.460

2.475*

1.323

 

28.560

25.810

 

2.750*

1.323

 

28.560

 

24.460

4.100*

1.323

 

 

25.810

24.460

1.350*

1.323

* Significance at 0.05 level It was clear from the Table 3 that the mean differences with respect to performance in sit ups of all the experimental groups were found to be significantly greater than that of control group. Plyometric training group was found to be significantly better than both circuit training and interval training. However, no significant difference between circuit training group and interval training group was found with respect to sit ups performance.

TABLE – 4(Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk)

Groups

Pre-test mean±SE

Post-test mean±SE

Diff. between means

SE

‘t’ ratio

Circuit training

12.855±0.242

10.170±0.174

2.685

0.102

26.451*

Plyometric training

12.877±0.193

9.891±0.160

2.985

0.056

53.738*

Interval training

12.869±0.217

10.080±0.169

2.789

0.092

30.208*

Control

12.980±0.228

12.896±0.201

0.084

0.109

0.773

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence,  ‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045. Table 4 clearly reveals that all the experimental groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 26.451, 53.738 and 30.208 with regard to circuit training, plyometric training and interval training, respectively, where as the control group did not show any significant improvement in sit ups performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 0.773. The needed ‘t’ value for significance at 0.05 level of confidence with 29 degrees of freedom was 2.045

TABLE – 5 (Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk)

 

Circuit training

Plyometric training

Interval training

Control

 

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F ratio

Pre-test means

12.855

±0.242

12.877

±0.193

12.869

±0.217

12.980

±0.228

B 0.297

W 169.237

3

116

0.099

1.459

0.068

Post-test means

10.170

±0.174

9.891

±0.160

10.080

±0.169

12.896

±0.201

B 183.827

W 108.831

3

116

61.276

0.938

65.312*

Adjusted post-test means

10.199

±0.071

9.905

±0.071

10.100

±0.071

12.833

±0.071

B 173.145

W 17.508

3

115

57.715

0.152

379.098*

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence , N = 120, B = Between group variance, W = Within group variance. The analysis of covariance for one mile run/walk showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.068 was not significant in case of pre test means. The post test means yielded ‘F’ ratio of 65.312, which was found to be significant.  The adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 379.098 and was found to be highly significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 3, 116) was 2.680.

TABLE – 6 (Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk)

Circuit training

Plyometric training

Interval training

Control

 

Diff. between means

Critical diff. for adjusted mean

10.199

9.905

 

 

0.294

1.717

10.199

 

10.100

 

0.099

1.717

10.199

 

 

12.833

2.634*

1.717

 

9.905

10.100

 

0.195

1.717

 

9.905

 

12.833

2.828*

1.717

 

 

10.100

12.833

2.733*

1.717

* Significance at 0.05 level. It is clear from the Table 6 that the mean differences with respect to performance in one mile run/walk of all the experimental groups were found to be significantly better than that of control group with decreased numerical value. However, no significant difference among the experimental groups was found with respect to one mile run/walk performance.

TABLE – 7 (Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit and Reach)

Groups

Pre-test mean±SE

Post-test mean±SE

Diff. between means

SE

‘t’ ratio

Circuit training

25.900±0.522

29.733±0.431

3.833

0.292

13.129*

Plyometric training

25.800±0.463

29.633±0.417

3.833

0.250

15.363*

Interval training

25.800±0.564

29.833±0.431

4.033

0.293

13.740*

Control

25.867±0.552

25.833±0.424

0.033

0.206

0.162

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, ‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045. Table 13 reveals that all the experimental groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 13.129, 15.363 and 13.740 with regard to circuit training, plyometric training and interval training, respectively, where as the control group did not show any significant improvement in sit and reach performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 0.162. The needed ‘t’ value for significance at 0.05 level of confidence with 29 degrees of freedom was 2.045

TABLE – 8 (Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit and Reach)

 

Circuit training

Plyometric training

Interval training

Control

 

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F ratio

Pre-test means

25.900

±0.522

25.800

±0.463

25.800±0.564

25.867±0.552

B 0.225

W 965.762

3

116

0.075

8.326

0.009

Post-test means

29.733

±0.431

29.633

±0.417

29.833±0.431

25.833±0.424

B 342.825

W 631.167

3

116

114.275

5.441

21.002*

Adjusted post-test means

29.692

±0.212

29.663

±0.212

29.863

±0.212

29.816

±0.212

B  347.035

W 154.720

3

115

115.678

1.345

85.981*

                   

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, N = 120, B = Between group variance, W = Within group variance. The analyses of variance for sit and reach test performance showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.009 was not significant in case of pre test means. The post test means yielded ‘F’ ratio of 21.002, which was found to be significant.  The adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 85.981 and was found significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 3, 116) was 2.680.

TABLE – 9 (Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the three Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit and Reach)

Circuit training

Plyometric training

Interval training

Control

 

Diff. between means

Critical diff. for adjusted mean

29.692

29.663

 

 

0.029

0.032

29.692

 

29.863

 

0.171*

0.032

29.692

 

 

29.816

0.124*

0.032

 

29.663

29.863

 

0.200*

0.032

 

29.663

 

29.816

0.153*

0.032

 

 

29.863

29.816

0.047*

0.032

* Significance at 0.05 level, It is evident from the Table 15 that the mean differences with respect to sit and reach of all the experimental groups were found to be significantly greater than that of control group. Further, significant difference between interval training group and other two experimental groups was observed making interval group significantly superior. However, no significant difference was found between circuit and plyometric training group with respect to sit and reach performance.

Conclusion

The analysis of data revealed that the three experimental groups, administered with circuit training, plyometric training and interval training showed significant gains in performance of motor fitness components after administration of training for duration of 6 weeks. The control group did not show any significant increase in the performance of any variable under study. Plyometric training schedule could enhance the performance in sit ups with higher intensity than both circuit and interval training. Similarly interval training could prove to be significantly better than both circuit and plyometric training towards enhancing performance of subjects in sit and reach test. Above all each fitness parameters under present study was improved through all three trainings. The results of the study coincided with the general conception that plyometric exercise improves speed and agility, circuit training helps improve strength and endurance and interval training helps flexibility and endurance of the players in a progressive manner.

References

[1] Mishra, S.R. (2008) Effect of Circuit Training on the Muscle Power. Readings on Principle and Practices of Physical Education, Human Movement Series, Vol. I [2] Mishra, S.R.. (2011) Effects of a Ploymetric Training Programme on Selected Physiological Variables of Adolescent School Going Boys. Journal Physical Education and Sports Science, Online Journal, National association of Physical Education and Sports Science, Volume 2/1 (http://www.napess.org). [3] Mishra, S.R., Karak, Kalidas and Sen, Bipul (2015) The Effect of Plyometric Training Programme on Volleyball Players. Global Journal for Research Analysis, Volume 4/ Issue 5/ May 2015

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulata Nayak, Sanjoy Dolai, Prof. Sakti Ranajan Mishra. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ijraset41276Manjulata

Download Paper

Authors : SAKTI RANJAN MISHRA

Paper Id : IJRASET41276

Publish Date : 2022-04-07

ISSN : 2321-9653

Publisher Name : IJRASET

DOI Link : Click Here

About Us

International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (IJRASET) is an international peer reviewed, online journal published for the enhancement of research in various disciplines of Applied Science & Engineering Technologies.

Quick links
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Shipping Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Quick links
  • Home
  • About us
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Submit Paper
  • Current Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
  • Topics
Journals for publication of research paper | Research paper publishers | Paper publication sites | Best journal to publish research paper | Research paper publication sites | Journals for paper publication | Best international journal for paper publication | Best journals to publish papers in India | Journal paper publishing sites | International journal to publish research paper | Online paper publishing journal

© , International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology All rights reserved. | Designed by EVG Software Solutions