See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232195750

A Comparison Between the Wingate Anaerobic

Power Test to Both Vertical Jump and Line Drill
Tests in Basketball

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · August 2000

DOI: 10.1519/00124278-200008000-00004

CITATIONS READS

63 770

4 authors, including:

Jay R Hoffman Yitzhak Weinstein

University of Central Florida Tel-Hai Academic College
361 PUBLICATIONS 6,139 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 841 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Yitzhak Weinstein

Retrieved on: 20 September 2016
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2000, 14(3), 261–264
q 2000 National Strength & Conditioning Association
A Comparison Between the Wingate Anaerobic
Power Test to Both Vertical Jump and Line Drill
Tests in Basketball Players
JAY R. HOFFMAN, SHMUEL EPSTEIN, MERAV EINBINDER,
YITZHAK WEINSTEIN
Ribstein Center for Research and Sports Medicine Sciences,Wingate Institute, Israel 42972.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare 2 sport-specific
field tests common in the training programs of basketball
players to a laboratory measure of anaerobic power. Nine 17-
year-old members of the Israel National Youth Basketball
Team participated in this investigation. Field tests included a
countermovement jump (CMJ), a 15-second anaerobic jump
test (APJT), and a sprint test to assess anaerobic power (line
drill). The line drill was performed 3 times (T1, T2, and T3)
with a 2-minute passive rest between each sprint. In addition,
all subjects performed a 30-second Wingate anaerobic power
test (WAnT) to determine peak power (PP), mean power (MP),
and fatigue index (FIWAnT). Kendall tau (t) rank correlation
analysis revealed moderate positive rank correlations between
MP and both T1 and T2 (t 5 0.61 and 0.54, respectively). No
significant rank correlations were observed between PP and
the line drill. Significant (p # 0.05) positive rank correlations
were noted between CMJ and both PP and MP (t 5 0.59 and
0.76, respectively). However, only a poor relationship (p .
0.05) was observed between APJT and both PP and MP (t 5
0.20 and 0.28, respectively). These results suggest that the line
drill and jump tests may be acceptable field measures of an-
aerobic power specific for basketball players.
Key Words: Wingate test, vertical jump, elite athletes,
field test, conditioning
Reference Data: Hoffman, J.R., S. Epstein, M. Einbin-
der, and Y. Weinstein. A comparison between the Win-
gate anaerobic power test and both vertical jump and
line drill tests in basketball players. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 14(3):261–264. 2000.
Introduction
I t is well acknowledged among sport scientists and
coaches that fitness and performance testing of ath-
letes is an important component in the design of train-
ing programs and in the analysis of the athlete’s prog-
ress in such programs. In basketball, successful per-
formance is dependent upon several fitness compo-
AND
nents (i.e., speed, agility, and vertical jump height) that
are anaerobic in nature (5–7). These components must
be performed repeatedly, with minimal reductions in
performance for the duration of the contest. Presently,
there is no particular test that has gained acceptance
as a standard measure of anaerobic power in basket-
ball players.
The Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) is a laboratory-
based cycle ergometer test designed to measure peak
power (PP), mean power (MP), and percent fatigue. It
is considered the most common test of anaerobic fit-
ness (reviewed in [1]). However, questions concerning
muscle and activity pattern specificity and accessibility
of the Wingate test to basketball players have most
likely impeded the widespread acceptance and use of
this test for most basketball teams. A vertical jump
power test may be a more specific test for basketball
and the ability to perform this test on the court may
make it more appropriate or appealing than the WAnT
for a basketball player. However, technical aspects (re-
quirements of a force platform) and administrative
concerns (only a single subject can be tested at any
time) may also preclude this test from being widely
adopted. The line drill is a field test that has been pro-
posed as a measure of anaerobic capacity in athletes
(11). It has an advantage for testing basketball players:
the test is also a commonly used basketball condition-
ing drill and can be used to test several athletes si-
multaneously. Thus, the purpose of this study was to
compare 2 sport-specific field tests common to the
training programs of basketball players to a laboratory
measure of anaerobic power.
Methods
Subjects and Experimental Design
Nine members of the Israel National Youth basketball
team volunteered for this investigation. The subjects
had the following characteristics (mean 6 SD): age,
17.0 6 0.0 years; weight, 85.1 6 6.0 kg; height, 191.7
261
262 Hoffman, Epstein, Einbinder, and Weinstein
6 5.7 cm, body fat (%), 11.9 6 3.1%; and V̇O2max; 50.7
6 4.0 ml·kg21·min21). The subjects were examined dur-
ing the first 3 days of national team practice, which
occurred 1 week following the conclusion of their reg-
ular basketball season. It was therefore assumed that
all subjects were in good basketball condition. All test-
ing was performed at the Wingate Institute.
Testing
Both laboratory (WAnT) and field measures (vertical
jump test and the line drill) were used to assess an-
aerobic power. The WAnT was performed on a com-
puterized (LabView, National Instruments, Austin, TX)
cycle-ergometer (Fleish Metabo Ergostat Universal,
Lausanne, Switzerland). The seat was adjusted to a
predetermined height to allow for complete knee ex-
tension with the ankle flexed at 908. Toe clips were
used and the subject was required to remain seated
for the duration of the test.
The subjects warmed up for 5 minutes at a pedal-
ing rate of 60–70 rpm against a resistance equal to 20%
of that calculated for the subsequent WAnT. Two un-
loaded 5-second sprints were performed at the end of
the third and fifth minutes of the warm-up period. The
maximal pedaling rate (RPMmax) attained during the
sprints was recorded. Following a 1-minute rest, the
subjects performed the WAnT against a resistance of
0.052 kg·kg·body mass21 (5.13 J·pedal revolution21·kg
body mass21). The subjects were instructed to pedal as
fast as possible from the onset of the test. The resis-
tance was applied when 75% of the previously record-
ed RPMmax was attained, as determined by the com-
puter. The subjects were verbally encouraged to main-
tain as high a pedaling rate as possible throughout the
30-second test duration. Pedal revolutions were mon-
itored at a resolution of 0.025 revolutions and recorded
at 1-second intervals. Subjects’ PP (determined as the
highest value over a 5-second period of testing), MP
(determined as the average power throughout the 30
seconds of testing), and a fatigue index (FIWAnT, the
lowest value over a 5-second period divided by the
highest value over a 5-second period) were calculated
for each test
Vertical jump height was measured by a maximum
vertical jump with a countermovement (CMJ). During
the countermovement, subjects began in an erect
standing position and moved into a semisquat posi-
tion before jumping. All jumps were performed on the
Ergojump (Globus Inc., Treviso, Italy) (3). The subjects
stood on a rubber-coated contact platform (120 cm 3
80 cm) connected by a cable to a digital timer that
recorded the flight time of all jumps. The timer was
triggered by the release of the subject’s feet from the
platform, and stopped at the moment of touchdown.
The flight time was used to calculate the change in the
height of the body’s center of gravity (4). Subjects’
hands remained on hips throughout all jumps. Each
subject performed 3 jumps. The highest CMJ height
achieved was recorded. An anaerobic power jump test
(APJT) was also measured by using a 15-second ver-
tical jump test on the Ergojump (4). Anaerobic power
was calculated from the sum of the flight time and the
number of jumps executed during the exercise time
period (4).
The line drill is a field test common to basketball
players, and is a highly intense bout of exercise that
has been suggested to be a measure of the anaerobic
capacity of the individual (11). It consists of a contin-
uous 143.4-m sprint with several changes of direction.
The line drill was performed on a regulation-size bas-
ketball court. Specifically, the subject began from a
standing position at the baseline and ran at maximal
speed to 4 separate cones placed at the near free-throw
line (5.8 m), half-court line (14.3 m), far free-throw line
(22.9 m), and far baseline (28.7 m). As the subject ar-
rived at each cone, he sprinted back to the original
baseline and proceeded as quickly as possible to the
next line. The line drill was performed 3 times (T1, T2,
and T3) with a 2-minute passive recovery between
each sprint. A fatigue index (FILD) was developed by
dividing the slowest recorded time of the 3 sprints by
the fastest recorded time of the 3 sprints.
Statistical Analysis
The subject’s performance results were converted to a
rank score. Kendall’s tau correlation analysis was used
to examine selected bivariate correlations. The tau is a
form of rank correlation that is considered appropriate
for rank distributions with samples under 10 (2). The
significance level was set at p # 0.05 in all the analyses.
Results
Individual subject performance results are presented
Table 1. The subjects with the fastest sprint times in
the line drill (subjects 6, 7, and 9) also had the highest
mean power outputs and highest vertical jump
heights. In addition, the subjects with the slowest
times in the line drill (subjects 1, 3, and 4) also ap-
peared to have the poorest performance scores in
mean power output and vertical jump height. Kendall
tau (t) rank correlation analysis exhibited moderate to
high positive correlations (p , 0.05) between CMJ and
both T1 (t 5 0.58) and T2 (t 5 0.78), and between
APJT and both T2 (t 5 0.61) and T3 (t 5 0.61). Simi-
larly, moderate positive rank correlations were also ob-
served between MP and both T1 and T2 (t 5 0.61 and
0.54, respectively). The correlations between PP and
the line drill were not significant.
Significant, positive rank correlations were ob-
served between CMJ and both PP and MP (t 5 0.59
and 0.76, respectively). However, only a poor relation-
ship (p . 0.05) was seen between APJT and both PP
and MP (t 5 0.20 and 0.28, respectively). There was
 Comparisons of Anaerobic Power Tests 263

Table 1. Subject performance results.*

T1 T2 T3 FILD PP MP FIWAnT CMJ APJT

Subject (s) (s) (s) (%) (W·kg21) (W·kg21) (%) (cm) (W·kg21)

1 29.6 30.6 31.3 1.06 15.0 9.8 59.1 50.6 28.9

2 27.8 29.3 30.3 1.09 12.4 9.5 43.2 46.9 42.0
3 29.6 29.9 30.3 1.02 12.8 8.6 46.6 42.1 21.7
4 28.3 29.6 29.8 1.05 12.6 7.2 68.4 46.2 47.9
5 28.0 29.2 30.1 1.08 13.1 9.4 54.7 48.9 42.5
6 26.6 28.4 30.9 1.16 14.6 10.5 54.6 53.0 44.3
7 27.6 27.1 27.9 1.01 16.2 10.5 60.3 64.0 63.6
8 27.8 28.6 30.1 1.08 15.4 9.7 60.7 51.9 36.4
9 27.1 27.8 28.3 1.04 14.6 10.0 56.4 60.4 60.9
Mean 6 SD 28.0 6 1.0 28.9 6 1.1 29.9 6 1.1 1.07 6 0.04 14.1 6 1.4 9.5 6 1.0 56.0 6 7.6 51.6 6 6.9 43.3 6 13.5

* T1 5 time of sprint 1 of the line drill; T2 5 time of sprint 2 of the line drill; T3 5 time of sprint 3 of the line drill; FILD 5
fatigue index for the line drill; PP 5 peak power for the Wingate anaerobic power test; MP 5 mean power for the Wingate
anaerobic power test; FIWAnT 5 fatigue index for the Wingate anaerobic power test; CMJ 5 countermovement jump; APJT 5
anaerobic power jump test.

also a poor correlation between the rank differences of
the FIWAnT and FILD (t 5 0.22, p . 0.05).
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that the line drill may
be an appropriate field test for measuring anaerobic
fitness in basketball players. However, considering the
small sample size, interpretation of these results
should be performed with caution. The use of the line
drill as a measure of anaerobic fitness in basketball
players is quite attractive because of its widespread
use as a conditioning drill by basketball coaches. In
addition, it is conducive for testing several players si-
multaneously, making this drill both an efficient and
practical test. Surprisingly, there does not appear to be
any previous study that examined the relationship of
performance in the line drill to other, more accepted
measures of anaerobic power (i.e., WAnT or a vertical
jump test).
Previous studies have demonstrated strong, nega-
tive correlations (r ranges from 20.67 to 20.91) be-
tween performance in the WAnT (reported as a rela-
tive value) and sprint speed (8, 9, 12). These studies
suggested that the WAnT may be a good predictor of
sprinting ability. However, the predictive ability of the
WAnT may be related to the distance of the sprint.
Sprint times for distances of 40 or 50 yards have been
reported to be highly correlated with PP, while longer
sprint distances (e.g., .200 yards) appear to be better
correlated with MP. The significant rank correlation
observed in this study between MP and peak sprint
time for the line drill (t 5 0.61), and the lack of any
significant rank correlation between PP and the line
drill suggest that a similar pattern is also present here.
Although the rank correlation between MP and the
line drill is relatively low in comparison with other
studies, it may be related to the shorter running dis-
tance of the line drill (143.4 m) compared with the
sprint distances of 200 m and longer reported in other
studies.
The moderate-to-high rank correlations (t 5 0.58–
0.78) observed in this investigation between both jump
tests (CMJ and APJT) and the line drill appear in
agreement with previous studies reporting moderate-
to-high correlations between vertical jump height,
jump power, and sprint time (10, 13). In addition,
moderate-to-high rank correlations were also observed
between the CMJ and both PP and MP. However, per-
formance in the APJT was not significantly related to
WAnT performance. Although the WAnT and the
APJT measure lower-body anaerobic power, the lack
of any significant relationship in rank order of perfor-
mance may be explained by the differences in the
mode of exercise. Differences in power produced with
the legs acting simultaneously or successively, or when
upper-body musculature is active or passive, may have
a profound influence on power expression (12).
In this present study, no relationship was observed
between the fatigue indices of both the WAnT and the
line drill. This finding may be primarily related to dif-
ferences in the exercise protocol between these 2 tests.
The WAnT protocol employed for this investigation
was a single, continuous 30-second bout of exercise,
while the line drill consisted of 3 sprints with a time
similar to the time of the WAnT and separated by a 2-
minute recovery period. Thus, the FIWAnT measured fa-
tigue occurring within a single bout of exercise, while
the FILD measured the rate of recovery between sprints.
The fatigue indexes for these 2 forms of exercise might
have been more similar if a multibout, discontinuous
WAnT protocol was used in this study.
264 Hoffman, Epstein, Einbinder, and Weinstein
Practical Applications
The line drill, also commonly referred to as ‘‘suicides,’’
is a popular conditioning drill among basketball
coaches. However, its use as a measure of anaerobic
power, although previously suggested (11), had not
been thoroughly examined. The results of our study
indicate that the line drill may be an acceptable field
measure for anaerobic power performance in basket-
ball players. Further research needs to be conducted
to develop standards of performance and fatigue in
basketball players.
Note: Jay R. Hoffman, PhD is now with The College of
New Jersey in Ewing, NJ 08628-0718.
References
1. BAR-OR, O. The Wingate anaerobic test. An update on meth-
odology, reliability and validity. Sports Med. 4:381–394. 1987.
2. BORG, M.R., AND M.D. GALL. Educational Research: An Introduc-
tion (5th ed.). New York: Longman, 1989.
3. BOSCO, C. Sei un grande atlete vediamo cosa dice l’ergojump.
Pallavolo 5:34–36. 1980.
4. BOSCO, C., P. LUHTANEN, AND P.V. KOMI. A simple method for
measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 50P: 273–282. 1983.
5. GILLAM, G.M. Physiological basis of basketball bioenergetics.
NSCA J. 6:44–71. 1985.
6. HOFFMAN, J.R., AND C.M. MARESH. Physiology of basketball.
In: Exercise and Sport Science. W.E. Garrett and D.T. Kirkendall,
eds. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. 733–744.
2000.
7. HOFFMAN, J.R., G. TENNENBAUM, C.M. MARESH, AND W.J.
KRAEMER. Relationship between athletic performance tests and
playing time in elite college basketball players. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 10:67–71. 1996.
8. KACZKOWSKI, W., D.L. MONTGOMERY, A.W. TAYLOR, AND V.
KLISSOURAS. The relationship between muscle fibre composi-
tion and maximal anaerobic power and capacity. J. Sports Med.
22:407–413. 1982.
9. PATTON, J.F., AND A. DUGGAN. An evaluation of tests of anaer-
obic power. Aviat. Space Environ.Med. 58:237–242. 1987.
10. SEILER S., M. TAYLOR, R. DIANA, J. LAYES, P. NEWTON, AND B.
BROWN. Assessing anaerobic power in collegiate football play-
ers. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 4:9–15. 1990.
11. SEMINICK, D. Testing protocols and procedures. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning. T. Baechle, ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 1994.
12. THARP, G.D., R.K. NEWHOUSE, L. UFFELMAN, W.G. THORLAND,
AND G.O. JOHNSON. Comparison of sprint and run times with
performance on the Wingate anaerobic test. Res. Q. 56:73–76.
1985.
13. VANDWALLE, H., G. PERES, AND H. MONOD. Standard anaerobic
exercise tests. Sports Med. 4:268–289. 1987.