The Relationship between Dynamic Balance, Jumping Ability, and Agility with 100 m Sprinting Performance in Athletes with Intellectual Disabilities

ive event in athletics that requires a combination of speed, power, agility, and balance. This study investigated the relationship between dynamic balance, jumping ability, and agility with 100 m sprinting performance in athletes with intellectual disabilities, address- ing an underexplored connection. A sample of 27 sprinters with intellectual disabilities participated in this study and completed 100 m sprint and various tests, including the Y Balance Test (YBT), the Crossover hop test, squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), andt-test to evaluate their dynamic balance, jumping ability, and agility, respectively. The findings revealed significant negative correlations between the YBT, Crossover hop test, SJ, and CMJ and 100 m sprint performance (r range: −0.41 to−0.79,p< 0.05). Regression analysis identified these variables as significant

tests, including the Y Balance Test (YBT), the Crossover hop test, squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), andt-test to evaluate their dynamic balance, jumping ability, and agility, respectively. The findings revealed significant negative correlations between the YBT, Crossover hop test, SJ, and CMJ and 100 m sprint performance (r range: −0.41 to−0.79,p< 0.05). Regression analysis identified these variables as significant predictors (R 2 = 0.69;p< 0.01). SJ exhibited the strongest association with 100 m sprint performance, (R 2 = 0.62, p< 0.01). The agilityt-test did not show a significant association. The combination of the YBT ANT and SJ demonstrated a predictive capability for 100 m sprint performance (R 2 = 0.67,p< 0.001). In conclusion, this study revealed predictive capabilities between dynamic balance, jumping ability, and 100 m sprint performance in sprinters with intellectual disabilities. Keywords:intellectual disabilities; sprinting; dynamic balance; jumping ability; physical performance 1. Introduction The prevalence of intellectual disability, characterized by cognitive limitations and deficits in communication, socialization, and self-care skills, affects approximately 200 mil- lion people, representing 2.6% of the global population with an intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70 [1,2]. The Special Olympics, one of the most popular recreational programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities, offers a platform for breaking barriers and pushing limits through sports, attracting over 4.4 million participants from over 180 countries in 32 Olympic-style individual and team sports [3]. Among these sports, track and field stands out as a common discipline among individuals with intellectual disabilities [4,5]. Sprinting is an important component of several track and field events. Sprinters with intellectual disabilities face unique challenges in their athletic pursuits. In addition to the cognitive impairments [1], these individuals often have physical limitations [6,7] that affect their ability to perform at their best. Sprinting is a complex motor skill that involves Sports2024,12, 58.

Sports2024,12, 58 2 of 14 the coordination of various physiological and biomechanical factors, including jumping ability, change in direction, and dynamic balance. For athletes with intellectual disabilities, impairments in these factors can impact their sprint performance and obstruct their ability to execute proper sprinting technique. Sprinting involves rapid acceleration and maximal speed running, which require explosive power and strength. Jumping ability is an important factor in sprint performance, as it involves the explosive power that is required for the initial acceleration phase of sprinting [8]. Forces that are applied during ground contact, especially in jumping, have been shown to correlate with the ability to attain maximum speeds [9]. This force that is generated in jumping can be translated into sprinting, enabling athletes to exert greater force during push-off and cover more distance per stride [9,10]. This can result in faster sprinting times and better overall performance. In fact, jumping involves the use of several muscle groups, including the quadriceps, glutes, calves, and core muscles, which are also used during sprinting [10]. Enhancing one’s jumping ability can result in heightened lower body strength and explosive power, which are essential for sprinting events. Studies have shown a strong correlation between jumping performances and the speed that is achieved in 10 m, 30 m, 50 m, and 100 m sprints among high-level typically developed sprinters [11,12], suggesting that increasing jumping is fundamental when attempting to improve sprint performance. Moreover, agility is a crucial component in most field sports [13]. Agility refers to the ability to move quickly and change direction with ease, balance, and control [13]. In sprinting, agility allows athletes to adjust their body position and change direction rapidly, enabling them to avoid obstacles, evade defenders, or make quick turns around a track [14]. The ability to change direction quickly can also improve an athlete’s acceleration and deceleration, which can be critical in sprinting events and reduce injury risks in typical development athletes [15]. Dynamic balance refers to the ability to maintain balance while in motion, such as when changing direction or making sudden movements [16]. Dynamic balance is important for sprinting

track [14]. The ability to change direction quickly can also improve an athlete’s acceleration and deceleration, which can be critical in sprinting events and reduce injury risks in typical development athletes [15]. Dynamic balance refers to the ability to maintain balance while in motion, such as when changing direction or making sudden movements [16]. Dynamic balance is important for sprinting tasks, as athletes must maintain balance and control at high speeds while accelerating, decelerating, and changing direction. Good dynamic balance allows sprinters to maintain proper running form and technique, which is essential for maximizing their speed and power [17]. However, it has been found that typical development athletes with poor dynamic balance experience a loss of control, which can lead to inefficient movements and slower times. Improving one’s dynamic balance can also reduce the risk of injury in runners with and without intellectual disabilities [18]. Previous research suggested that athletes with intellectual disabilities exhibit impaired postural balance when compared to the general population [19]. This deficit has been attributed to the deficiencies in visual [20], proprioceptive [21], and vestibular [22] inputs. The compromised postural balance in athletes with intellectual disabilities may heighten their vulnerability to lower extremity injuries, acknowledged as a key risk factor across various sports in typically developing athletes [23]. Consequently, the observed reduction in postural balance not only impedes athletes’ sprint performance but also amplifies the probability of injury occurrence [18]. As far as we know, no previous research has examined the relationship between jump- ing, agility, dynamic balance, and sprinting performance among athletes with intellectual disabilities. Understanding the relationship between these variables could provide impor- tant insights into the unique physical challenges that are faced by sprinters with intellectual disabilities and help develop more effective training programs, tailored to this population. The objective of this research is to explore the relationship between dynamic balance, jump- ing ability, and agility with sprinting performance in sprinters with intellectual disabilities. The hypothesis is that dynamic balance, jumping, and agility performances are significantly associated with sprint performance in athletes with intellectual disabilities.

programs, tailored to this population. The objective of this research is to explore the relationship between dynamic balance, jump- ing ability, and agility with sprinting performance in sprinters with intellectual disabilities. The hypothesis is that dynamic balance, jumping, and agility performances are significantly associated with sprint performance in athletes with intellectual disabilities.

Sports2024,12, 58 3 of 14 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants The present study involved a group of 27 male athletes from a special educational center who exhibited mild intellectual disabilities, determined by their IQ scores falling within the range of 50 to 70 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition test [24], with the average IQ for individuals without intellectual disabilities typically exceeding 70. Details regarding their demographics and anthropometrics were extracted from medical records, evaluated by the center’s psychologist, and cross-verified with inputs from their coach (see Table). Participants in our study met the inclusion criteria of being male with a mild intellectual disability, a middle socio-economic status, and sprinting experience between 4 and 6 years. All of the athletes regularly attended training sessions at the National Athletics Stadium. They participated in these sessions four times a week, with each session lasting two hours. The exclusion criteria were carefully defined to exclude individuals with co-morbid conditions, visual and/or vestibular disorders or diseases, lower limb or lower back injuries, neuromuscular disorders, muscle problems, physical conditions, multiple disabilities, and current medication use. Confirmation of these criteria was obtained through a thorough review of their medical history files. These exclusion criteria aimed to minimize confounding variables that could influence the study outcomes. Prior to their participation, the athletes, along with their parents and coach, were provided with a detailed explanation of the potential risks and benefits associated with the study. Following this, athletes provided verbal consent, while written consent was obtained from their parents or coach. The present study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was fully approved by the local Committee of Protection of Persons (C.P.P.SUD N 0228/2020). Table 1.Means (SD) of the general characteristics. General Characteristics Means (SD) Gender Male Age (years) 25.11 (3.71) Height (cm) 168.43 (7.28) Mass (kg) 65.87 (3.77) BMI (kg/m 2 ) 23.33 (1.9) IQ 59.93 (5.73) Type of training 100 m sprints Training experience in years 5.84 (0.68) Training Frequency (sessions/week) 4 Training volume (hours/session) 2 Right dominant leg 100% Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index; IQ:

General Characteristics Means (SD) Gender Male Age (years) 25.11 (3.71) Height (cm) 168.43 (7.28) Mass (kg) 65.87 (3.77) BMI (kg/m 2 ) 23.33 (1.9) IQ 59.93 (5.73) Type of training 100 m sprints Training experience in years 5.84 (0.68) Training Frequency (sessions/week) 4 Training volume (hours/session) 2 Right dominant leg 100% Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index; IQ: intelligence quotient. 2.2. Study Design The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between jumping ability and agility in 100 m sprint performance in athletes with intellectual disabilities. To achieve this, a cross-sectional correlational design was used. Dynamic balance was evaluated through the Y Balance Test (YBT) and Crossover hop test. Jumping tests were assessed using squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ). Agility was evaluated using t-test. Participants completed three testing sessions (Figure). In the first testing session, anthropometric data were measured and included. The order of tests in our study was organized to account for factors such as potential fatigue, the specific demands of each assessment, and the nature of the tests. The second session focused on dynamic balance (YBT) and jumping ability (SJ and CMJ), intentionally separated from the third session to prevent fatigue during single-leg assessments. Placing the Crossover hop test and agility t-test in the third session aimed to complement earlier tests and minimize cumulative fatigue, recognizing the field testing nature of the agilityt-test. To accommodate circadian variability, all testing sessions were conducted at the same time of day and aligned with

Sports2024,12, 58 4 of 14 participants’ regular training times. The assessments took place under consistent weather conditions (29 ◦ C and 50% humidity). All participants were cooperative and enthusiastic, and they were well versed in the testing procedures to minimize any effects that may have occurred due to a learning curve.Sports 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15 t-test in the third session aimed to complement earlier tests and minimize cumulative fa- tigue, recognizing the field testing nature of the agility t-test. To accommodate circadian variability, all testing sessions were conducted at the same time of day and aligned with participants’ regular training times. The assessments took place under consistent weather conditions (29 °C and 50% humidity). All participants were cooperative and enthusiastic, and they were well versed in the testing procedures to minimize any effects that may have occurred due to a learning curve. Figure 1. Schematic representation of the testing sessions. 2.3. Measurements 2.3.1. The 100 m Sprint Performance The 100 m sprint test requires covering a distance of 100 m, emphasizing maximum acceleration before crossing the starting line, with time recorded. The test was conducted in the athletic stadium where the participants performed their habitual training sessions. All athletes were given an adequate warm-up and practice first, as well as some encour- agement to continue running hard past the finish line. The initiation position was stand- ardized, commencing from a fixed stance with one foot positioned behind the starting line, devoid of any rocking movements. In order to measure the time of each participant’s performance, a stopwatch was used. Sprinters performed 2 attempts of 100 m test to assess the maximum speed, with a 5–7 min interval between attempts [25]. 2.3.2. Dynamic Balance Tests Dynamic balance was evaluated through the YBT and Crossover hop test. The YBT requires the athlete to achieve balance on a single leg, with the foot posi- tioned at the center of the grid. Simultaneously, the athlete must extend the other leg as far as possible in three specific directions: anterior (ANT), posterolateral (PLAT), and posteromedial (PMED). The examiner recorded the

balance was evaluated through the YBT and Crossover hop test. The YBT requires the athlete to achieve balance on a single leg, with the foot posi- tioned at the center of the grid. Simultaneously, the athlete must extend the other leg as far as possible in three specific directions: anterior (ANT), posterolateral (PLAT), and posteromedial (PMED). The examiner recorded the distances reached by the athlete by marking the tape measure at the point where the athlete’s reach came to an end. The YBT composite score is calculated by adding the three reach distances and normalizing the Figure 1.Schematic representation of the testing sessions. 2.3. Measurements 2.3.1. The 100 m Sprint Performance The 100 m sprint test requires covering a distance of 100 m, emphasizing maximum acceleration before crossing the starting line, with time recorded. The test was conducted in the athletic stadium where the participants performed their habitual training sessions. All athletes were given an adequate warm-up and practice first, as well as some encouragement to continue running hard past the finish line. The initiation position was standardized, commencing from a fixed stance with one foot positioned behind the starting line, devoid of any rocking movements. In order to measure the time of each participant’s performance, a stopwatch was used. Sprinters performed 2 attempts of 100 m test to assess the maximum speed, with a 5–7 min interval between attempts [25]. 2.3.2. Dynamic Balance Tests Dynamic balance was evaluated through the YBT and Crossover hop test. The YBT requires the athlete to achieve balance on a single leg, with the foot positioned at the center of the grid. Simultaneously, the athlete must extend the other leg as far as pos- sible in three specific directions: anterior (ANT), posterolateral (PLAT), and posteromedial (PMED). The examiner recorded the distances reached by the athlete by marking the tape measure at the point where the athlete’s reach came to an end. The YBT composite score is calculated by adding the three reach distances and normalizing the outcomes to the length of the lower limb. The distance for each reach is divided by the leg’s

posteromedial (PMED). The examiner recorded the distances reached by the athlete by marking the tape measure at the point where the athlete’s reach came to an end. The YBT composite score is calculated by adding the three reach distances and normalizing the outcomes to the length of the lower limb. The distance for each reach is divided by the leg’s length (from anterior superior iliac spine to medial malleolus) and then multiplied by 100. The test involves three attempts for each condition on both the right and left legs, with a 2 min resting period allowed between attempts. The greatest successful reach for each direction was used for analysis. This test is valid and reliable in athletes with intellectual disabilities [26]. The participants executed the Crossover hop test in a series of three consecutive attempts, spanning a 15 cm line marked on the floor to ensure standardized and precise

Sports2024,12, 58 5 of 14 execution. In this test, the participant was tasked with jumping on one leg and subsequently landing on the same leg that was used for propulsion. Test instructions specified that participants should place their hands on their hips, sustain the landing position for 3 s, and refrain from losing balance or making additional movements with the free limb. The distance achieved by the participant was measured in meters from the take-off line to the heel in the final position. Two attempts were made, and the best distance was recorded. This test is valid for athletes with intellectual disabilities [27]. 2.3.3. Jumping Tests The SJ and CMJ were performed using the Optojump plate (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy), which determined jump height (h) based on flight time (t) and acceleration due to gravity (g) using the formula h = t 2 × g/8 [28]. In the SJ, the sprinter initiated from a static position, hands on hips, maintaining a 90 ◦ knee flexion angle for 2 s before each trial, with no preparatory movements. Regarding the CMJ, the sprinter was instructed to position their hands on their hips to eliminate any influence of arm movements on vertical jump performance. He executed a downward movement, followed by full extension of the lower limbs. In both tests, he aimed to achieve maximum jump height. Precautions were taken to ensure proper technical execution, such as maintaining extended legs during flight time. The best trial in terms of SJ and CMJ height was used for further analysis. Three attempts were made, with a rest period of about 2 min between attempts. These tests are valid in athletes with intellectual disabilities [29]. 2.3.4. Agility Test To assess agility, thet-test was administered, which involved measuring the speed of covering distances while changing directions in a side shuffle, sprinting forward, and running backwards. Prior to the test, athletes received clear instructions emphasizing the importance of performing the backward running component with caution. To perform the test, four cones were arranged in a T shape, with cone B placed 9.14 m from the starting cone A, and

the speed of covering distances while changing directions in a side shuffle, sprinting forward, and running backwards. Prior to the test, athletes received clear instructions emphasizing the importance of performing the backward running component with caution. To perform the test, four cones were arranged in a T shape, with cone B placed 9.14 m from the starting cone A, and two additional cones, C and D, positioned 4.57 m on either side of cone B. Participants were instructed to sprint forward 9.14 m from cone A to cone B, touch it with their right hand, shuffle 4.57 m to the left to cone C, touch it with their left hand, then shuffle 9.14 m to the right to cone D and touch it with their right hand. Subsequently, they were to shuffle 4.57 m back to the left to cone B, touch it with their left hand, before finally running back to cone A. Participants were allowed to take a quick look during the running back phase to maintain situational awareness without compromising safety. A chronometer was used to measure the time taken to complete the test. Each participant performed the test twice, and their best time was recorded in seconds [30]. This test is valid in athletes with intellectual disabilities [31]. 2.4. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Means and standard deviation (SD) were computed for each variable (Table). The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the means. Data normality was assessed with the Shapiro– Wilk test. A pairedt-test was conducted to assess the differences between the right leg and left leg in the YBT across all directions and the composite score. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was utilized to identify correlations, with the following thresholds: <0.1, trivial; <0.1–0.3, small; <0.3–0.5, moderate; <0.5–0.7, large; <0.7–0.9, very large; and <0.9–1.0, almost perfect [32]. The association between YBT results (ANT, PLAT, PMED directions, and the composite score), SJ, CMJ, and the Crossover hop test and agilityt-test as independent variables, and the 100 m sprint test result as the dependent variable, was assessed through

Explores the predictive capabilities between dynamic balance, jumping ability, and sprint performance.