How Confident Can We Be in Modelling Female Swimming Performance in Adolescence?

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine the expected progression of adolescent female swimming performances using a longitudinal approach. The performances of 514 female swimmers (12–19 year olds) who participated in one or more FINA-regulated annual international schools’ swimming championships over an eight-year period were analysed. Quadratic functions for each of the seven individual events (50, 100, 200 m freestyle, 100 m backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, 200 m individual medley) were determined using mixed linear models. The predicted threshold of peak performance ranged from 16.8 ± 0.2 (200 m individual medley) to 20.6 ± 0.1 (100 m butterfly) years of age, preceded by gradual rates of improvement (mean rate of 1.6% per year). However, following cross validation, only three events (100 m backstroke, 200 m individual medley and 200 m freestyle) produced reliable models. Identifying the factors that contribute to the progression of female performance in this transitory period of life remains challenging, not least since the onset of puberty is likely to have occurred prior to reaching 12 years of age, the minimum competition age for this championship.

Confirming the Value of Swimming-Performance Models for Adolescents

“…A current shortcoming in the development of models is that few are empirically evaluated. 4,7 The models of Dormehl et al 11 & Dormehl et al 12 therefore utilized an innovative model-evaluation procedure using a quantitative and qualitative mixedmethodology. The outcomes of this study included the advancement in the appraisal of model development, as well as highlighting a broader applicability of the JSP models in being able to quantify performance gains in adolescent swimmers of all standards.…”

“…The swimmers' performances were compared with the models of sub-elite adolescent swimmers derived by Dormehl et al 11 and Dormehl et al 12 . Additionally, the swimmers' times were compared against quadratic functions derived from the DL for 12 to 18 year olds for the 2016 season that were obtained from the Koninklijke Nederlandse Zwembond 17 .…”

“…Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Junior Swim Performance models 11,12 (subsequently referred to as the JSP models), whilst employing a quantitative and qualitative mixed-methodological approach with an independent sample of national-level adolescent swimmers. The first sub-aim was to verify the suitability of the underlying dataset of sub-elite swimmers from which the JSP models were derived.…”

“…5,14 However, a consequence of the complex mathematical basis of the models is the obscurity in participants and coaches understanding the output. Since 12 pursued a novel approach to performance modelling. The focus was not on predicting future talent or performance but instead to provide coaches and swimmers with an intuitive, simple goal-setting and performance-tracking tool.…”

“…6 To date, most swimming performance models have focused on predicting future performance and talent identification using methods including neural models and networks, 4,7,8 repeated-measure ANOVAs 9 and mixed linear modelling. [10][11][12] Predictive models of performance are commonly assessed using cross or external validation. 4,7,13 However, to date there have been equivocal outcomes with some researchers reporting high levels of accuracy, 4,7 and others 13 suggesting that secondary factors, in addition to age and performance, would have been required to correctly predict 2012 Olympic champions.…”