Today I have a guest blog from Sam Leahey regarding both qualitative and quantitative testing in an athletic environment. The main point Sam addresses is whether or not there is a right or wrong time to perform quantitative testing.
Sam Leahey is currently pursuing a masters degree in exercise science at Springfield College and serves as a strength and conditioning coach at American International College. He can be contacted through his website www.samleahey.com.
—–
When Is It OK to “Guess” and Not Assess?
Sam Leahey
“If you’re not assessing, you’re guessing.”
“Don’t assume, assess.”
The novelty with the above two statements is that when most coaches say this in reference to program design, they’re specifically speaking about “movement/orthopedic” types of assessments and not so much about “performance” type assessments. What exactly do I mean by that? In order to properly address the argument we have to start with as much objectivity as possible. Consider the following categorical paradigm:
- Movement: Mobility, Stability, Fundamental Movement Patterns, Symmetry, etc.
- Performance: Absolute Strength, Elasticity, Impulse, Agility, Energy Systems, Power, etc.
- Skill: Sport-specific Skills (throwing/striking a ball, tackling an opponent, shooting a puck)
Given the pyramid we can see how foundational movement acts as a buffer to performance markers which further buffer our skill level in sports. Ultimately, semantics prevail here and you could argue that the way I’ve defined said categories is not universal and just a mental construct. This is true. But for the sake of argument let’s continue with this outlook to provide better clarity in the end.
When we talk about assessing our athletes we need to attach an adjective that tells others if we’re referencing “performance assessments” or “movement assessments”. Sport coaches will usually handle the “skill assessments.” Given the system of buffers described above it only makes sense we invest thorough attention to the foundation via our assessment process. However, the Risk:Reward ratio for many performance tests may not be advantageous at times. If a highly ectomorphic high school freshman walks into your facility with zero training background is it worth the risk to perform a 1-3RM just to prove (aka “assess”) he/she is weak? Is it sensible to perform agility tests on that same athlete just to obtain an objective measure that labels him/her “non-agile” and slow? Do we really need to use the tendo-unit with every incoming athlete to see whether speed-strength or strength-speed is the limiting factor? Might someone get hurt if we attempt to compare counter-movement and depth jumps with an entire high school team just to “assess” their elasticity when we could simply “guess” via their training age that they’re not adequately elastic enough? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on the individuals involved and certainly logistics play a governing role in what we can or choose to perform.
Undoubtedly things will be missed without an assessment no matter how much experience, insight, or prediction one has. I believe this to be the case especially in our “movement” assessment category but not as realistic of an outlook in our “performance” category given the potential Risk:Reward ratio previously mentioned. This is why I propose the general rule of thumb that we be most thorough with our movement tests and conservative with our performance tests. We wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt during a performance test just because it’s better to “assess” then “guess.” Simply “guessing” the obvious that they lack absolute strength and training for it is perfectly fine. It’s equally as acceptable to “guess” a beginner athlete lacks elasticity and training them for it without having to “assess” a depth jump to counter movement jump comparison. Also, the performance test outcomes will most likely change after foundational movement has been brought up to adequate. In this light we could argue that doing many performance tests are simply an expression of current limitations and the athlete’s true potential will only be realized after the base of the pyramid has been fixed.
Now, if you’ve developed a battery of performance tests for a particular population then it only makes sense you run them through it provided there’s no contraindications from movement assessments. But if you’re applying a battery of performance tests to all populations irrespective of individuality you may run into trouble and someone might get hurt. Ultimately, the decision to perform any test relies on your priority of qualities and/or estimation of the probability that the client has a particular condition in question via algorithmic thinking.
In conclusion, sometimes a “guess/assumption” is a good thing and you’re safest estimation towards a desired outcome without having to take them to a threshold point. It should not always be frowned upon, especially in regards to performance assessments. Heck, sometimes “guessing” is a better option than assessing in a certain situations. It depends.