“The show must go on”: How Paralympic athletes safeguarded their mental well-being and motivation to train for the postponed Tokyo 2020 games

IntroductionAfter the decision to postpone the Tokyo 2020 Games due to the COVID-19 pandemic, athletes had to adjust to a novel situation with feelings of uncertainty and insecurity. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, this study was the first to examine whether different motivational profiles among Paralympic athletes can be identified, and to link these profiles with the athletes’ emotional, cognitive, and performance-related outcomes in times of a pandemic.MethodsFive months before the start of the Paralympic Games, the participants (N = 32; mean age = 33.2 ± 6.8 years) completed an online questionnaire measuring their demographics, basic psychological needs, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, general well-being, and motivational self-regulation strategies. Two months after the Games, they completed a second online questionnaire measuring their actual and perceived performance at the past Games.ResultsThrough K-means cluster analysis, three distinct clusters were identified based on the athletes’ dominant type of motivation, these are, dominantly amotivated (n = 11), autonomously motivated (n = 12), and controlled motivated (n = 9). Comparisons of athletes’ emotional, cognitive, and performance-related outcomes depending on their motivational profile revealed that the athletes with a dominantly amotivated profile had the least adaptive outcomes (i.e., low need satisfaction, high need frustration, and more depressive symptoms). Athletes with a dominantly autonomously motivated profile made less use of controlling self-motivating strategies compared to the other two profiles. Moreover, their actual performance at the Paralympic Games was better.DiscussionAlthough none of the athletes were at severe risk for depression or showed extremely high levels of stress, these results confirm that improving the quality of athletes’ motivation can safeguard their well-being and enhance performance in Paralympic Sports

Basketball game related statistics that discriminate between players with intellectual impairment and able-bodied players

The development of evidence-based eligibility systems in basketball for athletes with intellectual impairment (II) requires investigating the influence of II on performance. Due to this, the present study aimed to compare game-related statistics from II and able-bodied (AB) competitions. The World Men II-Basketball Championship 2013 (n=13 games and 63 players) and the Spanish Men AB-Basketball Championships 2014 under 16-years-old (n=10 games and 95 players) and under 18-years-old (n=18 games and 175 players) were analyzed. Team and individual statistics were normalized to 100 ball possessions and to 40 minutes played respectively. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were conducted to compare II and AB-teams. Also, a discriminant analysis was employed to identify which variables discriminated them best. The Kruskal-Wallis and U Mann-Whitney tests were applied to compare the II and AB individual game-related statistics. II-teams played more ball possessions per game (p<0.05) and the variables which best discriminated II and AB-teams were: 2-point unsuccessful shots │SC=-0.384│, 3-point successful │SC=0.456│, 3-point unsuccessful │SC=- 0.399│, free-throws successful │SC=0.319│ and fouls │SC=0.454│. In all playing positions II-players presented more 2-point unsuccessful and lower shooting percentage in all kind of shots. II-guards attempted more field shots and made more turnovers than their peers, showing an unbalanced roles' distribution compared with AB-players. These results confirmed that II and AB-players perform basketball in different ways.El desarrollo de sistemas de elegibilidad basados en la evidencia en baloncesto para deportistas con discapacidad intelectual (DI) requiere investigar la influencia de la DI en el rendimiento. Debido a ello, el presente estudio tuvo por objetivo comparar las estadísticas de juego en competiciones para personas con DI y sin discapacidad (SD). El Campeonato del Mundo de Baloncesto-DI de 2013 (n=13 partidos y 63 jugadores) y los Campeonatos de España de Baloncesto-SD de 2014 sub-16 (n=10 partidos y 95 jugadores) y sub-18 (n=18 partidos y 175 jugadores) fueron analizados. Las estadísticas de equipo e individuales fueron normalizadas a 100 posesiones de balón y 40 minutos de juego respectivamente. Los test one-way ANOVA y post hoc Tukey fueron utilizados para comparar los equipos con DI y SD. También se realizó un análisis discriminante para identificar qué variables los discriminaban mejor. Los test Kruskal-Wallis y U Mann-Whitney fueron empleados para comparar las estadísticas individuales de los jugadores con DI y SD. Los equipos con DI jugaron más posesiones de balón por partido (p <0.05) y las variables que más discriminaron los equipos con DI y SD fueron: lanzamientos de 2 puntos fallados │SC=-0.384│, 3 puntos encestados │SC=0.456│, 3 puntos fallados │SC=-0.399│, tiros libres encestados │SC=0.319│ y faltas │SC=0.454│. En todas las posiciones de juego los jugadores con DI presentaron más fallos de 2 puntos y menor porcentaje de tiro en todo tipo de lanzamientos. Los bases con DI intentaron más lanzamientos de campo y cometieron más pérdidas que sus compañeros, mostrando un desequilibrio entre la distribución de roles comparado con los jugadores SD. Estos resultados confirmaron que los jugadores con DI y SD rinden de manera diferente en baloncesto

Basketball game related statistics that discriminate between players with intellectual impairment and able-bodied players = Estadísticas de juego en baloncesto que discriminan entre jugadores con y sin discapacidad intelectual

El desarrollo de sistemas de elegibilidad basados en la evidencia en baloncesto para deportistas con discapacidad intelectual (DI) requiere investigar la influencia de la DI en el rendimiento. Debido a ello, el presente estudio tuvo por objetivo comparar las estadísticas de juego en competiciones para personas con DI y sin discapacidad (SD). El Campeonato del Mundo de Baloncesto-DI de 2013 (n=13 partidos y 63 jugadores) y los Campeonatos de España de Baloncesto-SD de 2014 sub-16 (n=10 partidos y 95 jugadores) y sub-18 (n=18 partidos y 175 jugadores) fueron analizados. Las estadísticas de equipo e individuales fueron normalizadas a 100 posesiones de balón y 40 minutos de juego respectivamente. Los test one-way ANOVA y post hoc Tukey fueron utilizados para comparar los equipos con DI y SD. También se realizó un análisis discriminante para identificar qué variables los discriminaban mejor. Los test Kruskal-Wallis y U Mann-Whitney fueron empleados para comparar las estadísticas individuales de los jugadores con DI y SD. Los equipos con DI jugaron más posesiones de balón por partido (p <0.05) y las variables que más discriminaron los equipos con DI y SD fueron: lanzamientos de 2 puntos fallados │SC=-0.384│, 3 puntos encestados │SC=0.456│, 3 puntos fallados │SC=-0.399│, tiros libres encestados │SC=0.319│ y faltas │SC=0.454│. En todas las posiciones de juego los jugadores con DI presentaron más fallos de 2 puntos y menor porcentaje de tiro en todo tipo de lanzamientos. Los bases con DI intentaron más lanzamientos de campo y cometieron más pérdidas que sus compañeros, mostrando un desequilibrio entre la distribución de roles comparado con los jugadores SD. Estos resultados confirmaron que los jugadores con DI y SD rinden de manera diferente en baloncesto

Scoping review of dual-task interference in individuals with intellectual disability

Dual-task paradigms can provide insights on the structures and mechanisms underlying information processing and hold diagnostic, prognostic, and rehabilitative value for populations with cognitive deficits such as in individuals with intellectual disability (ID). In this paradigm, two tasks are performed separately (single-task context) and concurrently (dual-task context). The change in performance from single- to dual-task context represents dual-task interference. Findings from dual-task studies have been largely inconsistent on whether individuals with ID present with dual-task-specific deficits. The current review aimed to map the published literature on dual-task methods and pattern of dual-task interference in individuals with ID. A scoping review based on Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage methodological framework was performed. Seventeen electronic databases and registries were searched to identify relevant studies, including gray literature. Charted data from included studies were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. PRISMA guidelines informed the reporting of this review. Twenty-two studies involving 1,102 participants (656 with ID and 446 without ID) met the review’s inclusion criteria. Participants in the included studies were heterogeneous in sex, age (range 3–59 years), etiology and ID severity. Included studies characterized their ID-sample in different ways, most commonly using intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. Other measures of intellectual function (e.g., mental age, ID severity, verbal and/or visuospatial ability scores) were also used, either solely or in combination with IQ. Methods of dual-task testing varied across studies, particularly in relation to dual-task combinations, equation of single-task performance between groups, measurement and reporting of dual-task performance for each single-task, and task priority instructions. Thematic content of the included studies were: (1) structural interference to dual-tasking; (2) etiology-based differences in dual-tasking; (3) gait and balance dual-task performance; (4) testing executive function using dual-task paradigms; and (5) training effect on dual-task performance. Although the evidence consistently supported the intact dual-tasking ability of individuals with ID, the pattern of dual-task interference was inconsistent. Likewise, the evidence was inconclusive regarding dual-task deficit specific to individuals with ID because of heterogeneity in dual-task study designs among included studies

Performance variability in basketball players with intellectual impairment: Ankara World Championships 2013 analysis

The aim of the present study was to identify performance variability in basketball for players with intellectual impairment (II) and to compare it with able-bodied (AB) players. Official game statistics from the 13 games played in the Ankara World II-Basketball Championships (2013) were gathered and descriptive data, variability coefficient (VC), maximum scores and its Z-score were calculated from those players who participated at least 10 minutes per game (N = 46; guards = 10, forwards = 21, centers = 15). Results indicated higher performance variability and lower efficiency in shooting percentages and turnovers in II-players comparing with studies in ABplayers. Differences found between game positions indicated similar roles of guards, forwards and centers in II and AB-players. These findings are relevant to understand how II impact on basketball performance, which is a necessary step to develop specific eligibility systems in II-basketball according to the guidelines of the International Paralympic Committee

Effect of intellectual impairment on basketball game-related statistics

The purpose of this study was to analyze the infl uence of intellectual impairment (II) on game-related statistics which best contribute to success in basketball. Offi cial game-related statistics were gathered from 6 male teams (n = 63 players)during the 13 games played in the World II-Basketball Championships (Ankara 2013). Variables were normalized to 100 ball possessions and descriptive statistics were calculated. To identify which variables contributed best to success, a discriminant analysis was performed. The obtained structural coeffi cients (SC) from this analysis indicated 2-pt successful │SC = –0.65│, assists │SC = –0.61│, steals │SC = –0.41│ and offensive rebounds │SC = –0.32│ as variables which best contributed to success. Results were compared with previous studies in able-bodied (AB) basketball. Assists and 2-point successful were discriminant variables to success in II and AB-competitions; however, defensive rebounds discriminated in many AB but not in II-competitions. In addition, steals and offensive rebounds were only discriminant in II-competitions. Relevancy of assists refl ected the importance of teamwork in both AB and II-competitions; however, the lower shooting effi ciency of II-players suggests possible limitations on decision making capacity or offensive tactics. Consequently, second opportunities to score (offensive rebounds) and scoring under low defensive pressure (fast-break after a steal); seem to take relevance to increase 2-point successful in II-players. These fi ndings confi rm the negative infl uence of II on basketball game-related statistics. This is a fi rst step needed to develop evidence-based eligibility systems for this sport according to the position of the International Paralympic Committee regarding classifi cation

The importance of pacing in basketball players with intellectual impairment: Input for evidence-based classification

Pacing places a high demand on intellectual functioning and has been found useful for classification of athletes with intellectual impairments (II). This may also be true in open-loop sports like basketball. The current study aimed to investigate the pacing behaviour of basketball players with and without II. Using time-motion analysis, the activity of elite basketball players with II (n = 37) and amateur players without II (n = 34) was coded into four movement categories over eight periods of each game: standing, walking, running and jumping. Following two-way ANOVA, an effect of group showed differences between groups in duration and frequency of the movement categories within each period of the games. Additionally, an effect of time suggested that players in both groups paced their performances. However, no interaction was found, indicating that pacing may not be different between groups. In conclusion, the results suggest that due to the dynamic nature of basketball, the included players paced more intuitively by responding to environmental cues and using less deliberate planning. The players with II demonstrated slower games, which may be due to an impaired ability to make quick moment-to-moment deliberate decisions. These skills should be further studied in the context of evidence-based classification

A discriminant function to clasify basketball teams with and without intellectual impairment through game statistics

In the development of eligibility systems in basketball for athletes with Intellectual Impairment (II), previous studies have described how II-athletes perform in high level basketball. These results were compared with the literature in Able-bodied (AB) competitions. However, data from AB and II- competitions have not been previously assessed in order to identify significant differences between both competitions. This step is needed firstly, to evidence differences in AB and II-basketball and secondly, to establish evidence-based eligibility criteria

Influence of intellectual impairment (II) on basketball players' capacity to solve a game situation: towards evidence-based classification systems in II-basketball

El baloncesto para personas con discapacidad intelectual (DI) requiere del desarrollo de sistemas de elegibilidad basados en la evidencia que garanticen la participación en estas competiciones únicamente de deportistas con limitaciones significativas para practicar baloncesto. Además, esto es necesario para re incluir el baloncesto-DI en el programa Paralímpico. Para hacer esto, es necesario investigar cómo la DI impacta sobre las actividades fundamentales del baloncesto. Para cubrir esta necesidad, el objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la capacidad de resolver situaciones de juego en jugadores con y sin DI. Un test de campo se diseñó ad hoc en el que 38 jugadores de alto nivel con DI de Francia, Portugal, Australia y Japón que participaron en los Global Games (2015) y 38 jugadores sin DI participantes en competiciones Españolas, tenían que resolver 8 situaciones estandarizadas de juego. Los resultados indicaron que los jugadores con DI usaron significativamente (p≤0.05) más tiempo para decidir (0.92±0.2s) que los jugadores sin DI (0.63±0.1s) así como para ejecutar la solución (DI: 3.01±0.4s; sin DI: 2.56±0.3s). También, los jugadores con DI hicieron más infracciones del reglamento (DI: 7.11±1.4; sin DI: 7.71±0.7), más fintas (DI: 1.37±1.4; sin DI: 0.3±0.6), más botes (DI: 15.08±3.9; sin DI: 12.29±2.3) y consiguieron menos éxito final en la solución (DI: 4.42±1.5; sin DI: 5.39±1.3). Sin embargo, no se encontraron diferencias en el número de decisiones correctas realizadas. El tiempo de decisión, el número de botes y las situaciones solventadas con éxito fueron las variables que más discriminaron entre jugadores con y sin DI. Estos resultados confirmaron la influencia negativa de la DI sobre la capacidad para resolver una situación de juego en baloncesto. La función discriminante nos permite establecer las puntuaciones mínimas en este test que indican limitaciones significativas en la capacidad de resolver una situación de juego. Estas puntuaciones son aplicables para determinar criterios de elegibilidad en baloncesto-DI a nivel mundial

Pacing Ability in Elite Runners with Intellectual Impairment

Purpose. To understand how athletes invest their energy over a race, differences in pacing ability between athletes with and without intellectual impairment (II) were explored using a novel field test. Methods. Well-trained runners (n=67) participated in this study, including 34 runners with II (age = 24.4 +/- 4.5 years; IQ = 63.1 +/- 7.7) and 33 runners without II (age = 31.4 +/- 11.2 years). The ability to perform at a pre-planned submaximal pace was assessed. Two 400m running trials were performed on an athletics track, with an individually standardized velocity. In the first trial, the speed was imposed by auditory signals given in 20m-40m intervals, in combination with coach-feedback during the initial 200m. The participant was instructed to maintain this velocity without any feedback during the final 200m. In trial 2, no coach-feedback was permitted. Results. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant between-groups effect. II-runners deviated more from the target time than runners without II. The significant trial x group interaction effect (F = 4.15, p<.05) revealed that the ability to self-regulate the pace during the final 200m improved for runners without II (Trial 1: 1.7 +/- 1.0s, Trial 2: 0.9 +/-0.8s) whereas the II-runners deviated even more in Trial 2 (4.4 +/- 4.3s), than in Trial 1 (3.2 +/- 3.9s). Conclusion. Our findings support the assumption that intellectual capacity is involved in pacing. It is demonstrated that II-runners have difficulties maintaining a preplanned submaximal velocity, and this study contributes to understanding problems II-exercisers might experience when exercising. With this field test, we can assess the impact of II on pacing and performance in individual athletes which will lead to a fair Paralympic classification-procedure