This descriptive cross-sectional research was conducted during the training camp before the European Championship 2025. The training camps for male and female were held at different locations. Therefore, the research team was divided to conduct the data collection. The tests were conducted on an indoor pitch in the morning. The players were already familiar with the tests, so no familiarization period was required. Participants were reminded of the procedure for each physical test beforehand. No strenuous exercise was performed in the 48 h prior to the tests and were instructed to maintain their usual diet throughout the assessment period, as well as to avoid caffeine and alcohol on the day of testing and the day preceding. All assessments were performed using the competition wheelchair and the same type of competition court surface characteristics.

The order of the physical tests was: (i) rotator cuff test; (ii) IMPRP test; (iii) sprint test; and (iv) RSA test. At least 5 min of recovery were allowed between tests. Before starting the test battery, a standardized 20-minute pre-competition warm-up was performed, consisting of continuous pushing, joint mobility exercises, progressive submaximal accelerations, and constant changes of direction.

A total of 22 players from the Spanish WB national team participated in this study, comprising 12 male players (29.33±6.27 years; 1.64±0.26 m; 69.08±14.74 kg) and 10 female players (28.20±5.97 years; 1.65±0.07 m; 59.28±11.23 kg). The individual characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. All participants were members of the Spanish WB national teams during the preparation period for the 2025 European Championship, in which the male’s team won the gold medal and the female’s team won the bronze medal. Players were classified as elite/international-level athletes according to the Participant Classification Framework.13

All participants were verbally informed about the study and provided written informed consent after receiving detailed information regarding the procedures, as well as the potential risks and benefits. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Catalan Sports Council (015/CEICGC/2023) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The inclusion criteria for participating in the research were: i) being a member of a sports federation; ii) having been selected for the national team; and iii) being able to perform the battery of physical tests independently.

Participants’ pathologies did not affect their upper limbs: amputation (n = 5), spina bifida (n = 1), familial spastic paraparesis (n = 2), spinal cord injury (n = 7), bilateral agenesis (n = 2), multiple arthrogryposis (n = 1), myelomeningocele (n = 1), infantile spinal muscular atrophy (n = 1), dysplasia (n = 1), and congenital malformation (n = 1). Participants were functionally classified according to the IWBF.14 The IWBF functional classification system categorizes players according to their functional ability to perform the fundamental movements required during WB, including trunk control, wheelchair propulsion, passing, shooting, and rebounding. The classification range extends from 1.0 (representing the player with the lowest level of physical function) to 4.5 (representing the player with the highest level of physical function).

In this study, the sample size was obtained through convenience sampling due to the availability and accessibility of the research team. The sample size of 22 participants corresponds to a statistical power of 0.914 for an effect size (ES) of 1.5, obtained in the results section (see figures and tables), assuming an alpha error of 0.05. Nevertheless, the specific characteristics of this sample should be considered, as all participants were high-level WB players with significant achievements at the European level.

Rotator cuff test: The maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the internal shoulder rotators was measured following previous research.15 using a calibrated force gauge (Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain; 160 Hz). The meter was placed perpendicular (0° inclination) to the vertical axis, at the height of the participant's elbow. One end of the gauge was attached to a handrail, while the other was firmly secured to the participant's wrist using a grip attached to the gauge with a hook to ensure a stable hold. The participants stood perpendicular to the tension meter, in a completely static position in their wheelchairs, with the glenohumeral joint in a neutral position and the elbow flexed at 90°, without allowing any movement of the elbow relative to the torso or variations in the angle of flexion. Each performed two 3-second repetitions, separated by a 15-second rest interval, maintaining a constant force during each repetition. The highest recorded force value (Fmax) and the highest force value maintained for 1 s (FMax AVG 1 s) of the two attempts for each arm were recorded as the best result. Verbal cues were provided to encourage maximum effort. All repetitions were considered for reliability analysis, while the best trial was used for comparative analysis. Asymmetry was assessed using the formula: [(Force Stronger Hand – Force Weaker Hand) / Force Weaker Hand] x 100.16

IMPRP test: IMPRP is a standardized and validated test, previously applied to WB players and wheelchair sports.17–21 From a static position, athletes performed a simultaneous bilateral arm action to generate a single maximum push on the wheelchair rims, after which they returned to the starting position. Participants were encouraged during each repetition. Performance was measured using a linear encoder (Chronojump Boscosystem, Barcelona, Spain; Accuracy: 61 mm; sampling frequency: 1000 Hz), which was attached by a strap to the horizontal axle between the push wheels. The data were recorded with the free Chronojump software, configured to calculate displacement and time in a linear plane. The total mass of the system (athlete plus wheelchair) was entered into the software to calculate the mechanical variables (male: 12.46±1.55 kg; female: 12.95±1.41 kg). The variables analyzed were mean velocity, maximal velocity, mean power, maximal power, mean force, maximal force. Participants performed two repetitions separated by a 30-second passive rest interval. Each repetition was terminated when force production decreased to zero.20 The repetitions were considered for reliability analysis, while the best trial (higher value mean velocity) was used for comparative analyses.

Sprint test: Each participant performed two sets of 12 m sprints in a wheelchair at maximum speed, with a 3-minute rest period. The distance was measured using a tape measure. Times were recorded at 5 and 12 m using six photoelectric sensors (WICHRO: Wireless Race Kit; Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain) that monitored the time and speed of the sprint in real time. The devices were placed facing each other (3 m apart) in pairs at the start, at 5 m and at 12 m. At the start of each test, the players stood on the starting line, with the front wheelchair slightly behind the starting line to prevent false starts. After the signal from the evaluator, who used the words ‘when you want,’ the players were free to start pushing the wheelchair forward, and they were verbally encouraged to perform each repetition at maximum effort, covering the distance of 12 m. Both repetitions were considered for reliability analysis, while the best test (sprint time) was used for comparative analysis.

RSA test: A protocol similar to that used in the study by Weber et al.,.22 Participants completed six 15-m sprints with 10-second active recovery periods between each run. Four photoelectric sensors (WICHRO: Wireless Race Kit; Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain) recorded the time and speed of the sprints, with a separation of 3 m. Participants started at 0.5 m before the first sensor gate to avoid false starts and continued one meter beyond the second gate to avoid deceleration. The fatigue index (FI) was assessed using the formula FI (%) = [(Best velocity – Worst Velocity) / Worst Velocity] x 100.23 After the signal from the evaluator, who used the words ‘when you want,’ the players were free to start pushing the chair forward and were verbally encouraged to perform each repetition at maximum effort. Only a single attempt was performed.

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and figures were generated with GraphPad Software 8 Inc. (Boston, MA, USA). Statistical power was assessed using software G*Power 3.1 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany).

The reproducibility of the performance tests was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV = [SD / mean] × 100), and the standard error of measurement (SEM).24 ICC values below 0.5 indicate poor reliability, values between 0.5 and 0.75 indicate moderate reliability, values between 0.75 and 0.9 indicate good reliability, and values above 0.90 indicate excellent reliability.25

The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data. A t-test for independent samples was used to analyze differences between males and females national team players. However, to evaluate the differences between right hand and left hand, a t-test for dependent samples was used. The t-value and confidence interval (CI) 95% were obtained. The effect size (ES), for small sample sizes (n < 20), was calculated using Hedges' g.26 ES values were classified as follows: 0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = moderate effect; 0.8 = large effect.27 A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the reliability indexes (ICC, CV, SEM) for the physical tests performed. In general, both groups demonstrated at least moderate reliability in all tests. ICC values were generally ≥0.58.

Fig. 1 shows the data from the rotator cuff test. Fig. 1A shows the Fmax values. Significant differences were reported in the left hand (t = 3.95; 95% CI [38.93, 129.72]; p = 0.001; ES=1.50) and right hand (t = 5.02; 95% CI [63.90, 159.56]; p < 0.001; ES=1.96) between male and female national team players. On the other hand, no significant differences between male and female national team players were reported in asymmetries (t = 0.37; 95% CI [−12.08, 17.34]; p = 0.719; ES=0.20). In relation to the above, significant differences were found between the right and left hands in male (t= −2.65; 95% CI [−56.04, −5.18]; p = 0.023; ES=0.44) but not in female (t= −0.35; 95% CI [−23.42, 17.02]; p = 0.729; ES=0.18).

Fig. 1.

Rotator cuff test results in male and female players from the Spanish national WB team.

1A: Maximal Force values in the right and left hands in male and female players. The values of asymmetry between the highest and lowest Fmax values are shown in smaller size. 1B: Mean Maximal Force During 1 s values in the right and left hands in male and female players. SD: standard deviation. The values of asymmetry are shown in smaller size. * p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.01.

Fig. 1B shows the Fmax AVG 1 s values for both sexes. There were significant differences in the left hand (t = 3.63; 95% CI [36.47, 124.92]; p = 0.002; ES=1.52) and right hand (t = 4.96; 95% CI [59.13, 149.73]; p < 0.001; ES=1.96) between national team players. On the other hand, no significant differences were found between male and female national team players in asymmetries (t= −0.004; 95% CI [−14.58, 14.52]; p = 0.996; ES=0.00). In relation to the above, significant differences were found between the right and left hands in male (t= −2.72; 95% CI [−51.34, −5.39]; p = 0.020; ES=0.43) but not female (t= −0.56; 95% CI [−25.14, 15.94]; p = 0.625; ES=0.25).

Fig. 2 shows the values obtained during the IMPRP test. Fig. 2A reports the data obtained for mean velocity. Significant differences were reported between national teams (t = 2.76; 95% CI [0.05, 0.39]; p = 0.012; ES=1.13). Fig. 2B showed significant differences between male and female in maximal velocity values (t = 4.69; 95% CI [0.40, 1.06]; p < 0.001; ES=1.90). Regarding power values, there were significant differences between national teams in average power (t = 4.56; 95% CI [143.06, 389.00]; p < 0.001; ES=1.77) and maximal power (t = 6.04; 95% CI [669.43, 1403.86]; p < 0.001; ES=2.32). Finally, there were also differences in mean force values (t = 4.27; 95% CI [67.41, 198.51]; p < 0.001; ES=1.68) and maximal force (t = 6.73; 95% CI [235.22, 451.68]; p < 0.001; ES=2.64) between male and female national team players.

Fig. 2.

IMPRP test results in male and female players from Spanish national WB team.

2A: Mean velocity; 2B: Maximal velocity; 2C: Mean Power; 2D: Maximal Power; 2E: Mean Force; 2F: Maximal Force; SD: standard deviation. *p ≤ 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.001

Table 3 shows the values obtained in the 12 m sprint test. Significant differences were observed between national teams in the times and Speeds at 5 m and 12 m analyzed (p < 0.001; ES>0.80), with higher performance in male.

Finally, Table 4 shows the data obtained during the RSA test (6 × 15 m). As in the previous table, differences between male and female national team players were reported in all sprint times and speeds across the six repetitions analyzed (p < 0.001; ES>0.80), with higher performance in male. However, male obtained a higher percentage of FI compared to female (p = 0.070; ES=0.78).

The main limitations of the study were as follows: i) Different evaluators conducted the assessments of the male's and female's teams. However, they were experienced and the reliability analyses were above 0.50; ii) The sample size may be small. However, as noted in the materials and methods section, the sample size of 22 participants corresponds to a statistical power of 0.914 for an ES of 1.5. Furthermore, it should be noted that the sample consists of the male’s national team that won the championship and the female national team that placed third in Europe; iii) The training characteristics of the different national team squads, as well as those of individual players, were not recorded; iv) The phase of the menstrual cycle was not monitored in the female WB players. Although sex-related physiological differences may partially explain the observed performance differences, the present findings should be interpreted cautiously because the two groups also differed in several contextual and sport-specific characteristics that were not controlled for in the study (i.e. functional classification, body composition, sporting experience…). Also, the large number of statistical comparisons may have increased the risk of Type I error. However, given the descriptive and exploratory purpose of the study, the analyses were not intended to provide confirmatory hypothesis testing. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, considering effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals in addition to statistical significance.

From a practical perspective, the physical test performance obtained in this study could provide useful reference points for monitoring WB players during training and competition preparation. Coaches and strength and conditioning practitioners may use these values to identify individual strengths and limitations in upper-limb force production, wheelchair propulsion, sprint performance, and RSA. These assessments may also support the individualization and progression of strength and sprint training programmes, particularly by identifying specific performance qualities that require further development. However, the interpretation of these reference values should consider each player's functional classification, anthropometric characteristics, sporting experience, and other individual factors that may influence physical performance test.