DOI: 10.56639/jsar.1992275 ISSN: 2687-6027

Comparison of Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) and Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST) in Combat Athletes: A Reliability and Validity Study

Berkay Löklüoğlu
Show PDF Cite
This study compared outcomes from the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) and the Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST) and evaluated the test-retest reliability of both protocols in taekwondo and kickboxing athletes. Fifteen active athletes (taekwondo, n = 7; kickboxing, n = 8) participated in the study. The WAnT was conducted under laboratory conditions, while the RAST was administered as a field-based assessment. Peak power (PP), average power (AP), minimum power (MP), fatigue in-dex (FI), and total exercise duration (TED) were recorded. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test, and differences between test outcomes were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Relationships among variables were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, and test-retest reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Significant differences were observed between WAnT and RAST for PP, AP, PP·kg⁻¹, AP·kg⁻¹, FI, and TED (p < 0.05), while MP and MP·kg⁻¹ did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Very strong, highly positive correlations were found for relative PP, AP, and MP. In contrast, FI demonstrated a low, non-significant correlation. Test-retest analyses indicated excellent reliability for all absolute and relative power variables in both protocols, except for WAnT MP, which showed moderate reliability, and FI, which exhibited lower reliability in both tests. RAST is a reproducible and practically useful field-based test for assessing general anaerobic performance in taekwondo and kickboxing athletes, demonstrating good concurrent validity relative to WAnT for most power-related variables. However, as the two tests produced different absolute values for several outcomes, RAST should not be considered a direct substitute for WAnT. FI values should be interpreted with caution due to weaker between-test associations and lower reliability. RAST is recommended as a practical field-based option, but direct comparisons with WAnT values should be avoided.

More from our Archive