Research on quantitative assessment model and application strategy of volleyball players’ physical training effect

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Basic information of the experimental object

Majors	Student selection	Attendance rate	Average performance
1	Volleyball	97.52%	92.8
2	Volleyball	94.09%	95.84
3	Volleyball	95.36%	93.27
4	Volleyball	96.97%	92.82
5	Volleyball	94.82%	94.1
6	Volleyball	98.58%	95.73
7	Volleyball	99.20%	94.66
8	Volleyball	98.6%	96.0
9	Volleyball	97.84%	97.84
10	Volleyball	96.84%	95.47

Two evaluation model reliability statistics

	Training quantity and density		Training contents and forms		The athlete’s heart rate changes
	This article evaluates the model	Traditional assessment model	This article evaluates the model	Traditional assessment model	This article evaluates the model	Traditional assessment model
Total correlation	0.864	0.643	0.867	0.658	0.964	0.655
Coefficient of alpha (reliability coefficient)	0.961	0.643	0.962	0.660	0.902	0.640

The results of the training effect of the athletes’ lower limb strength

Age	The experimental group was half squatting/cm	Evaluation grade
12	35.24±0.23	Ⅲ
13	37.11±0.62	Ⅵ
14	36.28±0.22	Ⅵ
15	37.35±0.98	Ⅲ
16	38.04±0.16	Ⅵ
17	41.23±0.58	V
18	43.64±0.65	V

The movement characteristics of the double punch

i	qi/radian	ai/radian	ai/mm	di/mm	Explosive moment
1	m1	−π/4	1s	2	[−π/6, π/6]
2	m2 − π/2	−π/4	2	2	[−π/6, π/6]
3	m3 − π/2	π/4	2	1u	[−63π/18, π/6]
4	m4	−π/4	2	2	[0,69π/36]
5	m5	π/4	2	1f	[0,35π/18]
6	m6 − π/2	−π/4	2	2	[−π/8, π/8]
7	m7	π/4	1h	2	[−π/8, π/8]

The control group and the experimental group were half squat

Age	The experimental group was half squatting/cm	Control group half squat jump/cm
12	33.21±0.67	33.57±0.36
13	33.8±0.32	36.14±0.58
14	34.17±0.97	34.36±0.98
15	35.2±0.65	36.02±0.38
16	36.35±0.68	37.15±0.22
17	37.14±0.98	37.89±0.96
18	38.17±0.75	39.25±0.98