ATTRIBUTES OF TOP ELITE TEAM-HANDBALL PLAYERS
LUÍS M. MASSUÇA,1,2,3 ISABEL FRAGOSO,1 AND JÚLIA TELES4
1
Laboratory of Physiology and Biochemistry of Exercise, Faculty of Human Kinetics, Technical University of Lisbon, Cruz
Quebrada-Dafundo, Portugal; 2Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Luso´fona University, Lisbon, Portugal; 3ICPOL,
Higher Institute of Police Sciences and Internal Security, Lisbon, Portugal; and 4Mathematics Unit, Faculty of Human Kinetics,
Technical University of Lisbon, Cruz Quebrada-Dafundo, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Massuça, LM, Fragoso, I, and Teles, J. Attributes of top elite
team-handball players. J Strength Cond Res 28(1): 178–186,
2014—Researchers in the field of excellence in sport perfor-
mance are becoming increasingly focused on the study of
sport-specific characteristics and requirements. In accordance
with this, the purposes of this study were (a) to examine the
morphologic-, fitness-, handball-specific skills and psychological
and “biosocial” differences between top elite and nontop elite
team-handball players and (b) to investigate the extent to which
they may be used to identify top elite team-handball players.
One hundred sixty-seven adult male team-handball players were
studied and divided in 2 groups: top elite (n = 41) and nontop
elite (n = 126). Twenty-eight morphologic-, 9 fitness-, 1 hand-
ball-specific skills and 2 psychological-based and 2 “biosocial”-
based attributes were used. Top elite and nontop elite groups
were compared for each variable of interest using Student’s
t-test, and 5 logistic regression analyses were performed with
the athlete’s performance group (top elite or nontop elite) as the
dependent variable and the variables of each category as pre-
dictors. The results showed that (a) body mass, waist girth,
radiale-dactylion length, midstylion-dactylion length, and abso-
lute muscle mass (morphologic model); (b) 30-m sprint time,
countermovement jump height and average power, abdominal
strength and the class of performance in the Yo-Yo Intermittent
Endurance Test (fitness model); (c) offensive power (specific-
skills model); (d) ego-based motivational orientation (psycholog-
ical model); (e) socioeconomic status and the energy spent
(for week) in handball activity (biosocial model); significantly
(p , 0.05) contributed to predict the probability of an athlete
to be a top elite team-handball player. Moreover, the fitness
model exhibited higher percentages of correct classification
(i.e., 91.5%) than all the other models did. This study provided
(a) the rational to reduce the battery of tests for evaluation
purposes, and (b) the initial step to work on building
Address correspondence to Luı́s M. Massuça, luis.massuca@gmail.com.
28(1)/178–186
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
178 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
a multidisciplinary model to predict the probability of a handball
athlete to be a top elite player.
KEY WORDS biosocial, morphologic, fitness, psychological,
specific skills
INTRODUCTION
R
esearchers in the field of excellence in sport per-
formance are becoming increasingly focused on
the study of sport-specific characteristics and
requirements. Nevertheless, the research on
expertise has tended to use a monodisciplinary approach
(i.e., focusing in only 1 type of attributes, e.g., morphologic,
physiological, specific skills, psychological, or biosocial).
The literature has shown that in team handball (i.e., “game
that is played between 2 teams, each comprising 6 court play-
ers and a goalkeeper” [48]), the morphologic profile of top
elite handball players has attracted much research interest. To
date, studies have centered on (a) the morphologic differences
between players with different performance levels (16) and (b)
on the differences between athletes with the same playing
position but at different performance levels (3,17).
Furthermore, some methodological guidelines were sug-
gested in the literature as being relevant to the study of the
body composition in team-handball players. For example,
Reilly et al. (38) have suggested the use of the Durnin and
Womersley (6) equation for the estimation of body fat (16).
However, most studies on adult male team-handball players
used the Jackson and Pollock (21) equation (11). Moreover,
a small number of studies have also focused on the potential
importance of accessing the muscle mass (16,28,30).
It is true that modern handball involves high-intensity short
duration exercise (37), in addition to well-developed aerobic
fitness, velocity, and strength (47). In fact, the ability to repeat-
edly perform intermittent high-intensity actions throughout the
game seems to be important in team-handball players (36,43).
However, very little work (most of which is in non-ISI indexed
publications, and therefore with limited accessibility, e.g., Lam
HP, unpublished observation [32]) has been focused on the
intermittent endurance capacity of handball players (36,43).
Is it correct to consider only the morphologic and fitness
profiles in the study of team-handball players?

It seems relevant to note that other factors (e.g., handball-
specific skills profile, psychological profile, and biosocial
profile) can be determinants to predict sports success.
In fact, proficiency in team handball, usually attributed to
a combination of technical and tactical skills (35), is currently
analyzed by the completion of evaluation sheets (14,22,35)
during the match(es), or by retrospective analysis of video-
tapes. However, technical-tactical efficiency is both team and
match specific (14,35). It is therefore difficult to obtain an
objective measure of each performer’s efficiency in a game
(46). Notwithstanding its disadvantages, coaches rely heavily
on such a judgment of each player’s individual contributions
in terms of handball-specific skill to team performance (35,46).
The literature also reports that psychological attributes and
mental skills contribute to athletic success (24). In fact, moti-
vation is one of the components of athletic success that has
been most studied in sports psychology and, to access goal
orientation, researchers have employed a range of self-report
measures (e.g., Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Question-
naire [TEOSQ] and Perception of Success Questionnaire).
The TEOSQ, in particular, was supported by one of the most
popular and well-researched theories of motivation in sport
psychology—the achievement goal theory (34). According to
Hodge et al. (20), researchers employing this theory have
made a substantial contribution to the understanding of indi-
vidual motivation in sports. In fact, studies comparing success-
ful and less successful athletes’ have reported significant
differences in their achievement goal orientations (7,12,39).
Furthermore, the study of the influence of environment
and living conditions on the success of an athlete seems to be
of irrefutable importance. According to Mensink et al. (33),
leisure time activity can be influenced by socioeconomic
status (SES), level of urbanization, and occupation. In fact,
it seems that low SES (in samples of the young) may be
a disadvantage with regard to their ability to participate in
organized sports (9).
Massuça and Fragoso (29) observed that SES was signifi-
cantly associated with team-handball success (i.e., a higher
SES is related to a higher performance level). They also noted
that top elite team-handball players have higher weekly
energy expenditures in organized team-handball activity than
do nontop elite players. In fact, top elite players spent twice as
much time training than the nontop elite players did (29).
It seems that the identification of individual characteristics
of the top elite player, and the determination of the extent to
which they may differentiate the top elite player from the
nontop elite player, will allow us to have a better under-
standing of a team-handball player’s success, and to adjust
a reduced battery of tests for evaluation and training control.
In accordance, the purposes of this study were (a) to
examine the morphologic-, fitness-, handball-specific skills
and psychological and “biosocial” differences between top
elite and nontop elite team-handball players and (b) to inves-
tigate the extent to which they may be used to identify top
elite team-handball players.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to report the basic descriptors and
benchmarks of attributes, from 5 individual categories (i.e.,
morphologic-, fitness-, handball-specific skills and psycho-
logical and “biosocial”), of 2 performance groups of team-
handball players (i.e., top elite and nontop elite). A sample of
167 team-handball players was used. Independent samples
t-test was used to evaluate the differences between the 2
groups of athletes (top elite vs. nontop elite) for 28 morpho-
logic (20 anthropometric measures; absolute and relative fat
and muscle mass), 9 fitness (30-m time; difference between
dominant and nondominant handgrip; height and power in
squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ), abdom-
inal strength, distance, and position achieved in the Yo-Yo
Intermittent Endurance Test—level 2 [YYIE2]), 1 handball-
specific skill (offensive power), 2 psychological (task and ego
orientation), and 2 “biosocial” (SES and energy spent, per
week, on regular handball activities) variables. In continua-
tion, 5 binary logistic regression models were adjusted, using
a forward variable selection method, to identify which var-
iables significantly contributed to predict the probability of
an athlete to be a top elite player (the variables of each
individual categories were the independent variables, and
the performance group was the dependent variable for the
binary logistic regression models). Moreover, this prelimi-
nary study can be an important “key” to perform (in a near
future) a multidisciplinary approach to talent selection in
team handball.
Subjects
Before their inclusion in the study, the experimental
objectives and procedures were explained to the participants,
from whom written informed consent was obtained. The
experimental protocol was approved by the Scientific and
Ethical University committees.
One hundred sixty-seven male team-handball players (n =
167; age: 23.6 6 5.3 years) participated in this study. The
participants were divided into 2 groups: (a) top elite (n = 41;
age: 26.2 6 4.9 years), players of first Portuguese Handball
Division—Portuguese Handball Federation—PO.01 (top elite
players can be considered as one of the Portuguese leading
professional handball teams because they were the Portu-
guese Champions and vice champions), and (b) nontop elite
(n = 126; age: 25.2 6 4.8 years), players from second or third
Portuguese Handball Division (Portuguese Handball Feder-
ation, PO.02 and PO.03). All the participants were tested
during a competitive period of the 2008–2009 Portuguese
team-handball season (February and March 2009).
Morphologic Profiling
Twenty anthropometric dimensions were determined. We
obtained 2 basic measures, stature (centimeters) and body
mass (kilograms), 8 skinfolds (millimeters), 6 girths (centi-
meters), 1 breadth (centimeters), and 3 lengths (centimeters)
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 179
 Top Elite Team-Handball Players
measure. The 8 skinfolds were taken at the subscapular,
triceps, biceps, chest, supraspinale, abdominal, front thigh,
and medial calf location. The 6 girths were arm (relaxed),
forearm (maximum), chest (mesosternale), waist (minimum),
thigh (mid-troch-tib. lat.), and calf (maximum). To adjust the
measure of thigh girth (mid-troch-tib. lat.), to the original
measure used by Lee et al. (25) (i.e., inguinal-patellar), a ran-
dom subsample (n = 31) was used to calculate the coefficient
of adjustment (R = 0.986) (30). The bone breadth measure
that was obtained was the biacromial. The 3 lengths were
the acromiale dactylion, the radiale dactylion, and the mid-
stylion dactylion. The measurements were obtained follow-
ing the protocol in Marfell-Jones et al. (27), with the
exception of chest skinfold (the skinfold measurement was
taken obliquely in the mean distance between the breast
nipple and the axilla fold), acromiale-dactylion length (the
linear distance between the acromiale and dactylion sites),
and radiale-dactylion length (the linear distance between the
radiale and dactylion sites). All such measurements were
obtained using portable measurement devices. Stature and
heights were measured using a portable anthropometer
(GPM; Siber-Hegner, Zurich, Switzerland). Body mass was
measured, to the nearest 0.5 kg, using a scale (Secca model
761 7019009; Vogel & Halke, Hamburg, Germany). Skinfold
thickness was obtained using a skinfold callipers (Slim
Guide; Rosscraft, Surrey, CA, USA) and the breadth and
lengths were measured using a large sliding calliper (GPM,
Siber-Hegner), and girths using a flexible, nonstretching steel
tape (Model W606PM, Lufkin, TX, USA). All the measure-
ments were taken by 4 technicians accredited by International
Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK)
and under the supervision of an ISAK Level 4. Practitioner
individual measurements were always collected, in all the sub-
jects, by the same ISAK evaluators (intraobserver technical
error of measurements—TEM: stature, R $ 0.98; skinfolds,
between R = 0.90 and R = 0.98; breadth and girths, between
R = 0.92 and R= 0.98). In continuation, the body density was
estimated using the equations of Durnin and Womersley (6)
and Jackson and Pollock (21), and the equation of Siri (42)
was used to convert the body density to body fat percentage.
Also, muscle mass was calculated according to the Heyms-
field et al. (19) and Lee et al. (25) equations.
Fitness Profiling
Before the fitness tests, all the participants performed
a 20-minute warm-up (involving a slow jog followed by
static and dynamic stretching). They were also allowed
10 minutes of passive rest between tests. Water breaks and
extra rest time were allowed. Each player was instructed and
verbally encouraged to give his maximal effort. Six tests were
performed by the participants (following the order estab-
lished in the description), and 9 variables were recorded for
the analysis. The tests included a 30-m speed test. The
participants completed 3 trials, and the best score (time in
seconds) was recorded for analysis (26). All sprint times were
the TM
180 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
recorded using electronic timing lights (Wireless Sprint Sys-
tem; Brower Timing Systems, Salt Lake City, UT, USA).
Handgrip was assessed using a grip strength dynamometer
(Grip Takei Physical Fitness Test; TKK 5001, Tokyo, Japan).
Again, the participants completed 3 trials, with each hand.
The best scores (in kilograms) were recorded (13), and the
difference between dominant and nondominant handgrip
(Handgrip, D-ND) was calculated. The players performed
2 vertical jump tests, on an Ergojump (Bosco System,
Globus, Treviso, Italy) using the Bosco protocol (4), to deter-
mine lower body explosive strength. Three trials of each test
(SJ and CMJ) were performed, and the best trial result of
each test was recorded (height, centimeters). Leg power was
also assessed (Pavg, watts), using a modified version of the
Lewis formula (8). Abdominal strength (i.e., endurance) was
assessed using the 60-second sit-up test (41). The partici-
pants completed 1 trial, and the number of repetitions (#)
was recorded. Finally, to study the intermittent endurance
capacity, the YYIE2 was used (2). The distance (meters) and
the position achieved (using a 4-point scale where 1, 2, 3, and
4 represent, respectively, ,1,000 m; $1,000 m; and #1,300
m; $1,300; and ,1,600 m; $1,600 m) were recorded (2).
Handball-Specific Skills Profiling
Despite the growing popularity and professionalization of
handball, the scientific literature, produced until this
moment, does not include validated tools to assess a techni-
cal and tactical proficiency. This consideration justifies the
development of a rating scale to evaluate the technical and
tactical aspects of team handball. Therefore, a total of 17
expert team-handball coaches evaluated the technical and
tactical proficiency of 235 male team-handball players (age:
23.46 6 5.25 years), excluding goalkeepers, using a 10-item
Likert-type scale. The coefficient of internal consistency
measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.936, and
the technical-tactical tool was empirically validated via fac-
tor analysis. Just 1 factor with 6 items was highlighted as
important by the results (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.934). This
measurement model allowed us to find values of 0.997 for
the goodness of fit index (GFI), 0.993 for the adjusted GFI
(AGFI) and of 0.022 for the modified root mean square
residual (RMSR*). The scale was built so that the higher
the score, the better the offensive power of the handball
player. This tool of 5-point Likert-type scale evaluated all
the athletes, with scores ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5
(excellent). The Likert-type scale comprised 6 items: (a) pass
and reception, (b) different types of shooting, (c) the 1 vs. 1
actions, (d) the ability to create and to occupy spaces, (e)
tactical skills, and (f ) the reactive ability. Scores on all 6 items
were summed up to obtain individual handball-specific skills
score, which we named offensive power.
Psychological Profiling
To assess task and ego achievement goal orientations, the
Portuguese version (Fernandes A and Serpa S, unpublished
observation) of the TEOSQ questionnaire was used. In

a previous study (31), the Portuguese translation of the
TEOSQ questionnaire was validated, using a sample of adult
male team-handball players (n = 203), from the same cul-
tural context as in this study. The exploratory factor analysis
(employing the extraction method of Principal Component
Analysis and the Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normaliza-
tion) supported that (a) the hypothesized theoretical model
of 2 factors (task and ego orientation) (Bartlett’s test of sphe-
ricity: x2 = 628.992, df = 78, p , 0.001; KMO = 0.754; GFI =
0.927; AGFI = 0.874; RMSR* = 0.040), and (b) the satisfac-
tory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
being 0.70 and 0.77 for the task and ego orientation sub-
scales, respectively) (30). To fill in the scale, the subjects
always took ,20 minutes. They must respond to 13 items
concerning success in sport that are preceded by the state-
ment “I feel most successful in sport when.” Responses to
each item are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
intensity of agreement or disagreement with each item
reflects a possible task orientation (e.g., “I learn a new skill
by trying hard”) or an ego orientation (e.g., “I can do better
than my team mates”). Both task and ego orientations scores
were calculated.
“Biosocial” Profiling
Recently, Massuça and Fragoso (29) used a questionnaire to
assess biosocial variables and the lifestyle of national level
handball players. They identified that SES, and the energy
spent on regular team-handball activities (per week), were
able to discriminate team-handball players of different per-
formance levels. The same methodology was adopted in this
study. The athlete was assigned to 1 of 5 SES classes (where
a higher score means a higher SES), and to calculate the
energy spent, the participants recorded the frequency and
the duration of their team-handball activities (during all 1
week of normal training). The rate of energy expenditure
was estimated according to Massuça and Fragoso (29).
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive and comparative summary data are presented,
and group data are expressed as means and SD for all depen-
dent variables. Intraobserver technical error of measure-
ments were presented in morphologic profiling subtitle,
and the ICCR reliability of procedures was adopted in fitness
(2,4,8,13,26,41), handball-specific skills (validation test); psy-
chological (31), and biosocial (29) evaluations were sup-
ported by the literature as cited in procedures. Top elite
and nontop elite groups were compared on each variable
of interest using independent samples t-test, with the Welch
correction if necessary or the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test.
The normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions
were tested using the Shapiro-Wilk and the Levene tests,
respectively. Five logistic regression analyses, using a step-
wise method for variable selection (Forward: LR), were per-
formed with the performance level as the dependent variable
(Top elite = 1, if the team-handball player is a top elite
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
athlete; Top elite = 0, if the team-handball player is a nontop
elite athlete) and the variables of each category (i.e., mor-
phologic-, fitness-, handball-specific skills, psychological, and
“biosocial”) as candidate predictors. All statistical analyses
were performed, at the 5% significance level, using Microsoft
Excel (Microsoft, Seattle, WA, USA) and the Statistical Pack-
age for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc.; version 17.0, Chicago,
IL, USA).
RESULTS
Relatively to the morphological variables, top elite handball
players were heavier (+7.09 kg, p , 0.01) and taller (+7.05
cm, p , 0.001), had a higher biacromial girth (p , 0.01), and
higher upper limb lengths (acromiale dactylion, p , 0.05;
radiale dactylion, p , 0.001) than did the lower level players.
Top elite players also had a significantly higher absolute
muscle mass (p , 0.001) and absolute fat mass ([6]: p ,
0.01; [21]: p , 0.001). Relative muscle mass was also signif-
icantly (p , 0.001) different between groups when the
Heymsfield et al. (19) equation was used, and relative fat
mass was significantly (p , 0.05) different when the Jackson
and Pollock (21) equation was used.
The top elite handball players scored better on all fitness
evaluations, that is, they were faster, stronger, more power-
ful, and had a superior aerobic capacity than did nontop elite
handball players. In fact, significant differences were
observed (all in favor of the top elite athletes) in speed time
(20.18 seconds, p , 0.001), between dominant and non-
dominant handgrip (+2.15 kg, p , 0.05), average power in
booth jump tests (SJ, +103.91 W; CMJ, +111.99 W; both
p , 0.01), sit-ups (+9 #, p , 0.001) and in the YYIE2
(performance, +940.36 m, and class; both, p , 0.001).
Regarding the handball-specific skills, the top elite players
scored significantly better (+3.61; p , 0.001) than nontop
elite athletes did.
In what concerns the psychological variables, despite the
lower scores of top elite handball players, when compared
with nontop elite athletes, on the goal dimensions (task
orientation, 20.01; ego orientation, 20.29), the differences
were not statistically significant.
Relatively to the “biosocial” variables, the results of the
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test showed that the top elite
handball players came from a higher SES Class, and the
t-test results revealed that top elite players spent more
energy per week in handball practice than did nontop elite
players (+107.62 MET$wk21, p , 0.001). All these findings
are presented in Table 1.
Considering the performance level as the response variable,
5 binary logistic regression models were adjusted for each
group of independent variables. The predictors that signifi-
cantly contributed to predict the probability of an athlete
being a top elite player were (a) body mass, waist (minimum)
girth, radiale-dactylion length, midstylion-dactylion length,
and absolute muscle mass (G2[5] = 93.158, p , 0.001; correct
classification of 84.2%), for the morphological profiling, (b)
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 181
 182

Top Elite Team-Handball Players

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics of morphologic-, fitness-, handball-specific skills, psychological, and “biosocial” attributes for nontop elite and top elite team-
handball players, and independent samples comparison (t-test, when necessary with Welch correction and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test) result.*
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

Nontop elite Top elite t-Test

Profile Variables n Mean SD n Mean SD p

Morphologic Body mass (kg) 122 80.42 12.39 41 87.51 10.82 0.001 †
Stature (cm) 122 180.53 6.56 41 187.58 5.62 ,0.001 z
Bicipital skinfold (mm) 122 5.44 5.20 37 4.30 1.98 0.193 NS
Medial calf skinfold (mm) 122 9.03 5.11 37 7.57 3.01 0.101 NS
Waist (minimum) girth (cm) 122 85.24 8.09 37 86.13 7.00 0.547 NS
Biacromial girth (cm) 121 41.12 2.57 37 42.66 2.76 0.002 †
Acromiale-dactylion length (cm) 122 78.14 3.72 37 82.56 10.03 0.012 §
Radiale-dactylion length (cm) 122 45.38 2.44 37 47.26 2.22 ,0.001 z
Midstylion-dactylion length (cm) 122 20.18 1.11 37 20.55 0.96 0.071 NS
Muscle mass (kg) (19) 122 33.31 6.18 37 40.34 5.48 ,0.001 z
Muscle mass (kg) (25) 122 35.92 3.89 37 40.08 3.65 ,0.001 z
TM

Muscle mass (%) (19) 122 41.75 6.68 37 46.93 6.17 ,0.001 z
Muscle mass (%) (25) 122 45.28 5.65 37 46.66 4.63 0.177 NS
Fat mass (kg) (6) 122 19.92 5.75 37 16.54 4.64 0.001 †
Fat mass (kg) (21) 122 16.31 6.33 37 11.92 5.04 ,0.001 z
Fat mass (%) (6) 122 16.22 5.96 37 14.44 4.98 0.102 NS
Fat mass (%) (21) 122 13.33 6.14 37 10.53 5.46 0.014 §
Fitness 30-m Sprint time (s) 107 4.52 0.32 33 4.34 0.22 ,0.001 z
Handgrip, D-ND (kg) 117 5.06 5.35 39 7.21 5.99 0.037 §
SJ, height (cm) 107 35.92 7.47 34 36.56 5.00 0.641 NS
CMJ, height (cm) 107 38.50 8.21 34 38.72 4.67 0.847 NS
SJ, Pavg (W) 107 1,032.87 162.46 34 1,136.78 116.64 0.001 †
CMJ, Pavg (W) 107 1,058.30 191.07 34 1,170.29 111.67 0.001 †
Sit-ups (in numbers) 107 47.25 10.51 35 56.37 8.23 ,0.001 z
YYIE2, distance (m) 104 770.19 353.72 35 1,410.29 469.93 ,0.001 z
YYIE2, class (in numbers) 104 57.66k 5997.00¶ 35 106.66k 3,733.00¶ ,0.001 z
Handball-specific skills Offensive power 107 18.65 4.67 34 22.26 5.40 ,0.001 z
Psychological Task orientation 120 4.11 0.43 29 4.10 0.49 0.863 NS
Ego orientation 120 2.70 0.87 29 2.41 0.87 0.077 NS
“Biosocial” SES class 119 66.62k 7928.00¶ 29 106.83k 3098.00¶ ,0.001 z
Energy spent in handball ((METŁ wk21) 120 66.17 34.11 29 173.79 42.56 ,0.001 z

*SES = socioeconomic status; CMJ = countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump; NS = not significant; YYIE2 = Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance Test—Level 2.
†p , 0.01.
zp , 0.001.
§p , 0.05.
kMean rank (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).
¶Sum of rank (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 2. Logistic regression models to predict the probability of team-handball player’s success.*

95% CI for
exp(B)

Model Variables B SE Wald df p Exp(B) Lower Upper

Morphologic Body mass (kg) 0.095 0.042 5.114 1 0.024 1.099 1.013 1.194
Waist (minimum) 20.163 0.052 9.714 1 0.002 0.849 0.767 0.941
girth (cm)
Radiale-dactylion 0.278 0.105 7.094 1 0.008 1.321 1.076 1.621
length (cm)
Midstylion-dactylion 20.712 0.244 8.513 1 0.004 0.491 0.304 0.792
length (cm)
Muscle mass (kg) (19) 0.176 0.050 12.592 1 ,0.001 1.193 1.082 1.315
Fitness 30-m Sprint time (s) 23.874 1.064 13.258 1 ,0.001 0.021 0.003 0.167
CMJ, height (cm) 20.256 0.085 9.059 1 0.003 0.774 0.656 0.915
CMJ, Pavg (W) 0.019 0.005 14.116 1 ,0.001 1.019 1.009 1.030
Sit-ups (in numbers) 0.120 0.039 9.371 1 0.002 1.128 1.044 1.218
YYIE2, class (4) 17.528 3 0.001
YYIE2, class (1) 24.368 1.226 12.682 1 ,0.001 0.013 0.001 0.140
YYIE2, class (2) 21.529 0.967 2.498 1 0.114 0.217 0.033 1.444
YYIE2, class (3) 1.137 1.272 0.799 1 0.371 3.118 0.258 37.713
Handball- Offensive power 0.146 0.044 11.278 1 0.001 1.157 1.063 1.261
specific skills Constant 24.552 0.961 22.420 1 ,0.001 0.011 0.011
Psychological Ego orientation 20.554 0.084 45.869 1 ,0.001 0.574 0.489 0.674
“Biosocial” SES, class (5) 52.814 2 ,0.001
SES, class (1,2,3) 23.377 0.791 18.233 1 ,0.001 0.034 0.007 0.161
SES, class (4) 23.397 0.519 42.893 1 ,0.001 0.033 0.012 0.093
Energy spent in handball 0.011 0.003 13.537 1 ,0.001 1.011 1.005 1.016
(MET$wk21)

*SJ = squat jump; CMJ = countermovement jump; YYIE2 = yo-yo intermittent endurance test—level 2; SES = socioeconomic
status; SE = standard error.

30-m sprint time, CMJ height, and average power, abdominal
strength (endurance), and the class of performance in the
YYIE2 (G2[7] = 121.627, p , 0.001; correct classification of
91.5%), for the fitness profiling, (c) Offensive power (G2[1] =
12.312, p , 0.001, correct classification of 82.1%), in what
concerns the handball-specific skills profiling; (d) ego motiva-
tional orientation (G2[1] = 62.937, p , 0.001; correct classifi-
cation of 80.5%), for the psychological profiling, (e) SES and
the energy spent in handball activities during the week (G2[3]
= 106.806, p , 0.001; correct classification of 79.7%), for the
“biosocial” profiling. These findings are presented in Table 2.
DISCUSSION
Our results confirmed our major hypothesis that morphologic,
fitness, handball-specific skills and psychological and “bioso-
cial” characteristics are important to be successful in handball.
Moreover, it seems that to succeed in a specific sport, it is
important to have specific bodily attributes. In fact, body
mass can influence an athlete’s speed, endurance, and power,
whereas body composition can affect an athlete’s strength
and agility. A greater muscle mass is often an advantageous
characteristic in sports, as in team handball, where speed is
so much of the essence. Gorostiaga et al. (10) found that elite
team-handball players were heavier and had a higher fat-free
mass than the amateur team-handball players did and con-
cluded that this seems to be advantageous in team handball.
As regards the upper limb lengths (i.e., radiale-dactylion
length), it seems that these measures are important for a bet-
ter handball shot execution (the larger the radius of action
the greater the power of the technical gesture) and for some
defensive actions (e.g., blocking).
Vertical jump performance is also considered important in
a large number of sports. In fact, it seems that explosive
strength is an important feature of team-handball because
high-intensity activities are frequently performed (i.e., fast
direction changes, jumps, throws, and dribbles). According
to the literature, the leg stiffness is decreased with jump
height (23). Our results related to 30-m sprint time and CMJ
height suggest that the leg power is an essential component
for top elite in team handball.
Moreover, the major importance of abdominal strength to
be successful handball player (odds ratio = 1.128) leads us to
believe that it will become increasingly important to study the
inclusion of abdominal muscles in team handball–specific

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 183

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Top Elite Team-Handball Players
exercises, using electromyography and kinematic analysis, in
future research.
Also, the ability to repeatedly perform intense intermittent
exercise seems to be an important fitness component of
team-handball players (Table 2). In fact, our results showed
that the YYIE2 test seems to possess some ecological val-
idity in team handball.
We know that the metabolic pathway response in team-
handball players during this maximal and incremental test
should be investigated. Nevertheless, 2 studies in junior team-
handball athletes exhibit (a) a positive correlation (r = 0.919,
p , 0.05) between the maximum performance in the YYIE2
test (distance = 1,206.7 6 365.2 m) and the aerobic capacity
assessed through a maximum incremental treadmill running
test (V_ O2max = 53.9 6 4.2 ml$kg21$min21) in the Hong
Kong Team (n = 7, age = 15.3 6 1.5 years; HP Lam, unpub-
lished observation), and (b) in the preseason, a strong positive
correlation (r = 0.862) between the YYIE2 performance (dis-
tance = 844 6 339.41 m) and the V_ O2max estimated from
a Cooper test (estimated V_ O2max = 46.93 6 7.49
ml$kg21$min21) in Portuguese National champions (n = 11,
age = 18.1 6 1.1 years [32]). In addition, in well-trained youth
soccer players (n = 18, age = 17.4 6 0.5 years), Valamatos et al.
(47) also observed a positive correlation between V_ O2max (as
measured with the progressive continuous running treadmill
test) and the performance in the YYIE2 (p , 0.01). These
findings and our results allow us to suggest that the YYIE2
can be considered an aerobic anaerobic–specific field test for
team-handball players (and can be regarded as a good indi-
cator of aerobic capacity). However, anaerobic metabolism in
handball players and the recovery capacity of players after
training or after competitions need further investigation.
Moreover, the fundamental issue for coaching, with high
relative importance to success, is the need for the evaluation
of team handball–specific skills. Our results in this measure
seem to be promising, but we reinforce the need to develop
a more complete instrument for the purpose of evaluation of
team handball–specific skills.
Why was the TEOSQ selected as the key psychological
variable for the study? Is goal orientation important for adult
athletes? It is evident that in team sports, and particularly in
handball, athletes (top elite or nontop elite) have a high-task
orientation (i.e., they feel competent when showing the
improvement of their skills and task mastery). This is related
to a host of adaptive outcomes among the participants
including greater positive affect, intrinsic motivation, per-
ceived effort, and task persistence (40,45). As expected, our
team-handball players exhibited a high-task/low-ego orien-
tation profile, that is, they have greater enjoyment, impor-
tance and utility than do low-task/high-ego and low-task/
low-ego athletes (44). However, it is also evident that top
elite players were, on average, less ego oriented (but not
significantly so) than were nontop elite players. In continu-
ation, the psychological model showed that this goal orien-
tation was a determinant of success, and it thus seems logical
the TM
184 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
because major ego-oriented athletes tend to (a) evaluate
their performance by comparing it with other athletes’
results, rather than by focusing upon skill development
(15), (b) tend to give up when facing situations of greater
complexity (5), and (c) show some anxiety and poor con-
centration during competition (5). We conclude that goal
orientation remains important in adult athletes and can con-
tribute to predict the probability of individual success in
team handball.
Finally, we acknowledge that the term biosocial implies an
interaction between biological and social or cultural factors.
However, the selected variables, although largely demo-
graphic (that is why we use commas—“biosocial”) have a sig-
nificant discriminatory validity (29). Moreover, we found
both variables, that is, the energy spent (MET per week)
in organized handball activities and SES, contributed to
explain success in team handball. It seems evident that the
energy spent depends on the amount of time used in regular
practice (Methods), and that expert performers accumulate
more minutes of sport-specific practice than do nonexpert
performers (1,18). This may be associated with (a) the time
“needed” to learn and to improve technical and tactical skills,
and (b) the morphologic profile of the athlete. Our finding of
an influence of SES on team-handball player’s success seems
to be relevant. Nevertheless, it should be interpreted with
caution (because the top elite athletes are presumably paid
more than nontop elite are).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
To our knowledge, this is the first study to adjust 5 different
models (i.e., morphologic-, fitness-, specific skills and psy-
chological-based and “biosocial”-based attributes) to predict
the probability of an athlete be a top elite player with the
same adult male team-handball players’ sample.
What is the importance of knowing what differentiates the
top elite from the nontop elite players at the senior level?
This research reinforced the effect and significance of 5
morphologic characteristics (body mass, waist girth, radiale-
dactylion length, midstylion-dactylion length, and absolute
muscle mass), 5 fitness results (30-m sprint time, CMJ height
and average power, abdominal strength and the class of
performance in the YYIE2), offensive power, motivational
orientation (Ego) and 2 “biosocial” (energy spent in handball
activities and SES) variables to identify top elite team-handball
players (i.e., to identify successful players).
In other words, top elite athlete are (a) more robust
(higher, heavier with larger bones and more muscle mass),
(b) have bigger upper limbs lengths, (c) are quicker, agile,
powerful, and strong, (d) have better technical and tactical
game’s skills, (e) are more resilient and team oriented, and (f )
had a higher socioeconomic level. Such empirical and prac-
tical information is essential to select the most successful
team-handball players.
Our fitness-based model allowed a superior percentage
(i.e., 7.3–11.8%) of correct classification (91.5%) than all the

other models did. This result suggests that players with a bet-
ter fitness level have a greater chance to be selected to play
in top elite team handball and provide the rational to vali-
date and to reduce the battery of fitness tests to 4 simple and
inexpensive field tests (i.e., 30-m sprint, CMJ, Sit-ups, and
YYIE2) that can be used by trainers and scouts for evalua-
tion purposes. However, the results also suggest that taking
into account the multiple facets (profiles) that influence sport
success other factors than fitness level is also important to
select top elite athletes. So, although more studies can be
conducted to examine the effectiveness of these 5 models,
such information is already very important to begin work on
building a multidisciplinary model (performed with the 5
models, i.e., morphologic, fitness, specific skills, psychologi-
cal and social models, as predictors) that can achieve good
results along the complex process of talent selection in team
handball.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the coaches and athletes who
participated in this study. The first author also gratefully
acknowledges the support of his colleague at the Faculty of
Human Kinetics, Technical University of Lisbon: Veronica
Vleck, for all the valuable advice. No funding was received
for this work.
REFERENCES
1. Baker, J, Côté, J, and Abernathy, B. Sport-specific practice and the
development of expert decision-making in team ball sports. J Appl
Sport Psychol 15: 12–25, 2003.
2. Bangsbo, J. Yo-Yo Tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: HO & Strom, 1996.
3. Bezerra, ES and Simão, R. Anthropometric characteristics of
handball adult athletes. Fitness Perform J 5: 318–324, 2006.
4. Bosco, C, Luhtanen, P, and Koni, P. A simple method for
measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol
50: 273–282, 1983.
5. Duda, JL and Hall, HK. Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent
extensions and future directions. In: Handbook of Sport Psychology. R.
N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, and C.M. Janelle, eds. New York, NY:
Wiley, 2001. pp. 417–443.
6. Durnin, JV and Womersley, J. Body fat assessment from total body
density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: Measurements on
481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32: 77–97,
1974.
7. Elferink, G, Visscher, C, Lemmink, K, and Mulder, T. Relation
between multidimensional performance characteristics and level of
performance in talented youth field hockey players. J Sports Sci 22:
1053–1063, 2004.
8. Fox, EL and Mathews, DK. The Interval Training: Conditioning for
Sports and General Fitness. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp.
257–258.
9. Gordon-Larsen, P, Griffiths, P, Bentley, ME, Ward, SD, Kelsev, K,
Shields, K, and Ammerman, A. Barriers to physical activity:
Qualitative data on caregiver-daughter perceptions and practices.
Am J Prev Med 27: 218–223, 2004.
10. Gorostiaga, EM, Granados, C, Ibáñez, J, and Izquierdo, M.
Differences in physical fitness and throwing velocity among elite
and amateur male handball players. Int J Sports Med 26: 225–232,
2005.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
11. Gorrostiaga, EM, Granados, C, Ibáñez, J, González-Badillo, JJ, and
Izquierdo, M. Effects of an entire season on physical fitness changes
in elite male handball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 357–366,
2006.
12. Gould, D, Eklund, RC, and Jackson, S. Coping strategies used by
more versus less successful Olympic wrestlers. Res Q Exerc Sport 64:
83–93, 1992.
13. Grosser, M and Starischka, S. Fitness tests. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones
Matı́nez Roca, S.A. ISBN 84-270-1253-5, 1988.
14. Gruic, I, Vuleta, D, and Milanovic, D. Performance indicators of
teams at the 2003 men’s world handball championship in Portugal.
Kinesiology 28: 164–175, 2006.
15. Hall, HK, Kerr, AW, Kozub, SA, and Finnie, SB. Motivational
antecedents of obligatory exercise: The influence of achievement
goals and multidimensional perfectionism. Psychol Sport Exerc 8:
297–316, 2007.
16. Hasan, AA, Rahaman, JA, Cable, NT, and Reilly, T. Anthropometric
profile of elite male handball players in Asia. Biol Sport 24: 3–12, 2007.
17. Hasan, AA, Reilly, T, Cable, NT, and Ramadan, J. Anthropometric
profiles of elite Asian female handball players. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 47: 197–202, 2007.
18. Helsen, WF, Hodges, NJ, Winckel, JV, and Starkes, JL. The roles of
talent, physical precocity and practice in the development of soccer
expertise. J Sports Sci 18: 727–736, 2000.
19. Heymsfield, SB, McManus, C, Smith, J, Stevens, V, and Nixon, DW.
Anthropometric measurement of muscle mass: Revised equations
for calculating bone-free arm muscle area. Am J Clin Nutr 36: 680–
690, 1982.
20. Hodge, K, Allen, JB, and Smellie, L. Motivation in masters sport:
Achievement and social goals. Psychol Sport Exerc 9: 157–176, 2008.
21. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
22. Jadach, A. Technical and tactical factors determining the
effectiveness of female handball. Phys Educ Sport 49: 43–46, 2005.
23. Laffaye, G, Bardy, BG, and Durey, A. Leg stiffness and expertise in
men jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 536–543, 2005.
24. Laguna, PL and Ravizza, K. Collegiate athlete’s mental skill use and
perceptions of success: An exploration of the practice and
competition settings. J Appl Sports Psychol 15: 115–128, 2003.
25. Lee, RC, Wang, Z, Heo, M, Ross, R, Janssen, I, and Heymsfield, SB.
Total-body skeletal muscle mass: Development and cross-validation
of anthropometric prediction models. Am J Clin Nutr 72: 796–803,
2000.
26. Maldonato, T and Seco, J. Introduction to databases for monitoring
handball players. Andalucı́a, Spain: Dirección General de Deportes,
1989.
27. Marfell-Jones, M, Olds, T, Stewart, A, and Carter, JEL. International
Standards for Anthropometric Assessment. Underdale, SA: International
Society for the Advanced of Kinanthropometry, 2006. ISBN 0-620-
36207-3.
28. Massuça, L and Fragoso, I. Junior-Senior transition in handball: A
morfo-functional approach. Gymnasium 3: 73–98, 2011.
29. Massuça, L and Fragoso, I. Study of Portuguese handball players of
different playing status. A morphological and biosocial perspective.
Biol Sport 28: 37–44, 2011.
30. Massuça, L and Fragoso, I. Do anthropometric characteristics and
body composition vary according to playing status in Portuguese
male handball players? Coll Antropol (In Press).
31. Massuça, L, Fragoso, I, and Rosado, A. Testing for validity of the
Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (QOMD-
TEOSQ) in handball players. Laborato´rio de Psicologia 9: 125–133,
2011.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 185
 Top Elite Team-Handball Players
32. Massuça, L, Fragoso, I, Alves, F, Alvarez, N, and Florêncio, J.
Individual’s aerobic capacity in junior handball players. Motricidade
5: 83, 2009.
33. Mensink, GB, Ziese, T, and Kok, FJ. Benefits of leisure-time physical
activity on the cardiovascular risk profile at older age. Int J Epidemiol
28: 659–666, 1999.
34. Nicholls, JG. The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
35. Ohnjec, K, Vuleta, D, Milanovic, D, and Gruic, I. Performance
indicators of teams at the 2003 world handball championship for
women in Croatia. Kinesiology 40: 69–79, 2008.
36. Póvoas, SCA, Seabra, AFT, Ascensão, AAMR, Magalhães, J,
Soares, JMC, and Rebelo, AMC. Physical and physiological
demands of elite team handball. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3365–3375,
2012.
37. Rannou, F, Prioux, J, Zouhal, H, Gratas-Delamarche, A, and
Delamarche, P. Physiological profile of handball players. J Sport Med
Phys Fitness 41: 349–353, 2001.
38. Reilly, T, Maughan, RJ, and Hardy, L. Body fat consensus statement
of the steering groups of the British Olympic Association. Sports
Exerc Inj 2: 46–49, 1996.
39. Reilly, T, Williams, AM, Nevill, A, and Franks, A. A
multidisciplinary approach to talent identification in soccer. J Sports
Sci 18: 695–702, 2000.
40. Roberts, GC, Treasure, DC, and Conroy, DE. Understanding the
dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity: An
achievement goal interpretation. In: Handbook of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. G. Tenenbaum and R.C. Eklund, eds. New York, NY:
Wiley, 2007. pp. 3–30.
the TM
186 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
41. Semenick, D. Testing protocols and procedures. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle, ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 1994. pp. 258–273.
42. Siri, WE. Body composition from fluid spaces and density. In:
Techniques for Measuring Body Composition: Analysis of Methods. J.
Brozek and A. Henschel, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy
of Science, 1961. pp. 223–244.
43. Souhail, H, Castagna, C, Mohamed, HY, Younes, H, and
Chamari, K. Direct validity of the yo-yo intermittent recovery test
in young team handball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 465–470,
2010.
44. Stephens, DE. The relationship of goal orientation and perceived
ability to enjoyment and value in youth sport. Pediatr Exerc Sci 10:
236–247, 1998.
45. Stuntz, CP and Weiss, MR. Achievement goal orientations and
motivational outcomes in youth sport: The role of social
orientations. Psychol Sport Exerc 10: 255–262, 2009.
46. Trininic, S and Dizdar, D. System of the performance evaluation
criteria weighted per positions in the basketball game. Coll Antropol
24: 217–234, 2000.
47. Valamatos, MJ, Charrua, C, Gomes-Pereira, J, and Mil-Homens, PS.
Aerobic fitness in young soccer players: The yo-yo intermittent
endurance test as indicator of aerobic power and anaerobic
threshold. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Congress of the ECSS.
Jyväskylä, Finland: ECSS, 2007.
48. Ziv, G and Lidor, R. Physical characteristics, physiological
attributes, and on-court performances of handball players: A review.
Eur J Sport Sci 9: 375–386, 2009.