The document analyzes differences in physical performance between school year groups, gender, and ability level. It finds that for most tests measuring strength, power, and speed, males on average performed better than females, though there was also overlap between genders. For the top 10% performances, medians were often higher for males but ranges overlapped significantly between genders. For the worst 10% performances, ranges also overlapped substantially between genders, indicating no clear distinction. While most trends held, some tests in some year groups saw females outperform males, suggesting performance varies and differences are not entirely attributable to biological factors alone.

1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BEST AND WORST PHYSICAL
STRENGTH PERFORMANCES COMPARING SCHOOL YEAR
GROUPS, PHYSICALABILITY AND GENDER
Submitted by:
Anns Mariya Antony & Febin Tomy
INTRODUCTION:
Sports or physical performance is a complex area of human physiology that can fluctuate greatly
between people and backgrounds (Bandura, A. 1999., Kellmann, 2002., Bloomfield et al., 2009). It has
long been acknowledged that sexual orientation may play a role in explaining these variations, male
and female bodies differ physically from one another due to differences in physiology, anatomy, and
hormones (Gurieva et al., 2022). The objective of this study is to explore potential comparison with age
and gender-related differences in tasks involving upper and lower body strength, explosive power,
speed, and grip strength, additionally, this paper also sets out to establish differences between the best
performances of a school year group and the worse performances of the year group above thereby
identifying the overlap in physical performance between year groups and genders.
METHODS:
The study was conducted to find the best and worst of different school year groups' physical strength,
how gender influences these patterns, and potential implications for promoting healthy ageing and
physical well-being. The participants in this study are boys and girls and the school year group is
between 6 to 9 (Table 1), where the percentage of boys is greater than girls except for school year 6
(Graph 1). There were 4 testing stations conducting different testing batteries, and each testing battery
conducted different tests with different assessments and types of equipment (Table 1.2), lasting 40
minutes. Each test consisted of three trials with a minute of rest in between each repetition and the best
result taken from the outcome. The participants belong to Springs Academy and Westways.

2. School
year Gender Participants Percentage
6
Girls 32 55 %
Boys 26 45 %
7
Girls 61 48 %
Boys 65 52 %
8
Girls 89 47 %
Boys 99 53 %
9
Girls 57 45 %
Boys 71 55 %
Table 1
Graph 1
Station Test Assessment Equipment
1 15m sprint
The acceleration and speed for 15 meters
from a static start
Brower timing gates , tape ,
cones
2 Handgrip strength Measuring hand and forearm strength
Hand dynamometer and
stopwatch
3
Standing broad
jump
Lower body maximal strength by
measuring the distance jumped Measuring tape, cones
4 Med ball throw The explosive power of the overall body
Measuring tape, Med ball
(3kg) and cones
Table 1.2
To find the best and worst performance and to compare we have taken the top 10% and worst 10% of
performance for each test with respect to age and gender. Then the data will be analysed using box
plot .

3. STATISTICALANALYSIS :
An Independent T-test was used to compare the two independent groups and determine the significance
between them by using the SPSS software. Here we took the confidence interval as 90 %, and Levene’s
test was used to assess the equality variance between the group.
RESULT:
Medball throw
The result (Table 1.3) p-value <0.05 suggests that there is a statistically significant difference between
the mean MedBall throw scores of boys and girls. The t-statistics are positive, indicating that the mean
MedBall throw score for boys (M = 6.0905, SD = 1.95310) is higher than that of girls (M =
5.4723, SD = 1.50919). Contrary to the results (graph 1.2) shown in the year 6,8 and 9, girls perform
well than boys in the year 7.
Graph 1.2

4. Table 1.3
Broad jump
There is a significant difference in Broad Jump scores between boys and girls (p < 0.05). Boys
demonstrated significantly higher Broad Jump performance (mean = 1.6074, SD = 0.27280)
compared to girls (mean = 1.4019, SD = 0.24238).
Graph 1.3

5. Table 1.4
Grip strength
The results (Table 1.5) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in grip strength between
boys and girls at a significance level (p-value) less than 0.05. Boys have a higher mean grip strength
(Mean=26.9716) compared to girls (Mean=23.9190). Whereas, from the result (Graph 1.4)girls
outperformed boys in year 7 deviating from the usual trends in years 6,8 and 9.
Graph 1.4

6. Table 1.5
Sprint
The t-test result indicates that the mean sprint speed of boys (M = 2.8791 seconds) is significantly
different from the mean sprint speed of girls (M = 3.2020 seconds) at the 0.05 level of significance.
Graph 1.5

7. Table 1.6
COMPARISON OF BEST AND WORST
Broad Jump
For the top 10 % performance in all age groups, there is some overlap between the male and female
athletes. In most age groups, the median broad jump distance for male athletes appears higher, but the
ranges overlap significantly, indicating that there's no clear distinction in performance between genders.
For the worst 10 % performance in the 6-year-old age group, there's overlap between the male and
female athletes. The ranges overlap, indicating that there's no significant gender-based distinction in the
worst broad jump performance. In the 7-year-old age group, male and female athletes have some overlap
in their range, suggesting that there's no clear gender-based difference in the worst performance. In the
8-year-old and 9-year-old age groups, the same trend continues, with overlapping ranges indicating that
there's no distinct separation in worst broad jump performance between genders.
Broad Jump Throw best and worst performance for School year 6
Performance Gender Min
Quartile
1 Median
Quartile
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2
Girl 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 0 1.9 1.9
Worst
Boy 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.07 0.3 0.45 1.65
Girl 1.02 1.02 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.08 0.1 0.885 1.245

8. Broad Jump Throw, best and worst performance for School year 7
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 1.8 1.805 1.85 1.95 2.3 1.91 0.1 1.59 2.17
Girl 1.65 1.7 1.85 1.785 1.8 1.73 0.1 1.57 1.91
Worst
Boy 1.07 1.115 1.2 1.325 1.9 1.21 0.2 0.8 1.64
Girl 1 1 1.1 1.115 1.2 1.08 0.1 0.83 1.29

9. Broad Jump Throw, best and worst performance for School year 8
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 1.9 1.93 2 2.1 2.2 2.02 0.2 1.68 2.36
Girl 1.65 1.68 1.7 1.74 1.8 1.71 0.1 1.59 1.83
Worst
Boy 1.01 1.07 1.15 1.2 1.2 1.13 0.1 0.88 1.4
Girl 0.7 0.85 0.9 2.1 2.2 1.28 1.3
-
1.03 3.98
Broad Jump Throw, best and worst performance for School year 9
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 2.1 2.1 2.13 2.17 2.2 2.14 0.1 2 2.28
Girl 1.78 1.795 1.9 2.0375 2.2 1.92 0.2 1.43 2.4
Worst
Boy 1 1.075 1.195 1.3 1.3 1.18 0.2 0.74 1.64
Girl 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 0.97 0.1 0.75 1.15

10. Hand Grip
For most age groups in top-performing for handgrip, there is an overlap between the boxes of male and
female athletes. The median handgrip strength for male athletes seems to be higher, but the ranges
overlap, suggesting no clear gender-based performance difference.
For worst performing in most age groups, there's overlap between the range of male and female athletes,
suggesting no significant gender-based difference in worst handgrip performance.
Hand Grip ,best and worst performance for School year 6
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 25.4 25.4 25.4 27.6 27.6 26.13 2.2 22.1 30.9
Girl 22.4 22.4 22.8 28 28 24.4 5.6 14 36.4
Worst
Boy 13.9 13.9 14.6 14.7 14.7 14.4 0.8 12.7 15.9
Girl 12.6 12.6 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.07 0.7 11.55 14.35

11. Hand Grip, best and worst performance for School year 7
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 28.8 28.95 31.2 32.8 34.3 31.056 3.8 23.18 38.58
Girl 28.8 29.05 29.4 30.35 36.6 30.322 1.3 27.1 32.3
Worst
Boy 12.8 13.25 14.9 16.1 16.5 14.711 2.9 8.975 20.38
Girl 11.7 13.7 15.5 16.45 16.7 14.867 2.8 9.58 20.58
Hand Grip ,best and worst performance for School year 8
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 32.1 32.4 33.7 36.25 37.1 34.16 3.9 26.63 42.03
Girl 28.6 28.85 29.9 31.65 31.9 30.211 2.8 24.65 35.85
Worst
Boy 12.8 17.15 18.6 19.05 19.4 17.733 1.9 14.3 21.9
Girl 11.3 14.3 16.2 17.6 17.9 15.80 3.3 9.35 22.55

12. Hand Grip ,best and worst performance for School year 9
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 46 46.38 48.55 49.225 49.9 48.08 2.9 42.1 53.5
Girl 35.9 36.43 37.4 43.2 44.1 39.05 6.8 26.26 53.36
Worst
Boy 15 18.15 21.65 23.2 24.1 20.75 5.1 10.58 30.78
Girl 15.7 18.03 21 21.6 21.9 19.98 3.6 12.66 26.96

13. MedBall throw
The 10 % of the top performance of med ball throw, In the younger age groups (6, 7), there's overlap in
performance between genders. However, in the older age groups (8, 9), the med ball throw distances
for female athletes seem to have larger spreads and higher outliers, potentially suggesting some
variation in performance. For 10 % of the worst performance in all age groups, there's overlap in the
range of male and female athletes for performance. This indicates that there's no significant gender-
based difference in the worst med ball performance.
MedBall ,best and worst performance for School year 6
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 7.2 7.2 7.2 8.5 8.5 7.6333 1.3 5.25 10.45
Girl 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.40 0.4 5.6 7.2
Worst
Boy 3 3 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.4667 0.8 1.8 5
Girl 1.2 1.2 2.15 3.8 3.8 3.4667 2.6 -2.7 7.7

14. Med Ball, best and worst performance for School year 7
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.45 8 6.9889 0.9 5.325 8.725
Girl 6.5 6.55 6.7 8.25 10 7.3889 1.7 4 10.8
Worst
Boy 2.2 2.7 2.6011 2.76 2.78 2.6263 0.1 2.61 2.85
Girl 3 3.55 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.7444 0.6 2.73 4.93
Med Ball, best and worst performance for School year 8
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 8 8.15 8.9 9.25 9.6 8.7778 1.1 6.5 10.9
Girl 7 7.15 7.4 8.75 10.5 7.9678 1.6 4.75 11.15
Worst
Boy 2.1 2.85 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.0111 0.5 2.175 3.975
Girl 2.5 2.8 3.5 3.65 3.7 3.2778 0.9 1.53 4.93

15. Med Ball, best and worst performance for School year 9
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 10.6 11.28 11.9 12.175 12.7 11.767 0.9 9.925 13.53
Girl 8.7 8.775 9.8 10.425 11.4 9.7667 1.7 6.3 12.9
Worst
Boy 2.6 3.425 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.15 1.4 1.363 6.863
Girl 3.3 3.9 4.2 4.225 4.3 4.05 0.3 3.41 4.71

17. Sprint
For the top 10 % performance for the sprint, the box plots for sprint performance show similar trends.
The medians are close for most age groups, and there's overlap in the ranges, implying no significant
gender-based difference in sprint performance.
For the 10 % of the worst performance for the sprint 6-year-old age group, there's some overlap in the
range, indicating that there's no strong separation in the worst sprint performance between genders.
The same overlap continues in the 7-year-old age group, implying similar worst sprint performance for
male and female athletes. In the 8-year-old and 9-year-old age groups, the range still overlaps,
suggesting that there's no distinct gender-based difference in worst sprint performance.
Sprint ,best and worst performance for School year 6
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.33 0.6 1.2 3.6
Girl 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.77 0.3 2.15 3.35
Worst
Boy 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.43 0.4 2.6 4.2
Girl 4 4 4.1 4.33 4.3 4.14 0.3 3.51 4.83
Sprint, best and worst performance for School year 7
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 2.5 2.61 2.69 2.7 2.7 2.65 0.1 2.48 2.84
Girl 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.74 0.1 2.55 2.95
Worst
Boy 3.2 3.245 3.3 3.555 4 3.41 0.3 2.78 4.02
Girl 3.6 3.75 4.1 4.45 1.8 4.12 0.7 2.70 5.50

18. Sprint, best and worst performance for School year 8
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.47 0.2 2.1 2.9
Girl 2.4 2.55 2.6 2.75 2.8 2.63 0.2 2.25 3.05
Worst
Boy 3.4 3.45 3.6 3.8 4.3 3.2 0.4 2.93 4.33
Girl 3.9 3.95 4.2 5 9 4.82 1.1 2.38 6.58

19. Sprint, best and worst performance for School year 9
Performance Gender Min Quart1 Median
Quart
3 Max Mean IQR LL UL
Best
Boy 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.325 2.4 2.28 0.1 2.01 2.51
Girl 2.3 2.375 2.45 2.525 2.6 2.45 0.2 2.15 2.75
Worst
Boy 3.1 3.115 3.28 3.575 3.8 3.35 0.5 2.43 4.27
Girl 3.5 3.5 3.65 4.25 5 3.88 0.8 2.38 5.38
DISCUSSION
The study aimed to explore age and gender-related differences in various physical attributes, such as
upper and lower body strength, explosive power, speed, and grip strength, among boys and girls in
school years 6 to 9. Statistical analysis revealed several key findings across different tests.
In terms of MedBall Throw, boys exhibited significantly higher scores than girls, suggesting a gender-
based difference in explosive power. Similarly, boys outperformed girls in Broad Jump, indicating
superior lower body strength and power. Grip strength also favoured boys over girls, emphasizing their
physical advantage in upper body strength. Sprint performance demonstrated a significant difference
between genders, with boys showing faster speeds.

20. Comparing best and worst performances within each test and age group, overlap in ranges between
genders was observed for both top and worst performers, indicating that gender differences might not
significantly affect extreme performances. This suggests that age-related growth and development
might influence performance more than gender in these age groups.
CONCLUSION
The study provides valuable insights into age and gender-based differences in various physical
performance attributes among children aged 6 to 9 years. Boys generally exhibited slightly improved
performance in upper and lower body strength, explosive power, and sprinting speed compared to girls
within this age group. However, it's important to note that despite these differences, there was
considerable overlap in performance ranges between genders, especially in the worst-performing
categories.

21. REFERENCE
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook
of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone &
Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guilford Press.)
Bloomfield, J., Elliott, B. C., & Ackland, T. R. (2009). Applied anatomy and biomechanics in sport.
Human Kinetics.
Carroll, R. J., & Schneider, H. (1985). A note on levene’s tests for equality of variances. Statistics &
Probability Letters, 3(4), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7152(85)90016-1
Gurieva, S. D., Kazantseva, T. V., Mararitsa, L. V., & Gundelakh, O. E. (2022). Social Perceptions of
Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance of the Gender Inequality Issue. Psychology in
Russia: State of the Art, 15(2), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2022.0205
Kellmann, M. (2002). Enhancing recovery : preventing underperformance in athletes. Human
Kinetics.
Rochon, J., Gondan, M., & Kieser, M. (2012). To test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of
normality when comparing two independent samples. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-81