amazon.co.ukA-level PE revision on performance data and the NEA: quantitative and qualitative analysis, notational analysis, validity and reliability, the AQA/OCR/Edexcel non-exam assessment structure (practical performance plus analysis and evaluation), and fitness testing protocols with data collection methods.
Quantitative data is numerical and objective: times, distances, scores, percentages and counts (a pass-completion rate of 78%, a 30 m sprint time of 4.2 s, six unforced errors). Qualitative data is descriptive and judgemental: observations of movement quality judged against a technical model (the ideal pattern of the skill - e.g. the coaching model for a sprint start: drive phase mechanics, body angles). The exam's key distinction: quantitative answers what happened and how much; qualitative answers how well it was done and why. A* analysis always combines both: a quantitative observation (low first-serve percentage) triggers qualitative diagnosis (the toss and contact point are inconsistent) - the pairing is what the NEA mark schemes reward.
Data types and quality criteria: objective data (measured by instrument, not opinion - timing gates) versus subjective data (observer judgement - a coach's rating of effort). Primary data is collected first-hand for the purpose (your own fitness tests, your own video); secondary data is pre-existing (published research, elite benchmarks, opposition statistics). Two criteria decide whether data can support an evaluation - validity (does the test measure what it claims? a sit-and-reach test measures hamstring flexibility, not overall flexibility - a standard validity limitation) and reliability (would the same test repeated give the same result? ensured by standardised protocols: calibrated equipment, the same tester, the same warm-up and conditions, clear instructions). Normative data - published averages by age and gender - converts a raw score into a rating (a 52 ml/kg/min estimated VO2 max is 'good' for an 18-year-old male against normative tables); the exam rewards naming normative comparison as the way results become meaningful.
Notational analysis produces the quantitative backbone of performance analysis: systematically recording events during play - possessions, passes, shots, tackles, conversion rates, errors, time in possession - by hand on a tally sheet or by computer/video tagging systems. Uses: match analysis (team patterns - where possession is lost), player analysis (individual pass completion, shot conversion, work rate), opposition scouting (tendencies to exploit), and objective evidence for the NEA's strengths and weaknesses (a striker's shot conversion of 12% is a defensible quantitative weakness). Advantages: objective, comparable across matches, tracks improvement over time; limitations: counts do not explain why (a low conversion rate may be poor technique, poor shot selection or poor service - qualitative diagnosis follows), data collection is time-consuming, and definitions of events must be consistent for reliability.
Performance profiling is the structured route from data to a development programme: assess the performer across components - technical (skills), tactical (decision-making, positioning), physical (fitness components), psychological (confidence, arousal control), physiological (energy systems, body composition) - often displayed as a profile chart of rated strengths. The output identifies which weakness to prioritise: the one that most limits performance and is most improvable within the programme's timescale. This matches the NEA structure directly (see below) - the examiners want data-justified prioritisation, not a list of everything wrong.
Correlation supports the analysis: a positive correlation (both variables rise together - e.g. training hours and VO2 max), a negative correlation (one rises as the other falls - e.g. body fat percentage and endurance performance) or zero correlation (no relationship). Presented as scatter graphs, correlations justify causal claims cautiously - correlation indicates a relationship but does not prove cause (a classic evaluation point the exam awards): other variables (injury, motivation) may explain the pattern. Use the vocabulary precisely: strong/weak, positive/negative correlation.
Presenting data is the examinable skill that turns measurement into analysis: tables for multi-variable comparison (test battery results against norms); bar charts for discrete comparisons (the performer's test scores versus squad norms, component by component); line graphs for change over time (re-test progression across a programme - the visual proof of improvement); scatter graphs for correlation between two variables (training load versus VO2 max, body fat versus endurance time). Every graph needs a title, labelled axes with units, and a stated source - the presentation marks reward correct chart choice as much as correct data: bar charts for categories, line graphs for trends, scatter graphs for relationships.
The technical model is the benchmark that makes qualitative analysis objective: the ideal performance pattern for the skill (e.g. the sprint-start model: block angles, drive-phase mechanics, shin angles, arm action), against which video is judged frame by frame. Without a technical model, qualitative analysis is just opinion - the exam rewards naming the model as the standard against which the observed technique is compared. Subjective rating scales support it: Likert-type ratings and the Borg/RPE scale (rate of perceived exertion, 6-20) convert perception into a structured (if subjective) measure of intensity - useful for monitoring training load alongside objective heart-rate data. Reliability of observation is the key evaluation of qualitative data: observation is weaker than instrumentation, so its reliability is raised by structured checklists (predetermined criteria from the technical model), inter-observer agreement (two observers comparing judgements), repeated viewings, and slow-motion/frame-by-frame analysis - quote these when asked how to make qualitative analysis more reliable. Exam logic: for analysis-method questions, define the method, state what it produces (quantitative or qualitative), give the quality criterion (validity, reliability) and the presentation - the four-step chain scores every available mark.
Notational sheet structure - the practical detail for data-collection answers: columns for each event (passes attempted, completed, tackles won, turnovers, shots, goals), rows for time periods or players, tallies recorded live or from video afterwards, definitions agreed before recording (what counts as a 'pass completed' - reaching the intended teammate under no pressure) so the data is reliable; totals converted to rates (pass completion percentage, conversion rate) for comparison against squad norms and previous matches. Video evidence in the NEA: record the performer in realistic conditions (competition, not drills - or the data is unrepresentative), capture long clips (several attempts, not one), and edit to the relevant moments; stills from video placed beside the technical model justify the qualitative claims visually. Objective versus subjective examples: objective - timing gates, GPS distance, heart rate, notational tallies; subjective - coach ratings of effort or quality, RPE scores, Likert ratings of confidence - both are used, but objective data anchors the analysis and subjective data explains it.
Exam logic: for data questions, define the type (quantitative/qualitative, valid/reliable, primary/secondary), give a sporting example, and state the consequence for analysis - e.g. unreliable data cannot track improvement; invalid data cannot support the chosen conclusion. The most common lost marks are (1) confusing validity with reliability and (2) forgetting that qualitative diagnosis must follow quantitative observation.
All three boards assess a non-exam assessment (NEA) worth 30% of the A-level, split into practical performance and a performance-analysis task - know your board's exact shape: AQA 7582: practical performance in one activity as a player/performer, coach or official (15%), plus the analysis and evaluation of performance - a written piece identifying a weakness in the chosen or a different activity and devising a corrective programme (15%). OCR H555: practical performance (15%) plus the EAPI - Evaluating and Analysing Performance for Improvement: a 10-minute oral response to unseen video of a performer, analysing strengths and weaknesses, prioritising, and proposing a development plan (15%). Edexcel 9PE0: practical performance plus the performance analysis and performance development programme (together 30%). The written/oral analysis is marked against the same three objectives as the exams: AO1 (accurate theoretical knowledge), AO2 (application to the performer), AO3 (analysis and evaluation - justification and prioritisation).
The universal structure of a full-mark analysis - learn it as a sequence: (1) Overview: the performer, their sport, position/event, level and aims - brief, factual; (2) Strengths: identified through observation, video and data (notational counts, fitness test results) and justified with theory - e.g. a strong aerobic base (above-normative multi-stage fitness test score) underpins the midfielder's repeated sprints; (3) Weaknesses: identified the same way - technical (video shows inconsistent contact point), tactical (notational data shows possession lost in transition), physical (test data below norm), psychological (observation shows anxiety under pressure); (4) Prioritisation: justify which weakness to address first - the one that most limits performance, is most improvable, and is measurable within the programme (the AO3 marks live here); (5) Theoretical explanation: explain the weakness's cause using the specification - a physiological cause (energy system, muscle fibre type, VO2 max), a skill-acquisition cause (information processing, guidance, practice methods, transfer), or a psychological cause (arousal, self-efficacy, attribution) - the theory must be correct and relevant, not decorative; (6) Development programme: a periodised plan (macro/meso/microcycle structure) with specific practices/drills targeting the weakness, measurable targets (SMART goals), and a re-test to evaluate improvement - the closing evaluation loop.
What earns the marks (the marking logic that separates A* pieces): data-justified claims at every stage (quote the test score, the notational count, the video observation); theory that is applied, not listed (a weakness explained by anaerobic glycolysis limits plus a targeted interval programme beats a generic 'needs more fitness'); correct prioritisation with justification; and a programme whose exercises clearly target the identified cause with progression. Common mistakes: describing the performer instead of analysing; listing weaknesses without data; theory that does not connect to the weakness; programmes without progression or re-testing; and ignoring the priority question (examiners explicitly reward selecting one weakness and going deep).
Board-specific tactics: for AQA, the written analysis rewards depth on one weakness with a full corrective programme - structure your writing with the six stages above and reference theory by topic (energy systems, information processing, attribution); for OCR EAPI, practise the 10-minute oral timing: roughly 2 minutes overview and strengths, 3 minutes weaknesses, 1 minute prioritisation, 4 minutes development plan - the oral is marked on the same criteria as a written piece, so plan headings before speaking; for Edexcel, the development programme is weighted alongside the analysis - give the programme its own periodised structure with weekly detail. In all boards, link the weakness to both a physiological/skill cause and a psychological factor where relevant - the marking criteria reward cross-strategy synthesis (e.g. a technique weakness underpinned by high state anxiety).
Practical performance side: assessed in one activity as performer, coach or official (or a combination depending on board rules) against sport-specific criteria - the analysis activity does not have to be the same activity as the practical in all boards (check your board's current rules - AQA allows the analysis on a different activity from the practical). Exam logic: the NEA is the easiest place to bank marks because you control the content - choose a weakness with clear theory links, collect your own data (video, tests, notation), and let every paragraph cite evidence and theory in one sentence each.
A worked analysis paragraph - the template to memorise for the NEA (football midfielder example): 'The performer's sprint speed is below the squad norm (30 m: 4.4 s versus the squad's 4.1 s average - quantitative evidence). Video analysis shows the drive phase is upright and the arm action is low (qualitative, against the sprint-start technical model). The cause is physiological: low phosphocreatine stores and limited fast-twitch recruitment in training limit the ATP-PC contribution (theory - AQA 3.1.4); a contributing psychological factor is low self-efficacy in 1v1 situations (Bandura - performance accomplishments lacking). The development programme therefore targets the cause: a 6-week periodised plan (microcycles with progressive overload) combining sprint intervals and plyometrics to raise PC stores and fast-twitch recruitment, with structured success experiences (achievable 1v1 drills) building self-efficacy. SMART target: reduce the 30 m time by 0.2 s within 6 weeks, re-tested with the same timing gates and protocol (reliability).' Every sentence carries data, theory, or the programme - that density is what the marking criteria reward.
Practical performance assessment detail: performers are assessed against sport-specific criteria in one activity, as a performer, coach or official (or a combination, depending on board rules); the analysis activity does not have to match the practical activity (AQA permits the analysis on a different activity - check current board rules). The practical side rewards applied skill under conditions similar to competition; the analysis side rewards the six-stage structure. EAPI timing tips: plan headings before speaking; rehearse to the 10-minute limit (roughly 2 minutes overview and strengths, 3 minutes weaknesses, 1 minute prioritisation, 4 minutes development plan); make every sentence evidence-led ('the video shows... the test data shows... the theory explains...'); close with the re-test loop. The oral is marked on the same AO criteria as a written piece - structure is not optional because the format is spoken. Exam logic: the NEA is bankable marks - choose a weakness with clear theory links, collect your own data, and let every paragraph cite evidence and theory in one sentence each.
What the OCR EAPI criteria reward - the four command verbs behind the marks: analyse (break the performance into components against the technical model - strengths AND weaknesses, both evidenced), evaluate (judge the significance of each - which limits performance most, with justification), prioritise (select the target weakness and defend the choice - most limiting, most improvable, most measurable), and propose (a corrective practice programme targeting the cause, linked to theory, with progression and a re-test). Balance matters: a full-mark response includes genuine strengths (with evidence) before weaknesses - analysing only weaknesses caps the mark; and the weaknesses must be specific and observable from the video, not generic ('needs more fitness' fails; 'inconsistent contact point on the forehand drive under pressure' scores). Use of stills and data: in the AQA written analysis, still frames beside the technical model and small data tables (test scores against norms) are expected supporting evidence - reference them explicitly in the text; in the OCR oral, describe the moments you would point to. Exam logic: the marking criteria reward the same chain in every board - evidence, theory, programme, re-test - so build every paragraph and every spoken segment around those four links.
Fitness testing measures the components of fitness against normative data; every exam answer should give the protocol, one advantage and one limitation. The core table of tests is a guaranteed knowledge item:
| Component | Test and protocol | Advantage | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aerobic endurance | Multi-stage fitness test: 20 m shuttles increasing in speed with levels/bleeps until exhaustion; estimated VO2 max from final level. Cooper 12-minute run: maximum distance covered. Yo-Yo intermittent recovery: 20 m shuttles with active recovery - intermittent-sport specific | Large groups, cheap, normative data, estimates VO2 max | Estimate only (indirect), motivation-dependent, not as valid as gas analysis |
| Speed | 30 m or 60 m sprint with timing gates; flying 30 m for max speed | Direct measure, reliable with gates | Needs accurate timing; influenced by reaction time |
| Power | Vertical jump (Sargent): jump height against a wall/board; standing long jump; Wingate test (30 s cycle against resistance) for peak anaerobic power | Cheap and quick (jumps); Wingate is a valid lab anaerobic test | Jump tests estimate leg power only; Wingate needs lab equipment |
| Strength | One repetition maximum (1RM) on a lift; handgrip dynamometer | Direct measure of max strength | 1RM has injury risk without supervision; grip is not whole-body specific |
| Muscular endurance | Sit-up or press-up test: repetitions in a set time | Simple, large groups | Form degradation affects validity |
| Flexibility | Sit-and-reach: forward reach beyond toes from a seated position | Cheap, normative data | Measures hamstring/lower back only - not overall flexibility (validity) |
| Agility | Illinois agility run: cone course with turns completed for time | Sport-relevant movement pattern | Includes speed - not pure agility (validity limitation) |
| Body composition | BMI (mass/height squared - crude), skinfold calipers (sum of sites), bioelectrical impedance (BIA) | Quick, field-friendly | Skinfold/BIA are estimates with tester error; BMI ignores muscle mass |
Laboratory versus field tests - the guaranteed compare: laboratory tests (treadmill VO2 max with gas analysis, Wingate cycle, isokinetic dynamometry) are accurate, valid and controlled - direct gas measurement of VO2 max is the criterion measure; standardised conditions give reliability; but they are expensive, need trained staff, are time-consuming and not sport-specific (a treadmill differs from over-ground running). Field tests (multi-stage fitness test, vertical jump, Illinois run) are cheap, accessible, quick and sport-specific (the Yo-Yo test matches intermittent games demands) but produce estimates, depend on motivation and pacing, and are less valid and reliable than lab equivalents. Exam logic: for any evaluate-the-test question, state validity (does it measure the claimed component?), reliability (standardised protocol, calibrated equipment), and the estimate-versus-direct distinction - then judge against the performer's purpose (field tests suffice for team monitoring; lab tests are needed for precision).
Data collection procedures: pre-test - informed consent, health screening (PAR-Q), calibrated equipment, standardised warm-up, controlled environment (temperature, surface), clear standardised instructions and demonstrations; during - the exact protocol followed (shuttle timing, recorded attempts - best of three for jumps), the same tester throughout; post-test - cool-down, results recorded immediately, compared with normative data by age and gender, and re-tested on schedule (e.g. every 6-8 weeks) to track adaptation. Quantitative collection methods: fitness testing batteries, notational analysis sheets (tally of passes, shots, errors), timing gates, GPS/accelerometer data (distance covered, sprint counts), heart rate monitors (intensity zones); qualitative collection methods: video analysis judged against a technical model, coach observation with structured checklists, performer self-report (questionnaires - e.g. SCAT for anxiety, satisfaction scales), interviews. Primary versus secondary: primary (your own tests and video - specific, current) versus secondary (published research, elite norms, opposition data - quick and broad but possibly dated or not comparable). Exam logic: for data-collection questions, name the method, say what it produces (quantitative or qualitative), give the procedure (calibration, standardisation, consent, warm-up), and finish with how the data is used (compared with norms, tracked over time, feeding the development programme) - the four-step chain scores every available mark.
Direct VO2 max testing - the criterion measure in detail: an incremental test on a treadmill or cycle ergometer to exhaustion, with a gas-analysis mask measuring oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide output breath by breath; VO2 max is identified when oxygen uptake plateaus despite increasing workload (the plateau criterion), with heart rate near maximum and respiratory exchange ratio above 1.0; it is the gold-standard measure of aerobic power but requires laboratory equipment, trained staff and high participant motivation - the standard accuracy-versus-accessibility compare with field estimates.
Objective load monitoring extends the toolkit: heart rate monitors - training intensity zones set from maximum heart rate percentages (recovery, aerobic, threshold, anaerobic zones); the HR response tracks effort when pacing and terrain vary; GPS/accelerometer units - distance covered, sprint counts, high-speed running, work:rest ratios in games (the objective backbone of notational analysis in team sports); questionnaires - PAR-Q (health screening before testing), RPE/Borg scales (perceived intensity), satisfaction and anxiety scales (psychological monitoring). Designing a test battery - the sequencing detail the exam rewards: order tests so that fatigue does not contaminate later results - non-fatiguing tests first (body composition, flexibility), then power and strength, then speed and agility, with aerobic endurance last (the most fatiguing); the same warm-up and rest intervals throughout; re-test every 6-8 weeks with identical protocols so adaptation, not test variation, explains change. Interpreting normative data: published tables are population averages by age and gender - a performer's raw score is rated against the norm (above/below average, percentile); but norms are averages, so elite performers exceed them - compare also against squad data and the performer's own previous scores for meaningful evaluation. Exam logic for testing questions: name the test, give the protocol, state validity and reliability, then judge against the performer's purpose - the four-step chain scores every available mark, and the battery-order point is the detail that separates top-band answers.
Wingate test detail: a 30-second all-out cycle against a fixed resistance (typically 7.5% of body mass); power output is recorded continuously - peak power (highest 5-second output) and mean power (average across 30 s), with a fatigue index calculated from the decline; it is the standard laboratory measure of anaerobic peak power and capacity (ATP-PC and glycolytic systems) - accurate and controlled but lab-bound, exhausting and motivation-dependent. Sit-and-reach protocol detail: sit with legs extended, soles against the box; reach forward slowly (no bouncing - ballistic reaching invalidates the measure) and hold the furthest point for ~2 seconds; the best of three attempts is recorded in centimetres (past the toes) and compared with normative data; a standardised warm-up precedes the test - the protocol precision that the exam's 5-mark describe questions reward.