Original paper
An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its relationship to sprint speed and change of direction speed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.019Get rights and content

Summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a new test of agility, the reactive agility test (RAT), which included anticipation and decision-making components in response to the movements of a tester. Thirty-eight Australian football players took part in the study, categorized into either a higher performance group (HPG) (n = 24) or lower performance group (LPG) (n = 14) based on playing level from the previous season. All participants undertook testing of a 10 m straight sprint (10 mSS), a 8–9 m change of direction speed test (CODST), and the RAT. Test–retest and inter-tester reliability testing measures were conducted with the LPG. The intra-class correlation (ICC) of the RAT was 0.870, with no significant (p < 0.05) difference between the test results obtained on the first and second test sessions using a t-test. A dependent samples t-test revealed no significant (p < 0.05) difference between the test results of two different testers with the same population. The HPG were significantly (p = 0.001) superior to those of the LPG on the RAT, with no differences observed on any other variable. The RAT is an acceptably reliable test when considering both test–retest reliability, as well as inter-rater reliability. In addition, the test was valid in distinguishing between players of differing performance level in Australian football, while the 10 mSS and CODST were not. This result suggests that traditional closed skill sprint and sprint with direction change tests may not adequately distinguish between players of different levels of competition in Australian football.

Introduction

Agility is an essential component in most field and team sports. Traditional definitions of agility have simply identified speed in directional changes as the defining component.1 Young et al.2 identified agility as comprising two key sub-components; speed in changing direction, and cognitive factors.2 More recently, agility has been identified as “a rapid whole body movement with change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus”.3 This definition recognises the inclusion of cognitive skills in determining agility performance, and this definition applies to open skills only. Open skills cannot be pre-planned, whereas closed skills, such as sprint running or pre-determined changes of direction, can be pre-planned.4

In many sports, such as football codes, athletes are required to accelerate, decelerate and change direction throughout the game.5 Often these movements are in response to cues such as the movements of a ball, or the actions of opposition players. Considering that cognitive components are an integral part of sports that require a reaction to a stimulus, and that there are differences between players in the ability to “read and react” to these sport-specific cues,6, 7 it would appear ideal to evaluate athletes using a test of agility that includes a reaction to a stimulus that is similar to that of the sport.

Zig-zag running speed tests have classically been used to assess “agility”. These tests have evolved from highly generic movement patterns,8 to those which may better mimic the demands of a sport or sports.1 However, these tests are closed skill tests, as all of the movements can be pre-planned, and there is no response to a stimulus. The term change of direction speed (CODS) has been used to describe these movements, in order to distinguish between CODS and the current definition of agility.2

In order to address the need for an evaluation of unplanned, open skill movements, several researchers have implemented tests that require a change of direction in response to a generic cue, such as a light bulb or computerised direction indicator.9, 10, 11 However, the efficacy of these generic cues with athletes has been questioned.3, 6, 12

Specifically, it has been questioned whether or not the use of generic cues is appropriate to evaluate an athlete's skill level, because perceptual expertise is linked not only to increased visual search rates but also specific search cues and accuracy of domain-specific responses.6, 13, 14 Therefore, it is unlikely that generic cue reaction tests are valid in discriminating between higher and lower performers in a particular sport. In support of this, studies that have shown differences between higher and lower performers in anticipation, decision-making speed and decision-making accuracy, have done so with sport-specific stimuli.6, 7, 13

Another consideration that supports the need for highly specific cues, rather than light bulbs or direction indicators, is the element of anticipation as part of the entire cognitive process involved in reacting to a sport-specific stimulus. When using a generic cue, such as a light bulb that is either “off” or “on”, there is no opportunity for an athlete to anticipate the direction or timing of this stimulus. However, in a sporting environment, athletes who have anticipatory expertise are able recognise and attend to different cues that occur earlier in the presentation of a stimulus.6, 14

A practical example of this would be that of defensive play in a football code sport. A defender who has developed cognitive expertise that is relevant to that skill will attend to cues earlier in the movement of the offender, when compared to the performance that would be demonstrated by a novice defender. The novice defender may require the entire skill to be executed (e.g., cross-over step and direction change) before making the correct decision and responding to the cue. The expert defender is likely to recognise earlier cues such as torso position, foot placement or other unique cues in order to make the correct decision earlier in the execution of the skill. A generic stimulus, although able to measure response-time, is not able to include visual search and allow the athlete to demonstrate any expertise in movement pattern recognition.

It has been suggested that, although these perceptual-cognitive considerations are likely needed to be included in a true agility test, the aim of most “agility” tests is actually to test only CODS.15 Indeed, CODS tests that generally involve sprints and changes of direction around stationary objects, are commonly used in sport settings.1, 8 In addition to the lack of cognitive demands of closed skill testing methods, research evidence (and coaching observations) suggest that closed skill changes of direction impose significantly different stresses on the body in comparison to open skill movements.9

No literature was found that evaluated a sport-specific, physical performance test of agility that included anticipation and decision-making using a three-dimensional stimulus. A field test that involved a sport-specific stimulus to which the athletes must “read and react”, would appear ideal for the measurement of agility. Therefore, the purpose of this research study was to develop and evaluate a new test of agility for football codes that involved perceptual, decision-making and movement response components (sprint running and direction change). The evaluation included measures of test–retest reliability and inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed by comparing two groups of Australian football players of differing competition level, and performing a correlation analysis between a straight sprinting test, planned change of direction speed test and the agility test.

Section snippets

Participants

Thirty-eight Australian football players, with a mean ± S.D. age, height and mass of 21.8 ± 3.2 y, 181.7 ± 7.5 cm, and 82.0 ± 9.9 kg, respectively, were involved in this study. All players were involved in the same training regimen with respect to training variables such as volume and intensity. The players were classified into two groups.

Reliability

The means ± S.D., ICCs and TEMs for the three tests over the two testing sessions are shown in Table 1. Paired sample t-tests revealed no significant (p < 0.05) differences between the testing occasions.

Inter-rater reliability of the reactive agility test

No significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between the RAT scores that were obtained by tester A, in comparison with the scores obtained by tester B. As a further measure, ICC (alpha) analysis revealed a high level of reliability between tester A and tester B (r = 0.904).

Validity

The mean scores ± S.D.s

Discussion

Although the test–retest ICC value for the RAT found in this investigation was lower than some previous research studies involving tests of planned direction changes,16, 17 the ICC of 0.878 for the RAT is higher than other studies that measured the reliability of tests that involved unplanned direction changes.7, 10, 11. Importantly, all of the tests investigated produced ICC values that are acceptably reliable (>0.80) for physical performance tests.18

Inter-rater reliability was assessed using

Conclusions

This is the first study to demonstrate the importance of including a sport-specific stimulus in speed and directional change tests for separating players of differing playing levels in Australian football, and is in agreement with research of a similar nature in netball.7 This result demonstrates the importance of including sport-specific cue recognition in testing agility, and suggests that in training agility for Australian football, sport-specific cue recognition should be included as a part

Practical implications

  • Straight sprinting and change of direction sprints are unlikely to be adequate in assessing the physical and cognitive demands of field running sports.

  • To assess on-field open skill agility performance validly, a test involving open skill agility with sport-specific cue recognition is preferable.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Australian Institute of Sport Lab Standards Assistance Scheme for funding in support of this research project.

References (20)

  • J.A. Draper et al.

    The 505 test: a test for agility in the horizontal plane

    Aust J Sci Med Sport

    (1985)
  • W.B. Young et al.

    Is muscle power related to running speed with changes of direction?

    J Sport Med Phys Fit

    (2002)
  • J.M. Sheppard et al.

    Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing

    J Sport Sci

    (2006)
  • R.H. Cox

    Sport psychology: concepts and applications

    (2002)
  • D. Docherty et al.

    Time-motion analysis related to the physiological demands of rugby

    J Hum Mov Stud

    (1988)
  • B. Abernethy et al.

    Expert-novice difference in an applied selective attention task

    J Sport Psych

    (1987)
  • D. Farrow et al.

    The development of a test of reactive agility for netball: a new methodology

    J Sci Med Sport

    (2005)
  • D. Semenick

    Tests and measurements: the t-test

    Strength Cond J

    (1990)
  • T.F. Besier et al.

    External loading of the knee joint during running and cutting manoeuvres

    Med Sci Sport Exer

    (2001)
  • P. Chelladurai et al.

    The reactive agility test

    Percep Motor Skill

    (1977)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (256)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text