Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
ORIGINAL ARTICLES EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 March;56(3):206-13
Generic and sport-specific reactive agility tests assess different qualities in court-based team sport athletes
Aaron T. SCANLAN 1, 2, Neal WEN 1, 3, Andrew P. KIDCAFF 1, Daniel M. BERKELMANS 1, Patrick S. TUCKER 1, 2, Vincent J. DALBO 1, 2 ✉
1 Human Exercise and Training Laboratory, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia; 2 Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia; 3 Australian Basketball Digest Institute, Melbourne, Australia
BACKGROUND: Comparisons between reactive agility tests incorporating generic and sport-specific stimuli have been performed only in field-based team sports. The aim of this study was to compare generic (light-based) and sport-specific (live opponent) reactive agility tests in court-based team sport athletes.
METHODS: Twelve semi-professional male basketball players (age: 25.9±6.7 yr; stature: 188.9±7.9 cm; body mass: 97.4±16.1 kg; predicted maximal oxygen uptake: 49.5±5.3 mL/kg7min) completed multiple trials of a Reactive Agility Test containing light-based (RAT-Light) and opponent-based stimuli (RAT-Opponent). Multiple outcome measures were collected during the RAT-Light (agility time and total time) and RAT-Opponent (decision time and total time).
RESULTS: Mean performance times during the RAT-Light (2.233±0.224 s) were significantly (P<0.001) slower than during the RAT-Opponent (1.726±0.178 s). Further, a small relationship was observed between RAT-Light agility time and RAT-Opponent decision time (r10=0.20), while a trivial relationship was apparent between total performance times across tests (r10=0.02). Low commonality was observed between comparable measures across tests (R2=0-4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Reactive agility tests containing light-based and live opponent stimuli appear to measure different qualities in court-based team sport athletes. Court-based team sport coaches and conditioning professionals should not use generic and sport-specific reactive agility tests interchangeably during athlete assessments.