4.6 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 342-349

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.019

关键词

speed; change of direction; reliability; validity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (c) 2006 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据