Department of Sports Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
The Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
J Sports Sci Med. 2019 Nov 19;18(4):623-635. eCollection 2019 Dec.
The importance of response time (RT) in sports is well known, but there is an evident lack of reliable and valid sport-specific measurement tools applicable in the evaluation of RT in trained athletes. This study aimed to identify the validity, reliability, and usefulness of four newly developed RT testing protocols among athletes from agility-saturated (AG) and non-agility-saturated (NAG) sports. Thirty-seven AG and ten NAG athletes (age: 20.9 ± 2.9; eleven females) volunteered to undergo: three randomized simple response time (SRT-1, SRT-2, and SRT-3) protocols that included a single limb movement, and one complex response time (CRT) protocol that included multi joint movements and whole body transition over a short distance (1.5 and 1.8m). Each RT test involved 3 trials with 5 randomized attempts per trial. Two sensors were placed at the left- and right-hand side for SRT-1 and SRT-2. Three sensors were positioned (left, middle, right) in SRT-3 and CRT. The intra-class-correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. Independent sample t-test, effect size (d), and area-under-the-curve (AUC) were calculated to define discriminative validity of the tests. The results showed the newly developed tests were more reliable and useful in the AG than NAG athletes (i.e., ICC between 0.68 and 0.97 versus 0.31-0.90, respectively). The RT of AG athletes was faster than that of NAG athletes in the CRT test from the left (p <0.01, = 2.40, AUC: 0.98), centre (p < 0.01, = 1.57, AUC: 0.89), and right sensor (p < 0.01, = 1.93, AUC: 0.89) locations. In contrast, there were no differences between the groups in the SRT tests. The weak correlation (i.e., r= 0.00-0.33) between the SRT and CRT tests suggests that response time of the single limb and multijoint limb movements should not be considered as a single motor capacity. In conclusion, this study showed that AG athletes had faster response time than their NAG peers during complex motor tasks. Such enhanced ability to rapidly and accurately reprogram complex motor tasks can be considered one of the essential qualities required for advanced performance in agility-based sports.
在体育运动中，反应时间（RT）的重要性是众所周知的，但目前缺乏可靠和有效的特定于运动的测量工具，无法用于评估受过训练的运动员的 RT。本研究旨在确定四项新开发的 RT 测试方案在灵敏性饱和（AG）和非灵敏性饱和（NAG）运动项目运动员中的有效性、可靠性和实用性。37 名 AG 和 10 名 NAG 运动员（年龄：20.9±2.9；11 名女性）自愿接受以下测试：三个随机简单反应时间（SRT-1、SRT-2 和 SRT-3）方案，包括单肢运动，以及一个复杂反应时间（CRT）方案，包括多关节运动和短距离全身过渡（1.5 和 1.8m）。每个 RT 测试包括 3 次试验，每次试验有 5 次随机尝试。SRT-1 和 SRT-2 在左手和右手侧放置了两个传感器。SRT-3 和 CRT 中放置了三个传感器（左、中、右）。采用组内相关系数（ICC）评估可靠性。采用独立样本 t 检验、效应量（d）和曲线下面积（AUC）来定义测试的判别有效性。结果表明，新开发的测试在 AG 运动员中比 NAG 运动员更可靠和有用（即，ICC 分别为 0.68-0.97 与 0.31-0.90）。在 CRT 测试中，AG 运动员的反应时间比 NAG 运动员更快，从左侧（p<0.01， = 2.40，AUC：0.98）、中心（p<0.01， = 1.57，AUC：0.89）和右侧传感器（p<0.01， = 1.93，AUC：0.89）位置。相比之下，两组在 SRT 测试中没有差异。SRT 和 CRT 测试之间的弱相关性（即，r=0.00-0.33）表明，单肢和多关节肢体运动的反应时间不应被视为单一运动能力。总之，本研究表明，在复杂运动任务中，AG 运动员的反应时间比 NAG 运动员更快。这种快速准确地重新编程复杂运动任务的能力增强，可以被认为是在基于灵敏性的运动中取得高级表现所需的基本素质之一。
