National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), GRAFIS Research Group, Spain.
London Sport Institute, School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom ; and.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Jul 1;36(7):2035-2049. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003753. Epub 2020 Sep 3.
Yepes, MM, Feliu, GM, Bishop, C, and Gonzalo-Skok, O. Assessing the reliability and validity of agility testing in team sports: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 36(7): 2035-2049, 2022-The aims of this systematic review were to (a) examine the reliability of the reactive agility tests and (b) analyze the discriminatory validity of the agility tests. A literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We explored PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Plus databases looking for articles about agility in team sports. After filtering for article relevance, only 42 studies met the inclusion criteria; 37 of which assessed the reliability of agility tests and 22 assessing their validity. Reliability showed a high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in almost all studies (range 0.79-0.99) with the exception of 2 studies. In addition, other studies also assessed the reliability of decision time (ICC = 0.95), movement time (ICC = 0.92), and decision accuracy (ICC = 0.74-0.93), all of which exhibited acceptable reliability. Furthermore, these data show high discriminatory validity, with higher performance level players being faster than lower performance level players (mean = 6.4%, range = 2.1-25.3%), with a faster decision time (mean = 23.2%, range = 10.2-48.0%) with the exception of 1 study, and better decision accuracy (mean = 9.3%, range = 2.5-21.0%). Thus, it can be concluded that reactive agility tests show good reliability and discriminatory validity. However, most agility tests occur in simple contexts whereby only 2 possible responses are possible. Therefore, future research should consider creating more specific and complex environments that challenge the cognitive process of high-level athletes.
Yepes, MM, Feliu, GM, Bishop, C, and Gonzalo-Skok, O. 评估团队运动中敏捷测试的可靠性和有效性：系统评价。J 力量与体能研究 36(7): 2035-2049, 2022-本系统评价的目的是：(a) 检查反应敏捷测试的可靠性；(b) 分析敏捷测试的区分效度。按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 进行文献检索。我们在 PubMed、SPORTDiscus 和 Cochrane Plus 数据库中搜索有关团队运动中敏捷性的文章。经过对文章相关性的筛选，只有 42 篇研究符合纳入标准；其中 37 篇评估了敏捷测试的可靠性，22 篇评估了其有效性。可靠性在几乎所有研究中都显示出较高的组内相关系数 (ICC)（范围为 0.79-0.99），除了 2 项研究。此外，其他研究还评估了决策时间（ICC = 0.95）、运动时间（ICC = 0.92）和决策准确性（ICC = 0.74-0.93）的可靠性，所有这些都显示出可接受的可靠性。此外，这些数据表明具有较高的区分效度，高水平运动员的表现优于低水平运动员（平均 = 6.4%，范围 = 2.1-25.3%），决策时间更快（平均 = 23.2%，范围 = 10.2-48.0%），除了 1 项研究外，决策准确性更高（平均 = 9.3%，范围 = 2.5-21.0%）。因此，可以得出结论，反应敏捷测试具有良好的可靠性和区分效度。然而，大多数敏捷测试发生在简单的环境中，只有 2 种可能的反应。因此，未来的研究应该考虑创造更具体和复杂的环境，以挑战高水平运动员的认知过程。
