A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria.

David Drake, Rodney Kennedy, Matthew Godfrey, Simon MacLead, Amy Davis, Matt Maguire

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Agility performance tests can be limited by the requirement for force plates, timing gates and expensive camera systems (Correia et al., 2012; Green, Blake, & Caulfield, 2011) making application into rehabilitation programs practically challenging. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of a field based 1v1 agility test encompassing perceptualaction performance that could be replicated in applied settings. A secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the 1v1 agility test with a range of physical performance tests including the commonly used Y step test (Paul, Gabbett, & Nassis, 2016). Methods: Twenty-eight male rugby union players volunteered (Mean ± SD age 19.3 ± 2.2 years, age range 18 e 24, weight 96.5 ± 13.3 kg). Participants were randomly assigned to attack or defensive roles (1v1 agility test)within a simulated rugby evasion task (Brault et al., 2012). A previously utilized agility performance score (Young & Murray, 2016) was modified to assess agility performance. Two independent investigators reviewed video recordings (side and behind attacking player) to score attack and defensive performance. Each participant completed 10 agility trials. Results: Cohens Kappa statistic showed inter-rater reliability of agility scoring was almost perfect .861 (CI .816 to .917). Attacking agility had a large significant relationship with Y step performance (r =-.577, p = .001), single leg repeat hop (r = .570, p = .002) and body mass (r = -.537, p = .003). Defensive agility had a large significant relationship with CMJ flight time:contraction time ratio (r = .580, p = .001) and CMJ concentric duration (r = -.656, p = .000). Conclusion: Findings show the Y step test shared 33% of common variance with 1v1 attack and 5% with defensive agility performance. Low commonality is likely due to significantly greater frontal and transverse plane movement during agility compared to change of direction tests (Green et al., 2011). It is recommended that the 1v1 agility test be considered as part of return to play criteria in team sports players to assess attacking and defensive agility performance
LanguageEnglish
Pagesee20
JournalPhysical Therapy in Sport
Volume28
Early online date26 Oct 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 26 Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Football
Exercise Test
Sports
Humulus
Video Recording
Leg
Rehabilitation
Research Personnel
Weights and Measures
Return to Sport
Direction compound

Keywords

  • agility
  • rehabilitation
  • rugby union
  • perception

Cite this

Drake, David ; Kennedy, Rodney ; Godfrey, Matthew ; MacLead, Simon ; Davis, Amy ; Maguire, Matt. / A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria. In: Physical Therapy in Sport. 2017 ; Vol. 28. pp. ee20.
@article{d4825c215a544000a1727155d860d0f2,
title = "A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria.",
abstract = "Introduction: Agility performance tests can be limited by the requirement for force plates, timing gates and expensive camera systems (Correia et al., 2012; Green, Blake, & Caulfield, 2011) making application into rehabilitation programs practically challenging. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of a field based 1v1 agility test encompassing perceptualaction performance that could be replicated in applied settings. A secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the 1v1 agility test with a range of physical performance tests including the commonly used Y step test (Paul, Gabbett, & Nassis, 2016). Methods: Twenty-eight male rugby union players volunteered (Mean ± SD age 19.3 ± 2.2 years, age range 18 e 24, weight 96.5 ± 13.3 kg). Participants were randomly assigned to attack or defensive roles (1v1 agility test)within a simulated rugby evasion task (Brault et al., 2012). A previously utilized agility performance score (Young & Murray, 2016) was modified to assess agility performance. Two independent investigators reviewed video recordings (side and behind attacking player) to score attack and defensive performance. Each participant completed 10 agility trials. Results: Cohens Kappa statistic showed inter-rater reliability of agility scoring was almost perfect .861 (CI .816 to .917). Attacking agility had a large significant relationship with Y step performance (r =-.577, p = .001), single leg repeat hop (r = .570, p = .002) and body mass (r = -.537, p = .003). Defensive agility had a large significant relationship with CMJ flight time:contraction time ratio (r = .580, p = .001) and CMJ concentric duration (r = -.656, p = .000). Conclusion: Findings show the Y step test shared 33{\%} of common variance with 1v1 attack and 5{\%} with defensive agility performance. Low commonality is likely due to significantly greater frontal and transverse plane movement during agility compared to change of direction tests (Green et al., 2011). It is recommended that the 1v1 agility test be considered as part of return to play criteria in team sports players to assess attacking and defensive agility performance",
keywords = "agility, rehabilitation, rugby union, perception",
author = "David Drake and Rodney Kennedy and Matthew Godfrey and Simon MacLead and Amy Davis and Matt Maguire",
note = "Optimal Loading in Sport, The Second World Congress of Sports Physical Therapy, 6th-7th October 2017 – Titanic Belfast. Reference text: 1. Brault, S., Bideau, B., Kulpa, R., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Detecting deception in movement: the case of the side-step in rugby. PLoS ONE, (7). 2. Correia, V., Araujo, D., Cummins, A., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Perceiving and acting upon spaces in a VR rugby task: expertise effects in affordance detection and task achievement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Pyschology, (34), 305-321. 3. Green, B. S., Blake, C., & Caulfield, B. M. (2011). A comparison of cutting technique performance in rugby union players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25 (10), 2668-2680. 4. Paul, D. J., Gabbett, T. J., & Nassis, G. P. (2016). Agility in Team Sports: Testing, Training and Factors Affecting Performance. Sports Medicine, (46), 421-442. 5. Young, W. B., & Murray, M. P. (2017). Reliability of a field test of defending and attacking agility in Australian football and relationships to reactive strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31 (2), 509- 516.",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.08.061",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "ee20",
journal = "Physical Therapy in Sport",
issn = "1466-853X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria. / Drake, David; Kennedy, Rodney; Godfrey, Matthew; MacLead, Simon; Davis, Amy; Maguire, Matt.

In: Physical Therapy in Sport, Vol. 28, 26.10.2017, p. ee20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria.

AU - Drake, David

AU - Kennedy, Rodney

AU - Godfrey, Matthew

AU - MacLead, Simon

AU - Davis, Amy

AU - Maguire, Matt

N1 - Optimal Loading in Sport, The Second World Congress of Sports Physical Therapy, 6th-7th October 2017 – Titanic Belfast. Reference text: 1. Brault, S., Bideau, B., Kulpa, R., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Detecting deception in movement: the case of the side-step in rugby. PLoS ONE, (7). 2. Correia, V., Araujo, D., Cummins, A., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Perceiving and acting upon spaces in a VR rugby task: expertise effects in affordance detection and task achievement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Pyschology, (34), 305-321. 3. Green, B. S., Blake, C., & Caulfield, B. M. (2011). A comparison of cutting technique performance in rugby union players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25 (10), 2668-2680. 4. Paul, D. J., Gabbett, T. J., & Nassis, G. P. (2016). Agility in Team Sports: Testing, Training and Factors Affecting Performance. Sports Medicine, (46), 421-442. 5. Young, W. B., & Murray, M. P. (2017). Reliability of a field test of defending and attacking agility in Australian football and relationships to reactive strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31 (2), 509- 516.

PY - 2017/10/26

Y1 - 2017/10/26

N2 - Introduction: Agility performance tests can be limited by the requirement for force plates, timing gates and expensive camera systems (Correia et al., 2012; Green, Blake, & Caulfield, 2011) making application into rehabilitation programs practically challenging. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of a field based 1v1 agility test encompassing perceptualaction performance that could be replicated in applied settings. A secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the 1v1 agility test with a range of physical performance tests including the commonly used Y step test (Paul, Gabbett, & Nassis, 2016). Methods: Twenty-eight male rugby union players volunteered (Mean ± SD age 19.3 ± 2.2 years, age range 18 e 24, weight 96.5 ± 13.3 kg). Participants were randomly assigned to attack or defensive roles (1v1 agility test)within a simulated rugby evasion task (Brault et al., 2012). A previously utilized agility performance score (Young & Murray, 2016) was modified to assess agility performance. Two independent investigators reviewed video recordings (side and behind attacking player) to score attack and defensive performance. Each participant completed 10 agility trials. Results: Cohens Kappa statistic showed inter-rater reliability of agility scoring was almost perfect .861 (CI .816 to .917). Attacking agility had a large significant relationship with Y step performance (r =-.577, p = .001), single leg repeat hop (r = .570, p = .002) and body mass (r = -.537, p = .003). Defensive agility had a large significant relationship with CMJ flight time:contraction time ratio (r = .580, p = .001) and CMJ concentric duration (r = -.656, p = .000). Conclusion: Findings show the Y step test shared 33% of common variance with 1v1 attack and 5% with defensive agility performance. Low commonality is likely due to significantly greater frontal and transverse plane movement during agility compared to change of direction tests (Green et al., 2011). It is recommended that the 1v1 agility test be considered as part of return to play criteria in team sports players to assess attacking and defensive agility performance

AB - Introduction: Agility performance tests can be limited by the requirement for force plates, timing gates and expensive camera systems (Correia et al., 2012; Green, Blake, & Caulfield, 2011) making application into rehabilitation programs practically challenging. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of a field based 1v1 agility test encompassing perceptualaction performance that could be replicated in applied settings. A secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the 1v1 agility test with a range of physical performance tests including the commonly used Y step test (Paul, Gabbett, & Nassis, 2016). Methods: Twenty-eight male rugby union players volunteered (Mean ± SD age 19.3 ± 2.2 years, age range 18 e 24, weight 96.5 ± 13.3 kg). Participants were randomly assigned to attack or defensive roles (1v1 agility test)within a simulated rugby evasion task (Brault et al., 2012). A previously utilized agility performance score (Young & Murray, 2016) was modified to assess agility performance. Two independent investigators reviewed video recordings (side and behind attacking player) to score attack and defensive performance. Each participant completed 10 agility trials. Results: Cohens Kappa statistic showed inter-rater reliability of agility scoring was almost perfect .861 (CI .816 to .917). Attacking agility had a large significant relationship with Y step performance (r =-.577, p = .001), single leg repeat hop (r = .570, p = .002) and body mass (r = -.537, p = .003). Defensive agility had a large significant relationship with CMJ flight time:contraction time ratio (r = .580, p = .001) and CMJ concentric duration (r = -.656, p = .000). Conclusion: Findings show the Y step test shared 33% of common variance with 1v1 attack and 5% with defensive agility performance. Low commonality is likely due to significantly greater frontal and transverse plane movement during agility compared to change of direction tests (Green et al., 2011). It is recommended that the 1v1 agility test be considered as part of return to play criteria in team sports players to assess attacking and defensive agility performance

KW - agility

KW - rehabilitation

KW - rugby union

KW - perception

U2 - 10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.08.061

DO - 10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.08.061

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - ee20

JO - Physical Therapy in Sport

T2 - Physical Therapy in Sport

JF - Physical Therapy in Sport

SN - 1466-853X

ER -