You are on page 1of 23

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001543

Agility in young athletes: is it a different ability from speed and power?


Running head: Evaluation of agility on young team sport athletes.

Yassine Negra1, Helmi Chaabene2, Mehrz Hammami1, Samiha Amara3, Senda Sammoud1,

TE

Bessem Mkaouer 3, Youns Hachana1-3.

Research Unit "Sport Performance & Health" Higher Institute of Sport and Physical
Education of Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia
2

Tunisian Research Laboratory ''Sports Performance Optimization'', National Center of


Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia
Higher Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Manouba University, Tunis, Tunisia

C
EP

Corresponding author:
Dr. Yassine Negra

Phone: +21654100140

E-mail: yassinenegra@hotmail.fr

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Abstract
Agility is an important physical attribute for successful participation in team sports events.
Illinois agility test (IAT) and T-test have been widely used within adult team sports players to
assess agility performance. The purposes of this investigation are (1) to study the reliability
and the sensitivity of both IAT and T-test scores and (2) to explore to what extend the agility
is an independent physical ability from speed time and jumping ability. Competitive-level
young soccer

(n=95) and handball players (n=92) participated in this study (i.e.,

correlation coefficient (ICC

(3, 1))

approximately 12 years old). Reliability analyses were established by determining intraclass


and typical error of measurement (TEM). The sensitivity of

agility tests was revealed by comparing TEM to the value of the smallest worthwhile change

TE

(SWC). The second aim was examined by means of the principal component analysis (PCA).
Results revealed that the scores of both IAT and T-test showed a high reliability (all ICC
1)>0.90

(3,

and TEM<5%) and sensitivity (all TEM<SWC). PCA resulted in one significant

component for the soccer and handball group each that explained 72.18% and 80.16% of the

C
EP

total variance, respectively. Significant relationships were recorded between all the selected
tests (r= -0.72 to 0.85, p<0.001). Based on the results of this study, it was concluded that both
IAT and T-test provided reliable and sensitive scores. Therefore, these tests could be strongly
recommended to evaluate agility within young male competitive-level team sports athletes.
Additionally, it seems that agility, speed time, and jumping ability assess the same physical
attribute in young competitive-level team sports players.

Key words: reliability; sensitivity; team sport; sprint; principal component analysis.

Introduction

Agility is one of the most important aspects that should be developed and routinely
implemented in strength and conditioning programs for team sports athletes (4, 27, 31, 38).
Generally, agility is defined as a rapid whole-body movement with change of direction and/or
velocity in response to a stimulus (31). Mirkov et al. (22) reported that agility and
coordination is one of the crucial factors in future success in 11 years old athletes. Hachana et
al. (12) and Pauole et al. (26) have identified the Illinois agility test (IAT) as well as the
agility T-test as two of the best tests to measure agility, respectively. Although the existing
researches have shown the good validity and reliability of these tests among junior-senior
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

team sports athletes (14, 30, 32), this issue remains unclear in young athletes considering the
difference in maturity status and/or chronological age in addition to the training background
between them (5). Furthermore, according to Hachana et al. (11) the IAT might not represent
a sport-specific test for young players due to the long duration (approximately 16-18 seconds)
and the long distance covered (approximately 60 meters). Thus, this test might be overly
strenuous for young players, which might also affect its validity and/or reliability. Therefore,
further investigations in this area are needed.

Limited scientific literature is available providing specific details on how best to train agility
for children (20, 27). In order to optimize agility training programs, correlation analysis with
other fitness variables (i.e., power, speed, strength...) needs to be established. Pauole et al.

TE

(26) established a significant correlation between T-test, leg power and leg speed within male
college-aged men (coefficient of determination [R2] = 24 % and 30%, respectively. Hachana
et al. (12) revealed that IAT performance is significantly related to speed (R2 = 18%) rather
than to acceleration (R2 = 2%), and leg power (R2 = 15%). In contrast, Little and Williams

C
EP

(19) revealed that acceleration (10-m sprint times), top speed (flying 20-m sprint times), and
agility were distinct motor characteristics in a group of professional male soccer players. In
the same context, Jeffery (16) revealed that agility is an independent physical quality and
requires, therefore, specific training and testing protocols. However, in an investigation
conducted with young athletes, LIyod et al. (20) revealed that the straight-line running speed,
lower limb strength and power, anthropometric variables, and perceptual and decision-making
processes could be some of the important contributors to the agility outcomes.

Overall, based on the results presented above, its clear that some difficulties in identifying
how agility performances can be related to other fitness variables exist, therefore, this issue
needs to be resolved in future studies. This observation seems to be due to various factors,

such as training age, athletes level, gender, and time in the training season that could affect
the level of correlation (3, 8, 13, 34). In addition, it is important to stress that there is a paucity
of investigations in this area that included young participants. In view of the fact the existing
anatomical, biomechanical, and neuromuscular differences between adult and young athletes
(33), the question concerning the relationships between various motor skills, such as speed
time, jumping ability, and agility performance within young team sports players remains
unclear.
Based on the above-mentioned considerations, the aims of the current investigation were: (1)
to establish the reliability and sensitivity of both IAT and T-test in a sample of two different
young team sport athletes (i.e., soccer and handball) and (2) to explore to what extend the
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

agility is an independent physical ability from speed time and jumping ability. It was
hypothesized that IAT and T-test would provide stable test-retest scores. We hypothesized,
also, that agility, sprint time, and jumping ability represent dependent fitness abilities.

Methods
Experimental approach to the problem

Young athletes are widely involved in soccer and handball practice around the world. It has
been well acknowledged that agility is an essential physical ability in soccer and handball
games where rapid movement initiation, change of direction, and fast short distance running

TE

are determinant for successful participation in such team sports events (11, 29). The Illinois
agility test (IAT) and the T-test were frequently used as the most common protocol for testing
agility. However, those tests lack information about their reliability and sensitivity among
young male team sports athletes. In addition, sprint time and jumping ability are hypothesized

C
EP

to be a major factor contributing to agility performance. Although agilitys basis can be


explained scientifically, the effectiveness of various agility training interventions still
problematic. For this purpose, the subjects participating in this cross-sectional study took
different power (vertical / horizontal jumps), speed (10 and 20 m), and agility (IAT and Ttest) assessments. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess the reliability of agility tests
(i.e., IAT and T-test). In addition, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to

Subjects

evaluate the factorial analysis of all the aforementioned tests.

One hundred and eighty-seven competitive-level male young athletes (n= 187) who are
regularly involved in national first division events, participated to this investigation (soccer
players: n= 95, age=12.30.9 years, Predicted age at peak height velocity= 11.07 0.91, body
mass= 43.2 7.9 kg, height=152.5 9.6 cm, sitting height= 74.70 4.47 cm and handball
players: n=92, age=12.51.7 years, Predicted age at peak height velocity = 11.66 1.69 years,
body mass= 52.5 17.2 kg, height=158.3 22.1 cm, sitting height = 77.85 6.38 cm). They
had an experience of at least 4 years at their respective competitive level. Both groups
participated in a regular training program (five sessions per week) over the entire season. Both
group trainings included training in fast footwork, technical skills, and moves (easy/difficult),
as well as position games (small/big), and tactical games with various objectives.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

All participants were thoroughly informed regarding the purpose and the potential risks of the
study and were informed that they can freely withdraw from the study at any time of the
experience. In accordance with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, the human subject
committee of the local institution approved the present investigation. Before starting the
experience, an informed consent was signed by both the participants and their parents.

Procedures

This study was conducted during the second half of the competitive season (March-April
2014).The first phase of this study aimed to establish the reliability and the sensitivity of both

TE

the IAT and the T-test. During this phase, each athlete completed the IAT and the T-test
twice on separate days. On each day, the aforementioned agility tests were performed in
triplicate. The best trial was retained for statistical analyses. A minimum of 3 minutes of rest
was allocated between trials and 5 minutes between tests (34). In the second phase, we

C
EP

analyzed the relationship between the IAT, T-test, speed time, and jumping ability. Tests were
performed in triplicate and the best trial was retained for statistical analyses. The same
recovery duration between tests and trials as during the first phase was adopted. All the
players undertook three familiarisation sessions of all tests, within the two weeks preceding
the experience. During the familiarization session, each subject performed the IAT, followed
by the T-test, jumping tests, and sprint test. To avoid the diurnal variation, all tests were
completed at the same time of day (i.e., 9-11 AM.) in the absence of wind and in

environmental conditions of 21-23 C for temperature and 51-55 % for humidity on a wooden
indoor floor surface. The participants were instructed to maintain consistent dietary and
sleeping patterns for 48 hours before each session and to refrain from strenuous activity for 24

hours before each session. They were also instructed to wear the same footwear during all
sessions.

The two testing phases of the study were preceded by 15 minutes standardized warm up

followed by 5 min passive recovery period. The test-retest sessions were separated by at least
72 hours. All procedures for each test were administered by the same experimenter.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Anthropometry and Somatic Development


All anthropometric measurements were conducted by the same researcher. The following
anthropometric measurements were taken: height and sitting height (accuracy of 0.1 cm;
Hotain, UK) and body mass (0.1 kg; Tanita BF683W, Munich, Germany). During all
measurements procedures, participants were barefoot and dressed in shorts only. Maturity age
was determined according to peak height velocity, [Maturity offset = 7.999994 + (0.0036124
x age *height); R2= 0.896; standard error of estimate (SEE) = 0.542] (23).

Illinois Agility Test

The IAT performance was recorded using an electronic timing system (Microgate SARL,

TE

Bolzano, Italy). The test is set up with four cones used to mark the start and two turning points
while another four cones were placed down towards the start line at equal 3.3 m distance
apart. The cones height was 30 cm. The subject would sprint 10 m, turn and return back to the
start line, and then he would swerve in and out of four markers, completing the test with two

C
EP

10 m sprints in opposite direction (1). The players were instructed not to cut over the markers,
but to run around them. If a subject failed to do this, the trial was stopped repeated after the
standard recovery period.

Agility T-Test.

This test was administered using the protocol outlined by Munro and Herrington (24).
Subjects started with both feet behind the starting line. Four cones were arranged in a T shape,

with a cone placed 9.14 m from the starting cone and two further cones placed 4.57 m on
either side of the second cone. Each subject accelerated to a cone and touched the base of the
cone with the right hand. Facing forward and without crossing feet, subjects had to shuffle to

the left to the next cone and touch its base with the left hand, then shuffle to the right to the
next cone and touch its base with the right hand and shuffle back to the left to the last cone
and touch its base. The cones height was 30 cm. Finally, subjects ran backwards as quickly as
possible to return to the starting/finish line. The test had to be repeated if athletes crossed one
foot in front of the other, failed to touch the base of the cone and/or failed to face forward
throughout the test. The time needed to complete the test was used as performance outcome
and it was assessed with an electronic timing system (Microgate SARL, Bolzano, Italy).

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Squat jump (SJ)


The participant started from a stationary semi-squatted position (knee angle =90 degree) with
their hands on the iliac crest jumped upward as high as possible. SJ performances were
recorded via an Optojump photoelectric cell (Microgate, SRL, Bolzano, Italy). The intraclass
correlation ICC (3, 1) for test-retest trials was 0.96.

Countermovement jump (CMJ) and Countermovement jump aided arm (CMJA)

Participant started from an upright standing position and performed a very fast preliminary

TE

downward movement, flexing his knees (at approximately 90) and hip. Immediately after
that he extended the knees and hips again to jump vertically off the ground. To avoid the
influence of the upper limbs on CMJ performance, participants kept their hands on the iliac
crest. During CMJA, the players freely used their hands while jumping.CMJ and CMJA

C
EP

performances were recorded via an Optojump photoelectric cell (Microgate, SRL, Bolzano,
Italy). The ICCs (3, 1) for test-retest trials was 0.94 and 0.93 for CMJ, and CMJA, respectively.
Five jump test (FJT)

This test has previously been recommended for the measurement of lower limb muscle power
and is considered to be soccer specific (9). From an upright standing position with both feet
flat on the ground, participants tried to cover as much distance as possible with five forward

jumps by alternating left- and right-leg ground contacts. The covered distance was measured

to the nearest 1-cm using a tape measure. The ICC (3, 1) for test-retest trials was 0.94.

Sprint Testing

Linear sprinting was evaluated over 10 and 20 meters using an electronic timing system
(Microgate SARL, Bolzano, Italy). Participants started 0.3-m before the first infrared
photoelectric gate, which was placed 0.75-m above the ground to ensure a capture of the trunk
movement and avoid false signals via limb motion. The ICCs

(3, 1)

for test-retest trials was

0.96, and 0.95 for 10-m, and 20-m, respectively.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Statistical analyses

Data analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 program for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago,
IL, USA). Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables. The significance level
considered in the present study was set at p < 0.05. The results are expressed as means
standard deviations (SD). An independent samples t-test was applied to determine significant
differences in all performances and anthropometric values between groups. The effect sizes

(ES) is a measure of the effectiveness of a treatment and it helps to determine whether a


statistically significant difference is, really, a difference of practical concern. It was
determined according to Cohens d and classified as small (0.00 d 0.49), medium (0.50

intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC

(3, 1)).

TE

d 0.79), and large (d 0.80) (7). Relative reliability was determined by calculating the
We considered an ICC below 0.40 as poor,

between 0.40 and <0.70 as fair, between 0.70 and <0.90 as good and 0.90 as excellent (7).
Absolute reliability was analyzed through the typical error of measurement (TEM). It was

C
EP

calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the difference between scores by 2 (6, 14)
and expressed as coefficient of variation (CV). The smallest worthwhile change (SWC) has
been used and calculated as 0.2SD. By comparing SWC with TEM score, test sensitivity in
detecting systematic variation in performance status can be determined (6). When TEM <
SWC the tests capacity to detect change is considered good; when TEM=SWC it is
considered ok, and when TEM > SWC the test is rated as marginal (18). Pairwise
comparisons were applied to determine any learning effect or systematic bias between sample

mean scores for test and retest with paired student t-test. The TEM allows the calculation of
the minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval (MDC95) according to the
following formula: MDC95 = TEM x

x1.96 (17). The MDC95 determines the minimum

amount of change in the measurement that would be required to exceed the level of
measurement error and was expressed in absolute and relative term for comparison between
agility tests. Pearsons correlation was used to determine relationships between, IAT, T-test,
jumping ability, and speed time performances. Coefficients of determination (R2) were used to
determine the amount of explained variance between tests. Hopkins (7) has suggested that an
absolute correlation coefficient of 0 - 0.1 is considered trivial, one of 0.11-0.33 small,
0.31 - 0.5 = moderate, 0.51 - 0.7 = large, 0.71 - 0.9 = very large, 0.9 - 0.99 = nearly
perfect, 1=perfect. The corresponding intercorrelation matrix of all selected variables was
factorized using the PCA (25). The number of significant components was determined by the
Promax criterion with Kaiser normalization (25), which retains principal components with
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

eigenvalues of 1.0 or higher. The final outcomes of the PCA were commonalities and factor
loadings for each manifest variable, eigenvalues, and percentages of variance explained by
each rotated principal component.

Results

In general, for both groups the biological age was determined and revealing no significative

TE

--Table 1 near here--

difference between groups [t= -0.551, df = 185, p= 0.582, ES=-0.26] (see Table1).

All performance measures were mentioned in Table 2.

C
EP

--Table 2 near here--

Reliability and sensitivity analyses

The results of the IAT and T-test obtained from the test and retest are presented in Table 3.
The data suggest exceptionally high reliability of both IAT and T-test in the whole team
sports group (i.e., soccer and handball). Specifically, all ICC (3, 1) values were well above 0.90,

while TEM values were about 0.2 s (<5%). Based on the sensitivity analysis, the ability to
detect small performance change can be rated as good in both competitive-level young team

sports players (SWC > TEM).

--Table 3 near here--

Relationship of agility outcomes with speed and power tests.


The correlations and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two agility
tests and all the other jumping ability and sprinting tests are shown in Table 4.
--Table 4 near here--

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Significant relationships judged between large to very large were recorded between all tests
(r= -0.72 to 0.85, p<0.001). The highest correlations obtained were among the IAT and the
FJT (R2=50.4%), and the T-test and the 20-m sprint test (R2=72%) in soccer and handball
group, respectively.
The principal component analysis of our outcomes resulted in a single significant component
that explained 72.18% and 80.16% of the total variance of all tests within soccer and handball
group, respectively. Correlation coefficients of all tests with the extracted component were

large to very large in both groups and varied between -0.95 to 0.93 (see Table 5). The highest
correlation with extracted factor was shown by the CMJ test (r= 0.93) and by the 20-m sprint

TE

test (r=-0.95), in soccer and handball group, respectively.

C
EP

--Table 5 near here--

Discussion

The purposes of this study were to analyse the reliability and the sensitivity, of both Illinois
agility test (IAT) and T-test among competitive-level young team sports athletes and to

determine to what extend the agility is an independent physical ability from speed time and
jumping ability performance. The main findings of the present study are that (1) both IAT and
T-test scores were highly reliable (i.e., stable test-retest outcome) and sensitive (i.e., able to

detect small changes in performance) and (2) the agility performance, speed time, and
jumping ability, could represent the same motor abilities in competitive-level young male
team sports athletes.
The IAT and the T-test differ in the generic cues incorporated in their movement patterns (i.e.,
for the T-test, the change of direction is preceded by shuffling movements, which are absent
in the IAT) and also differ in their energetic requirements (i.e., the duration and the number of
change of direction differ between these two agility tests). All these considerations might
affect the reliability of these two tests as well as their relationship to jumping ability and
speed time performances.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Previous researchers have found a good reliability of the scores obtained from both IAT and
T-test among adult athletes (12, 21, 26, 30, 31). In these studies, the ICC (3, 1) across two trials
reliability analyses exceeded 0.90. Pauole et al. (26), Munro and Herrington (24), and Sporis
et al. (32) reported an ICC of 0.98, 0.82, and 0.92, respectively for the T-test measures in
men and women athletes aged between 19.1 0.6 and 22.3 4 years old. Hachana et al. (12)
and Lockie et al. (21) reported an ICC of 0.97 and 0.91 for the IAT score in young Tunisian
soccer players (aged 20.82 1.31 years old) and Australian football players (aged 23.837.04

years old), respectively. In our study, relative reliability can be rated as excellent for IAT and
T-test scores (see Table 3). Handball and soccer players showed a higher ICC

(3, 1)

than the

previously cited studies (between 0.96 and 0.98) (see Table 3). These findings may be

TE

explained by the fact that the majority of the athletes that took part in our study were highly
competitive team sports athletes trained for agility skills and generated stable agility skills
during the tests. To obtain the within-subject variability that would typically occur in the
routine administration of the assessment, the TEM was calculated. TEM values relative to the

C
EP

T-test and IAT within the two team sports athletes were very low (0.10 to 0.16 s) supporting
the good reliability of the scores obtained from these tests. Our results are in accordance with
those of Hachana et al. (12) with a TEM of 0.19 s for the IAT outcome and with those of
Munro and Herrington. (24) who found a TEM of 0.17 s for the T-test score. These results
support the high reliability of both IAT and T-test outcomes regardless of the team sports
group and strongly recommend coaches and conditioning trainers to use them as in adults,
with young team sports athletes.

Considering the sensitivity analysis, a comparison between the TEM values and the smallest
worthwhile change (SWC) values for both tests has been conducted (11, 21). The results

revealed that the ability to detect small performance change can be rated as good in both
competitive-level young team sports players since their SWC values were higher than their
respective TEM (see Table 3).
In addition to the reproducibility of tests, those individuals conducting tests must consider the
issue of change and whether observed differences actually reflect the true change.
Furthermore, consideration of the MDC95 is important to determine the minimum amount of
change in the measurement that would be required to exceed the level of measurement error
(11, 12).
In our study, the MDC95 indicates that 95% of the assessed athletes with the IAT and T-test
will demonstrate a random variation as a result of a measurement error of less than 0.44 s
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

(2.47%) and 0.34 s (2.76%), respectively. Our results are in accordance with those of Hachana
et al. (11) (MDC95=0.64 s) among elite and sub-elite under 14-soccer players.
Our results revealed that agility performances and a variety of field tests were correlated with
each other within both team sports group (see Table4).
Additionally, our results showed a large to very large significant relationships between agility
performance and sprinting tests (0.53<r<0.85, p<0.001; common variance vary from 28 % to
72 %). This is in accordance with previously published studies wherein moderate to large

correlations between straight sprinting tests and agility were observed (2, 37).

In addition jumping output recorded in our study indicated a moderate to very large negative

TE

relationship between jump tests and agility performances (-0.47<r<-0.80, p<0.001; common
variance vary from 0.22 %to 0.64 %) indicating that the greater is the explosive strength
performance, the lower is the time spent in the agility tests.

This is not consistent with the findings of Young et al. (37) who revealed a low relationship

C
EP

between CMJ and 20m change of direction test (r=-0.10). Similarly, Webb and Lander. (35)
reported a small and moderate correlation between vertical and horizontal jumping and the Lrun agility test (r=-0.19 and -0.35, respectively). Additionally, Peterson et al. (28) reported a
trivial to the small relationship between the power output determined from a vertical jump test
and the agility T-test (r from -0.03 to -0.21). In addition to the differences in the methodology
of power and agility testing applied, we believe that this inconsistency is due to the higher
complexity of the agility tasks used in this study compared to more simple motor skills like

sprinting and jumping. Consistently with the present results, the former authors revealed a
significant correlation between horizontal jump and the agility T-test (r=-0.61). Interestingly,
agility was found to be most highly associated with horizontal jumping performance than was

vertical jumping outcomes (see Table 4). The similarity of the movement between horizontal
jump and agility seems to be one of the main causes. Particularly, during the five jump test,
subjects have to exert muscle power in both eccentric and concentric condition while
maintaining the body balance.
In the present study, results of the principal component analysis (PCA) revealed the extraction
of a single significant component that explained 72.18% and 80.16% of the total variance
within soccer and handball group, respectively. However, the exceptionally nearly perfect
correlation of the CMJ and CMJA revealed in the soccer group with the extracted factor
suggests that these two tests could have the highest factorial validity among all evaluated

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

tests. In addition, nearly perfect correlation between the CMJ, CMJA, 10-m and 20-m sprint
test, and FJT with the extracted factors was shown in the handball group, supporting the
commonality of these tests. Collectively, the main finding of our study showed large to nearly
perfect correlations of all measures with the extracted components (see Table 5). This finding
supports our research hypotheses and the notion that the agility, jumping ability, and speed
time could represent the same motor abilities in competitive-level young team sports athletes.
To the greatest extent, the aforementioned correlations among jumping, sprinting, and CODS

latent motor abilities are in agreement with the results of the majority (8, 13, 26, 28, 37) but
not all (34, 36, 39) of the previous studies based on correlation analysis.

To conclude, findings of the reliability and sensitivity analysis strongly support the use of the

TE

T-test and the IAT in the routine assessment of agility in young soccer and handball players.
In addition, the factorial analysis showed a high proportion of commonalities between tests
with the extraction of only one factor. This finding implies that all tests may measure the
same physical attribute. Therefore, it may be suggested using very few, if not only one of the

C
EP

evaluated tests for use in the routine testing of young soccer and handball players.

Practical applications

Strength and conditioning professionals use a multitude of tests to measure performance


factors such as strength, speed, power, and agility. The results of such tests are used to gain
information that can be used to optimally train the athlete and to predict athletic performance.

Agility is one of the main determinants of performance in team sports. The results of the
current research revealed that IAT and T-test provided reliable and sensitive scores once three
familiarization sessions proceed testing. Therefore, IAT and T-test can be confidently used

with both soccer and handball young athletes to assess their agility performance. The second
finding of our research strongly recommends that agility, speed time, and jumping ability
performances might be treated and tested as the same motor abilities among competitive-level
young male soccer and handball players.
Acknowledgments

The authors are pleased to thankfully acknowledge the athletes and their trainers who willingly and
patiently contributed to this study. Also, we would like to thank and express our gratitude to Dr.
Slobodan Jaric for the help.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

References
1. Amiri-Khorasani, M, Sahebozamani, M, Tabrizi, KG, and Yusof, AB. Acute effect of
different stretching methods on Illinois agility test in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
24(10): 2698-2704, 2010.
2. Baker, DA. A comparison of running speed and quickness between elite professional and

young rugby league players. Strength Cond coach (7): 3-7 , 1999.
3. Baker, D, and Nance, S. The relation between Strength and power in professional rugby

TE

league players . J Strength Cond Res 13: 224-229, 1999.

4. Brughelli, M, Cronin , J, Levin, G, and Chaouachi, A. Understanding change of direction


ability in sport: a review of resistance training studies. Sports Med 38: 1045-1063, 2008.

RM, Malina,

C
EP

5. Carvalho, HM, Coelho ,MJ, Figueiredo, AJ,Gonalves, CE, Castagna, C, Philippaerts,


RM.

Cross-validation and reliability of

the line

drill test of anaerobic performance in basketball players 14 16 years. J Strength Cond Res
25(4):1113-9, 2011.

6. Castagna, C, Bendiksen, M, Impeillizzeri, FM, and Krustrup ,P. Reliability , sensitivity and

Validity of the assistant referee intermittent endurance test (ARIET) a modified Yo-Yo IE2
test for elite soccer assistant referees. J sports sci 30: 767-775, 2012.

7. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd Ed). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
7. Coppieters, M, Stappaerts, K, Janssens, K, and Jull, G. Reliability of detecting 'onset
of pain' and 'submaximal pain' during neural provocation testing of the upper quadrant.
Physiotherapy research international: J Res clinicians in physical therapy 7: 146-156, 2002.
8. Cronin, JB, and Hansen, KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 349-357, 2005.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

9. Diallo, O, Dore, E, Duche, P, and Van Praagh, E. Effects of plyometric training followed
by a reduced training program on physical performance in prepubescent soccer players. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness 41: 342-348, 2001.
10. Graham, JF. Agility training. In: Brown LE, Ferrigno VA, Santana JC, editors. Training
for speed, agility, and quickness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2000. p.79-143

11. Hachana, Y, Chaabne, H, Ghada, BR, Khlifa, R, Aouadi, R, Chamari, K, and Gabbett,

Players. Plos One 9 (4), 2014.

TE

TJ. Validity and Reliability of New Agility Test among Elite and Sub-elite under 14-Soccer

12. Hachana, Y, Chaabene, H, Nabli, MA, Attia, A, Moualhi J, et al. Test retest reliability,
criterion-related validity, and minimal detectable change of the Illinois agility test in male

C
EP

team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 27(10): 2752-9, 2013.

13. Hennessy, L, and Kilty, J. Relationship of the stretch-shortening cycle to sprint


performance in trained female athletes. J Strength Cond Res 15: 326-331, 2001.
14. Hopkins, WG. Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science. Sports Med 30
(1): 1-15, 2000.

15. Hopkins WG. A Scale of Magnitudes for Effect Statistics, in: A new view of
Statistics.http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html Accessed 20 May 2009, 2006.

16. Jeffreys, I. Motor learning: application of agility. Part 1. Strength Cond J 28 (5): 7276,
2006.

17. Lexell, JE, and Downham, DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in
rehabilitation. AM J Phys Med Rehab 84: 719-723, 2005.
18. Liow, DK, and Hopkins, WG. Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak sprint
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 1232-1237, 2003.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

19. Little, T, and Williams, AG. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed, and agility in
professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 19 (1): 76-8, 2005.
20. Lloyd, RS, Read, p, Oliver, JL, Meyers, Robert, WM, Nimphius, S, and Jeffreys, I.
Considerations for the Development of Agility during Childhood and Adolescence. Strength
Cond J 35 (3): 2-11, 2013.

21. Lockie, RG, Schultz, AB, Callaghan, SJ, Jeffriess, MD, and Berry SP. Reliability and
Validity of a New Test of Change-of-Direction Speed for Field- Based Sports: the Change-of-

TE

Direction and Acceleration Test (CODAT). J Sports Sci Med 12: 88-96, 2013.

22. Mirkov, DM, Kukolj, M, Ugarkovic, D, Koprivica, VJ, and Jaric, S. Development of
anthropometric and physical performance profiles of young elite male soccer players: a

C
EP

longitudinal study. J Strength Cond Res 2677-82, 2010.

23. Moore, SA, McKay, HA, Macdonald, H, Nettlefold, L, Baxter-Jones, AD, Cameron,
N, Brasher, PM. Enhancing a Somatic Maturity Prediction Model. Med Sci Sports Exerc
47(8):1755-64, 2015.

24. Munro, AG, and Herrington, LC. Between-session reliability of four hop tests and the

agility T-test. J Strength Cond Res 25(5):1470-7, 2011.

25. Nunnally, JC, and Bernstein, IH. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY; London, United
Kingdom: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
26. Pauole, K, Madole, K, Garhammer, J, Lacourse, M, and Rozenek, R. Reliability and
validity of the T-test as a measure of agility, leg power, and leg speed in college-aged men
and women. J Strength Cond Res 14: 443-450, 2000.
27. Paul, DJ, Gabbett, TJ, and Nassis, GP. Agility in Team Sports: Testing, Training and
Factors Affecting Performance. Sports Med 46(3):421-42, 2016.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

28. Peterson, MD, Alvar, BA, and Rhea, MR. The contribution of maximal force production
to explosive movement among young collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 20: 867-873,
2006.
29. Povoas, SCA, Seabra, AFT, Ascensao, A, Magalhaes, J, Soares, JMC and Rebelo, ANC.
Physical and physiological demands of elite team handball. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3365-

3375, 2012.
30. Sassi, RH, Dardouri, W, Yahmed, MH, , N, Mahfoudhi, ME, and Gharbi Z. Relative and a

TE

absolute reliability of a modified agility T-test and its relationship with vertical jump and
straight sprint. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1644-1651, 2009.

31. Sheppard, JM and Young, WB. Agility literature review: Classifications, training and

C
EP

testing. J Sports Sci 24: 919-932, 2006.

32. Sporis, G, Jukic, I, Milanovic, L, and Vucetic, V. Reliability and factorial validity of
agility tests for soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 679-686, 2010.
33. Thompson, BJ, Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Costa, PB, Herda, AA, and Cramer, JT. Agerelated changes in the rate of muscle activation and rapid force characteristics. Age

(Dordrecht, Netherlands) 36: 839-849, 2014.

34. Vescovi, JD, and McGuigan, MR. Relationships between sprinting, agility, and jump

ability in female athletes. J Sports Sci 26: 97-107, 2008.


35. Webb, P, and Lander, J. An economical fitness testing battery for high school and college
rugby teams. Sports Coach 7: 44-46, 1983.
36. Wisloff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong correlation of maximal
squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J
Sports Med 38: 285 288, 2004.
37. Young, W, Hawken, M, and McDonald, L. Relationship between speed, agility and
strength qualities in Australian Rules football. Strength Cond Coach 4: 3-6, 1996.
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

38. Young, WB, McDowell, MH, and Scarlett, BJ. Specificity of sprint and agility training
methods. J Strength Cond Res15: 315-319, 2001.
39. Young, W, McLean, B, and Ardagna, J. Relationship between strength qualities and

C
EP

TE

sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 35: 1319, 1995.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1: Subject physical characteristics.

Handball players(n=92)

Cohen's d 95% CI of the difference

Age (years)

12.270.91

12.511.69

-0.18

Height (cm)

152.539.65

158.2922.14

-0.36

Weight (kg)

43.24 7.89

52.5317.23*

-0.74

Sitting height (cm)

74.70 4.47

77.85 6.38

-0.58

-4,7310 to -1,5624

PAPHV (years)

11.07 0.91

-0.45

-0,2808 to 0,4986

C
EP

TE
D

Soccer players (n=95)

11.66 1.69

-0,1486 to 0,6308
0,8631 to 10,6636
5,4502 to 13,1412

Data are presented as mean SD; PAPHV: Predicted age at peak height velocity; 95% CI: 95% Confidence interval of the difference

*Significant difference between group p<0.05.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 2.Descriptive data of agility, power and sprinting performances (meanSD).

Handball
Players
(n=92)

ES (Cohens d)
95% CI

10-m sprint (s)

17.70 *

0.85
18.99

1.34
-1.18
(-1.6 to -0.96)

11.90 *

0.80
12.89

1.34
-0,92
(-1.39 to -0.76)

2.08 *

0.13
2.15

0.18
-0,45
(-0.11 to -0.2)

20-m sprint (s)

CMJ (cm)

3.63 *

0.25
3.74

0.33
-1.31
(-0.19 to -0.2)

23.57

5.03
23.06

6.67
0.08
(-1.18 to 2.21)

TE
D

(n=95)

T-test (s)

C
EP

Soccer players

IAT (s)

SJ (cm)

CMJA (cm)

FJT (m)

21.38

5.20
21.09

6.16
0.05
(-1.35 to 1.93)

26.98

5.59
26.98

7.96
0
(-1.97 to 1.98)

8.87

0.95
8.75

1.45
0
(-0.22 to 0.47)

IAT: Illinois agility test; T-test: Agility T-test; CMJ: Countermovement jump; SJ: Squat jump; CMJA: Countermovement jump aided arms; FJT: Five jump test;
s: second; cm: centimetre; m: meter; ES: effect size; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval of the difference. * denotes significant differences between soccer and
handball players (p<0.01)

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 3: Performance and reliability of the Illinois agility test and T-test in soccer and handball players.

IAT (s)
Handball Players
(n=92)
T-test (s)

ICC (3, 1)
0.96

(0.94 to 0.98)

0.87

0.89

<0.00

12.29

12.28

0.98

(0.96 to 0.98)

0.75

0.75

<0.00

18.44

18.41

0.88

0.87

12.34

12.29

0.81

p
0.82

TEM (s)
0.16

0.99

TEM%
0.89

MDC (s)
0.44

TE
D

T-test (s)

Trial 2
18.02

0.66

0.10

C
EP

Soccer Players
(n=95)

Trial 1
18.01

SWC (s)
0.17

MDC%
2.47

0.85

0.29

0.15

2.36

0.24

0.10

0.50

0.26

0.17

1.39

0.14

0.12

0.99

0.34

0.16

2.76

(0.98 to 0.99)
<0.00
0.98

(0.95 to 0.98)

Test
IAT (s)

0.83

<0.00

IAT: Illinois agility test; T-test: Agility T-test; ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient; TEM: Typical error of measurement; MDC: Minimal
detectable change; SWC: Smallest worthwhile change; s: second; p: Significance level.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 4: Correlations (with 95% confidence interval [95% CI]) between sprint test, jump tests, the Illinois agility test and T-test.
20-m
0.57
0.42 to 0.7
0.001
0.33

CMJ
-0.67
-0.77 to -0.54
0.001
0.45

SJ
-0.64
-0.74 to -0.50
0.001
0.41

CMJA
-0.61
-0.72 to -0.46
0.001
0.37

FJT
-0.71
-0.8 to -0.6
0.001
0.50

T-test

r
95% CI
P
R2

0.61
0.48 to 0.73
0.001
0.37

0.53
0.37 to 0.66
0.001
0.28

-0.58
-0.7 to -0.43
0.001
0.34

-0.53
-0.66 to -0.37
0.001
0.28

-0.61
-0.72 to -0.47
0.001
0.37

-0.61
(-0.73 to -0.47)
0.001
0.37

IAT

r
95% CI
P
R2

0.8
0.71 to 0.86
0.001
0.64

0.83
0.75 to 0.88
0.001
0.69

-0.58
-0.7 to -0.42
0.001
0.34

-0.47
-0.61 to -0.29
0.001
0.22

-0.6
-0.71 to -0.44
0.001
0,36

-0.72
-0.81 to -0.6
0.001
0.52

T-test

r
95% CI
P
R2

0.82
0.74 to 0.88
0.001
0.67

0.85
0.78 to 0.90
0.001
0.72

-0.69
-0.78 to -0.56
0.001
0.48

-0.60
-0.71 to -0.45
0.001
0.36

-0.7
-0.80 to -0.60
0.001
0.49

-0.80
(-0.86 to -0.70)
0.001
0.64

Handball
players
(n=92)

C
EP

(n=95)

TE
D

IAT

10-m
0.66
0.52 to 0.76
0.001
0.44

Soccer
players

r
95% CI
P
R2

T-test
0.66
0.53 to 0.76
0.001
0.44

0.85
0.78 to 0.90
0.001
0.72

Coefficients of determination

IAT: Illinois agility test; T-test: Agility T-test; r: Pearsons correlation coefficient; 10m: 10 meters sprint test; 20m: 20 meters sprint test; CMJ: Countermovement
jump; SJ: squat jump; CMJA: Countermovement jump aided arm; FJT: Five jump test. p: Significance level: CI: Confidence interval of the difference; R2:

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 5: Results of principal component factor analysis.

Handball Group

Factor Loadings

IAT
T-test
10-m sprint
20-m sprint
FJT
CMJ
SJ
CMJA
Eigen value
% of variance

-0.81
-0.75
-0.89
-0.78
0.85
0.93
0.89
0.91
5.77
72.18

Communalities
0.65
0.56
0.74
0.61
0.72
0.87
0.79
0.82

1
-0.81
-0.88
-0.93
-0.95
-0.91
-0.91
-0.84
-0.91
6.41
80.16

Communalities
0.66
0.78
0.86
0.91
0.83
0.82
0.71
0.84

C
EP

Factor Loadings

TE
D

Soccer Group

IAT: Illinois agility test; T-test: Agility T-test; CMJ: Countermovement jump; SJ: Squat
jump; CMJA: Countermovement jump aided arms; FJT: Five jump test.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

You might also like