JASC v22 Iss3 August2014

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/274192999
Broadening the view of agility: a scientiﬁc review of the literature
Article · July 2014
CITATIONS READS
17 3,980
5 authors, including:
Jay Dawes Ian Jeffreys

Oklahoma State University - Stillwater University of South Wales
130 PUBLICATIONS 715 CITATIONS 100 PUBLICATIONS 1,492 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Tania Spiteri Sophia Nimphius

University of Notre Dame Australia Edith Cowan University
48 PUBLICATIONS 851 CITATIONS 127 PUBLICATIONS 2,804 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Change of direction and agility tests: Challenging our current measures of performance View project
Cluster sets View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jay Dawes on 29 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning
Copyright The Journal of Australian Strength and conditioning (JASC) is a refereed research publication that covers all aspects of Strength and
Conditioning. The aim of the Journal is to provide members and readers with the most up to date information. Each issue of JASC includes Peer-
Reviewed articles, From the Field articles and Level 2 Submission articles, on a wide variety of strength and conditioning topics. Contributors are
invited to submit their manuscripts, articles, opinions and newsworthy information to the National Office for review to
info@strengthandconditioning.org. Papers accepted for publication become the copyright of the ASCA. This enables the ASCA as publisher to
administer copyright on behalf of the authors.
© Australian Strength and Conditioning Association
The Journal and the Individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the ASCA and the following terms and conditions apply
to their use:
Photocopying
Single copies for personal use may be made. All other copying including, multiple copying, copying for advertising or promotions, resale or delivery
must be authorised by the ASCA.
Author Guidelines
All information regarding the author guidelines is available from the ASCA website www.strengthandconditioning.org or at the end of this Journal.
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed in the articles and advertisements are the contributors own and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the ASCA or
the Editors.
"This publication and all programs run by the Australian Strength and Conditioning Association Incorporated (ASCA) provide information to a wide
range of strength and conditioning coaches and athletes from the recreational through to the elite training for the Olympic Games (Athletes). Many
of the exercises and training programs (Programs) outlined are inherently dangerous, and similar to competitive sport, from time to time Athletes will
injure themselves when performing these exercises. The risks that Athletes may be exposed to include, but are not limited to, physical exertion and
faulty equipment which may see Athletes injured or property damaged.
ASCA advises all Athletes to seek individualised professional advice from an ASCA accredited coach regarding any Strength and Conditioning
Program to fully understand the inherent risks of undertaking strength and conditioning exercises.
ASCA accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the use of the Programs; the Athlete must assume all risks associated with
undertaking the Programs.
Ethical Considerations
When reporting information from Experimental Research Studies, Case Studies or From the Field contributions involving subjects (eg Videos of
exercises etc.) it is important that such research and/or observations are conducted using sound ethical principles. In particular all such information
should be obtained from subjects who are clearly informed of the nature of the study, the risks and benefits of participation, and should be freely
permitted to withdraw their consent from participation in the study at any time if they desire. The study should be performed in a way that minimizes
any risk to the subject and the researcher should conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner throughout, respecting the rights and
human dignity of the subject(s). JASC will only publish contributions form authors that obtain their research information in accordance with these
ethical principles. Further information on this topic can be obtained from the "National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Human Research" produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council and available for free on their website
www.nhmrc.gov.au.
Editor-in-chief Editorial Panel Contact and Mailing Details

Dr Greg Wilson PhD Dr Harry Brennan, PhD Ph. – 0755026911
Dr Chris McLellan, PhD Fax – 0756657358
Associate Editors Dr Stuart Cormack, PhD
Dr Daniel Baker, PhD Dr Warren Young, PhD www.strengthandconditioning.org
Dr Stephen Bird, PhD Dr Sophia Nimphius, PhD info@strengthandconditioning.org
Dr Jeremy Sheppard, PhD
Dr Mike Newton, PhD PO Box 3586
Dr Mike McGuigan, PhD Helensvale Town Centre, QLD,
Dr Jay Dawes PhD Australia 4212
Dr Ian Jeffreys PhD
Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

1
Early Bird Pricing Ends

30 September!

2
Presenters
The ASCA is pleased to welcome the following dynamic and exciting presenters in 2014, from Australia and abroad,
who will be covering topics designed to place delegates at the cutting edge of strength and conditioning theory and
practice. Click on the presenter’s image to view their bio and further information about their topic and outline.
Keynote Presenters
Martin Buchheit PhD Tyler Goodale Shannon Turley John Noonan Iñigo Mujika PhD
Practical Presentations
Justin Keogh PhD Ian McKeown PhD Nick Poulos Jan Legg Emily Nolan
Jeremy Sheppard PhD Brett Jones Peter Culhane

Lecture Sessions
Warren Young PhD Stephen Bird PhD John Mitchell Sophia Nimphius PhD Tim Mosey
Steuart Livingstone Mike McGuigan PhD Michael Davie Stuart Cormack PhD
TSACA Sessions
Tim Doyle PhD Rob Orr PhD Mick Stierli Richard Gorey
Please note these presenters are subject to change.

3
Thanks to our 2014 Sponsors and Exhibitors!

Please click the Sponsor or Exhibitor logo to read more.
Conference Partner
Equipment Sponsor
Platinum Sponsor Gold Sponsor Silver Sponsor
Exhibitors
If you would like to enquire about Sponsor or Exhibitor opportunities for the 2014 ASCA International Conference on
Applied Strength and Conditioning please contact
lisa@strengthandconditioning.org

4

5
Broadening the View of Agility: A Scientific Review of the Literature.
Australian Strength & Conditioning Association
Jeremy M. Sheppard, J. Jay Dawes, Ian Jeffreys, Tania Spiteri & Sophia Nimphius
INTRODUCTION
Speed is a critical element for most sports. Consequently, speed training is an integral part of most strength and
conditioning programs. Traditionally, the emphasis for developing speed has tended to focus on training and conditioning
methods to develop acceleration and top speed while running in a straight line (14, 15, 30, 31, 34, 42, 61, 64, 67, 74,
87, 90, 92, 98, 99, 127, 129, 130). However, when seeking to develop speed for both field and court sports many
coaches and athletes have identified the importance of change of direction speed (CODS) by including drills aimed at
improving this unique physical attribute (44, 49, 75, 93, 120). This approach places a greater emphasis on improving
“game speed” by incorporating specific movement patterns during multi-directional running drills.
In general, many believe these types of drills are more contextually appropriate to game-like situations, in contrast to
utilizing only straight-line sprint training. Specifically, these drills highlight the importance of not only the ability to
accelerate but to be able to decelerate and reaccelerate towards an alternate direction. Although straight-line speed is
one of the underpinning factors that may ultimately may influence performance in CODS tests, straight line-sprint
performance does not appear to have a very strong association with one’s overall CODS performance (7, 22, 24, 119,
127). This can be attributed to the fact that CODS is a physical attribute underpinned by multiple factors as a result of
the unique physical requirements of braking as well as the technical requirements required in appropriate body
positioning as one changes direction. Furthermore, straight-line sprint training in and of itself does not appear to
necessarily bring about improvements in CODS (133).
Most field and court sports entail some straight-line sprinting, however, the majority of these sprints appear to be
performed over relatively short distances before some change of direction is required. Therefore, the ability to perform
repeated sprints with rapid changes of direction may ultimately be a better determinant of sport performance in field and
court sports. This has been evidenced through the utilization of time-motion analyses, validation of testing batteries for
both elite and non-elite performers, and coaching analyses for sports such as Australian Rules Football (29, 124), rugby
(33), field hockey (60), basketball (95) and soccer (88).
DEFINING AGILITY
Based on a review of the literature, there appears to be a great deal of ambiguity regarding a clear and consistent
definition of agility among the sports science community. Classically, agility has been defined as the ability to start, stop
and change direction rapidly (25, 69), or the ability to change direction rapidly and accurately (10, 58). Bloomfield et al.
(16) suggested that one of the major issues when attempting to define agility stems from the multitude of individual skills
involved in performing a task that is seen as an agile movement. This task becomes even more challenging when one
considers the specific contexts in which agility must be demonstrated, and the particular agility demands of specific
sports. Another challenge in generating a clear consensus on how agility should be defined lies within the wide-variety
of sub-disciplines within the area of sports science. For example, a biomechanist may define agility in relation to the
mechanical changes necessary to alter the bodies’ position to effectively execute a movement. A motor learning scientist
may view agility in terms of how an individual processes information from their environment, such as visual, auditory
and kinaesthetic cues, to make decisions about the requisite movements needed for a task. Strength and conditioning
coaches may define agility in terms of anatomical and physiological attributes, such as explosiveness and speed.
Therefore, the differences seen in how agility is defined may simply be due to a variety of factors including the author’s
personal and professional perspective, as well as their expertise and background. For this reason, a more
comprehensive definition of agility that recognizes the physical, cognitive, and specific context in which agility is
demonstrated is necessary to reduce any ambiguity that may surround this term.
According to Challendurai (23), while there is a general agreement on the importance of agility in many sports it has
been defined many ways. Challendurai (23) also noted that these definitions fail to recognize the perceptual and decision
making factors that are required in many sports. Interestingly, the author suggests that this ‘generality of agility’
classification may lead to misunderstandings of what constitutes an agility task. In fact, most research studies and
coaching articles that involve agility testing have seemingly applied the term agility to describe any sporting action that
involves a dynamic change in body position (51). The application of the term agility varies, but has included lunges (27),
a three yard run forward and back from a stationary start (57), climbing over and under a track and field hurdle (5),
sprinting forward, stopping, and returning after a one hundred and eighty degree turn (35), simple hopping movements
(18), but most often as a sprinting action that requires one or more changes of direction (44, 49, 73, 88, 89, 120).
Consequently, the author provides an outline for classifying agility so that tasks can be deemed as simple (no
uncertainty), temporal (no spatial uncertainty, but temporal uncertainty), spatial (no temporal uncertainty, but spatial
uncertainty), or universal (temporal and spatial uncertainty) (Table 1). This classification system provides a unique
framework for understanding the agility demands necessary in many sports.

6
Table 1 - Challendurai’s classifications of agility.
Agility
Classification Definition Example of Sporting Skill
Simple No spatial or temporal Gymnast’s floor routine: pre-planned activity, initiated when
uncertainty the athlete desires, with movements that the athlete has pre-
planned.
Temporal Temporal uncertainty, but Athletics Sprint Start: pre-planned activity, initiated in
movement is pre-planned (spatial response to a stimulus (starter’s pistol) where there is no
confidence) confidence as to exactly when the pistol will fire.
Spatial Spatial Volleyball or racquet sport service-receive: the umpire

uncertainty, but timing of determines a narrow window of time when the server must
movement is pre-planned serve the ball to the opponent. However, the receiver has no
(temporal confidence) confidence as to where the service will go.
Universal Spatial and temporal uncertainty Ice hockey or football sport: during offensive and defensive
play, the athletes do not have confidence as to when or where
the opposing player will change direction.
Source: Adapted from Challendurai (23), page 39.
Several authors have applied the term agility to a variety of tasks and testing batteries that do not recognize the
theoretical framework provided by Challendurai (23).
To further add confusion, recently the use of the term “quickness” has become popular amongst many coaches
(7,75,82,126). In most cases quickness appears to be used interchangeably for both agility and CODS. While the exact
definition of quickness is not entirely clear, this term is generally applied to settings where a rapid reaction to a stimulus
is involved (e.g. a boxer seeing an opening and executing a jab). The term has also been associated with “reactiveness”
and acceleration (75, 126), which implies a reliance on both cognitive and physical factors.
As noted previously, the term agility is commonly used to describe a whole-body change of direction while running
(44,86,89,119,131). However, this definition does not distinguish between tasks requiring movements predicated on
correctly responding to a stimulus and pre-planned movement paths and patterns. This distinction is essential, as
considerable physiological differences when attempting to react to planned versus un-planned events (12,13, 113).
Even further, the context in which the agility performance occurs, for example, offensive or defensive, can change the
speed of cognitive response by the athlete (112, 113). With this modification in response time, the time available for
muscle pre-activation may contribute to the physiological differences during planned versus un-planned events, and
further between different types of un-planned events (defensive or offensive conditions). This multi-faceted nature of
agility performance for field and team sports athletes has been outlined by Young et al. (132). In this article the authors
categorized ability performance into two broad categories: 1. Change of direction speed and 2. Perceptual and decision
making factors. Within these two areas, several sub-components were identified and categorized (Figure 1).

7
Agility
Perceptual & Change of

decision making direction speed
Straight Leg
Visual Pattern Knowledge AnthropometricVari
Anticipation Technique sprinting muscle
scanning recognition of situations ables
speed qualities
Foot Body Reactive

Adjustment Strength Power
placement lean & posture Strength
of strides
to accelerate
& decelerate
Figure 1 - Agility components.

Source: Adapted from Young, James, & Montgomery (132), p. 284.
After reviewing the literature it becomes apparent that when attempting to define agility several inconsistencies exist.
As previously stated, there is a trend among coaches, physical educators and sports scientists to apply the term agility
to any task that involves rapid multi-directional, or dynamic, movement. These broad classifications hinder our
understanding of agility and the unique nature of the skills that are employed by athletes in various settings and
situations. It is imperative that the term agility be further classified and used in the appropriate context; otherwise it will
be difficult to further training and research in this area. For example, agility performance comparisons that are based on
changing direction around stationary objects (22, 44, 60, 132, 133), should not be made with those that describe agility
as changing direction in response to a stimulus as the latter requires greater perceptual and decision making skills (100,
133).
Perhaps a more simplified definition of agility could be established by using an exclusive, rather than inclusive, criterion,
such as that proposed by Chellendurai (23) (Table 1). While Challendurai defined four levels within the context of agility,
it is the authors’ belief that a more unambiguous definition may allow more effective communications between coaches
and sports scientists in regards to the research, training, and testing of agility performance.
The cognitive components involved in agility tasks differ greatly when spatial or temporal uncertainty exists (e.g.:
reacting to a spike in volleyball, evading an opponent in football). To a large extent, the execution of many skills, such
as sprint starts that have traditionally been deemed as agility actually have an automated response (77). From a
cognitive perspective there is little uncertainty regarding the movement patterns that must be executed to be successful
as these are closed skill tasks (26). Open skills tasks require the athlete to respond to the sensory stimuli around them,
the response is not automated, and cannot be completely a pre-planned movement (26, 77).
For example, the auditory stimulus of the starter’s pistol signals a sprinter to initiate a response in order to explode out
of the blocks. However, this response is simple reaction, one that can be rehearsed and therefore pre-planned. While
some have referred to this as agility (23), it is not an open skill, which requires higher cognitive functions, thus, it would
be most appropriate to classify this as a simple reaction, rather than an agility task (100).
A new definition of agility as a rapid, whole body change of direction or speed in response to a stimulus has recently
been proposed as a more unambiguous definition to describe this complex motor task (100, 103, 104). This definition
acknowledges the perceptual and decision-making skills, as well as the physical characteristics required to be
successful in a sport or competitive situation (132).
This has also been defined in the literature as reactive agility (41). In order to be considered a ‘reactive’ agility task, the
movement should not only involve change in speed and direction, but must also be an open skilled task, involving a
reaction to a stimulus. Therefore, agility includes tasks that do not necessarily involve a direction change, as with
previous definitions (6, 23, 35, 96). For example, agility could describe a soccer player who must rapidly accelerate, or
decelerate, to evade an opponent, since this action is not pre-planned, the athlete’s response is predicated on the
movements of an opposing player (stimuli), and it is an open task. Thus, while a pre-planned change of direction has
been considered an agility movement, we would suggest this should be classified as ‘change of direction speed’ since
the physical aspects of agility is addressed but the cognitive and decision making factors are not considered.

8
Table 2 - An exclusive criterion for classification of agility.
Agility Non-agility Skills
Must involve whole-body movement, change of direction, Entirely pre-planned skills such as shot-put classified by
or speed their skill function rather than included as a type of agility
Involves a physical and cognitive component, such as Running with directional changes classified as change of
recognition of a stimulus, reaction, and execution of a direction speed (CODS) rather than agility or quickness
physical response that is not pre-planned.
Open Skill Closed Skills
PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH AGILITY
With a clear definition of agility, training programs that address both the physical and cognitive aspects of agility
performance can be better addressed. The overwhelming majority of the existing literature on agility performance has
attempted to describe the relationships between agility measurements, or training studies to improve agility, that have
used a timed task involving one or more changes of direction, previously identified as CODS (132).
Relationship between straight-sprint speed and change of direction speed

Research by Draper and Lancaster (35) reported significant but low correlation values (r=0.47) when comparing the
relationship between performance of the Illinois Agility Test and 20-metre sprint time. Similarly, Pauole et al. (83),
reported significant (p<0.05), but low to moderate correlations (r = 0.53) between a 40-yard sprint and a T-test for change
of direction speed (96). Further, when examining rugby league players, the relationship between straight-sprinting (SS)
and the 505 CODS test and modified 505 CODS test were moderate in the strength of their relationship (0.52-0.62) but
did show stronger relationships to the L run CODS tests (0.57-0.73) (48). Although many studies do show low
correlations between straight-sprint speed and CODS tests, there are additional studies involving female athletes that
have shown consistently, much higher relationships (r=0.55 – 0.96) (79, 121). The major difference may be in the more
homogenous nature of the female athletes in those studies or the nature of the CODS performed as demonstrated by
the varying relationships in the study by Gabbett and colleagues (48). The effect of the choice of CODS test on the
strength of relationship found between physical characteristics will be discussed.
Young et al. (131) also investigated the relationships between speed and change of direction speed, with a population
of Australian Rules Football (124) players. In this study, straight sprinting, sprinting while bouncing a football, sprinting
with three planned directional changes at 90 degree angles, sprinting with three planned directional changes at 90
degree angles while bouncing a football, and sprinting with three directional changes at 120 degree angles were
compared. As the researchers hypothesized there appeared to be a very low correlation between sprinting and CODS
tests. This indicates that sprinting, sprinting while bouncing a ball, and sprinting while changing direction were each
distinct and specific qualities.
Baker (7) investigated the performance differences of elite and developmental rugby league players using a similar
CODS test. It was discovered that both groups in this study had similar SS speed, but elite players performed
significantly better in tests that incorporated rapid changes of direction. Low correlations (r=0.33, p<0.05) have also
been reported with soccer players (22) when comparing CODS test performance and SS test performance. Based on
results similar to those presented by Baker (7), Draper and Lancaster (35), Paoule et al. (83), and Young et al. (131),
found SS testing did not appear to relate strongly to sprinting with CODS testing. Further, and perhaps most importantly,
SS training has not been shown to improve performance in sprints with changes of direction (133). In this training study
comparing sprint training with CODS performance, no significant improvements were reported in CODS performance
after a chronic period of sprint training, except with the CODS test that involved only a very minimal directional change.
The CODS tests that involved a larger number and more dynamic directional change were not improved upon by the
SS training intervention. The authors noted that the CODS test that was most similar to SS (due to a minimal direction
change involved) allowed the participants to adopt a similar running style to SS, while the more complex CODS tasks
(involving a larger number and more dynamic direction change) forced the participants to adopt a different running
technique. This may suggest that differences between CODS test performances may be somewhat dependent on
technique differences required by the demands of the test.
If sprinting, and sprinting with directional changes, were strongly related, and in effect, if speed had a causal relationship
with CODS, this sprint training intervention would not only have improved SS speed, but also CODS. The results
presented by Young et al. (133) suggest that the more changes of direction, the less the transfer from SS training to

9
CODS tests. It may also be postulated, that as a CODS test increases the amount of straight-line running required to
complete the test, it is less likely to be measuring actual COD ability and instead by nature of test design, still measuring
a greater percentage of SS ability (108). Also, CODS training had limited transfer to straight sprinting speed, providing
clear evidence for the specificity of speed and CODS training. It could be hypothesized that SS training would contribute
even less to performance in agility tests that require a decision-making component, as the decision-making component
would account for greater variability in performance, and this would not be trained through SS training.
In addition, sprinting while performing a complex skill specific to a sport setting further increases the difference between
closed skill sprinting and sprints that occur in the sporting context (111). This increase in complexity also affects an
athlete’s performance, as evidenced by weak relationships between sprinting abilities, and the ability to perform complex
tasks such as dribbling a basketball (119) or bouncing a football while sprinting (131).
Leg strength qualities and change of direction speed

This review will examine literature that related measures of muscular strength, power, and reactive strength with CODS.
Muscular strength measures have used loaded squat movements (54, 59, 71, 79-81, 85, 125, 131) as well as an
isokinetic squat . Power measures of the lower extremity have generally utilized counter-movement vertical jumps (CMJ)
(9, 32, 78, 84, 121, 122, 125, 131) and continuous vertical jumps (32). Reactive strength, a measure of the ability to
rapidly change from an eccentric to concentric action, has been measured using a depth jump from various drop heights
(32,131, 132).
Change of direction speed and leg muscle strength and power

Young et al. (131) found low (p=0.01) and non-significant correlations between a 20- metre sprint with three, 90 degree
directional changes and a CMJ loaded with an additional 50% of the participant’s body weight. As the load was
considered to be relatively high for a CMJ, the authors deemed this protocol to be a strength measure rather than a
power measure. The authors (131) also found low correlations (r=-0.10) between an unloaded CMJ and the 20-metre
CODS test. Similarly, Djevalikian (32) reported a low (r=-0.15) and non-significant correlation between power (15 second
vertical jump performance) and a Boomerang run involving seven directional changes.
Webb and Lander (122) used a vertical jump and a standing broad jump in comparison to an L-run CODS test. Again,
low and non-significant correlations were reported for both the standing broad jump (r=-0.35) and the vertical jump (r=-
0.19) in relationship with the L-run (Figure 5) for CODS. Young et al. (132) correlated an 8-metre sprint with directional
changes with an isokinetic squat for power set at 40 degrees per second. A low (r=0.34) and non-significant relationship
was reported between the two variables.
In contrast, Negrete and Brophy (78) reported moderate and significant correlations (r=-0.60, p<0.05) between single
leg isokinetic squat strength and a complex, multi-directional COD task. However, this study involved approximately
equal numbers of males and female participants. Thus, it is possible that the combining of these two groups (males and
females) resulted in a bimodal distribution, and that this alone may have inflated the correlation between the variables.
More insightful results could have been calculated within groups of males and females, so as to avoid the potential
gender bias inflating the correlation value. However, it cannot be determined by the publication, as to whether a gender
bias was present. Nonetheless, it has been noted in several articles where the relationship between CMJ performance
and a measure of CODS were performed on solely female athletes that the relationships seem to be much higher (r= -
0.26 – -0.71) (9, 32, 79, 84, 121, 125). As previously mentioned, this could also be due to the a more homogenous
group in the female athletes not allowing for proper statistical spread of the athletes or more plainly stated, a large
enough variety of female athletes with differing physical qualities.
Another explanation for the differences observed between the research results of all of the previously mentioned
research (9, 32, 78, 79, 85, 121, 122, 125, 131) is the nature of the task used to evaluate CODS. To provide an example,
we consider the research by Negrete and Brophy (78) that used a complex multi-directional task over short distances,
whereas the other researchers used sprint tests that involved changes of direction while sprinting. It could be that the
CODS task adopted by some researchers involved a greater amount of variability in acceleration and deceleration prior
to changing direction, as well as, general technique differences when compared with the shorter distances used by
Negrete and Brophy (78) . This variability of running speed and technique in the sprint or COD tasks could have
accounted for the weaker relationship with strength and power qualities, whereas with a test of low variability in
technique and less distance covered, there may simply be less physical and technical factors to account for
performance; resulting in a stronger relationship with strength qualities.
It would appear that strength and power measures may have an influence on change of direction speed (78), but this
relationship may only be observable when comparing tasks involving CODS over short distances. One might then infer
that for sports such as badminton, or for field sport players required to change direction over short distances (eg: soccer
goalkeeping), strength and power measures may have a stronger relationship to CODS when compared to athletes who
perform directional changes with higher speeds over longer distances (eg: a soccer forward). However, at this time this
is not entirely clear. Further research involving training studies on the effect of strength and power training on various
measures of CODS (addressing both sprinting and directional changes as well as short-distance directional changes)
may increase our understanding of the relationship of strength and power with CODS.

10
Despite a previous review (21) suggesting that strength and power development in the vertical plane does not improve
or transfer to CODS, several articles included in that review and since that review suggest otherwise (59, 80, 118). The
difference in conclusion may be due to the fact that the review by Brughelli and colleagues (21) made suggestions
without actually calculating the transfer of training effect in the training studies thereby not truly assessing the effect of
improving strength on CODS.
Increasing examples of this type of longitudinal research in athletes has shown promise when one calculates the transfer
of training effect from changes in strength to changes in CODS. Specifically, research involving male only (59, 118)
and female only (80) athletes have both shown that longitudinal changes in relative squat strength result in moderate to
very large transfer of training effects (effect size = -0.52 to -2.731). Although there are other studies that have presented
longitudinal research as a result of training interventions, these studies have either used non-athletes (71) or have not
presented relative strength results (43, 54, 55) therefore not presenting the data in a format that would allow for an
appropriate evaluation (since CODS is a physical quality performed with one’s own body weight). Thus, with appropriate
longitudinal interventions, there does seem to be a positive transfer of training effect from changes in strength to changes
in CODS. More research to understand the effect of various periodization strategies or volumes of loading that may
affect the magnitude of this change should be investigated.
Relationship between bi-lateral reactive strength and change of direction speed

Djevalikian (32) investigated the relationship between reactive strength and CODS. A statistically significant correlation
(r=0.42, p<0.05) was reported between the depth jump measure of reactive strength and the boomerang CODS task.
However, Young et al. (131) found low (r=0.36) and non-significant correlations between a drop jump and a 20-metre
sprint with 3 directional changes. Similarly, Young et al. (132) reported non-significant correlations (r=-0.47) between
depth jumps and sprints with direction changes. Young et al. (132) suggested that, due to its stretch-shortening cycle
(24) involvement, reactive strength may have been a better predictor, or at least have a stronger relationship, with
CODS.
Unilateral muscle strength and power qualities and change of direction speed
Djevalikian (32) investigated the possible correlation that may exist between concentric muscle power strength
imbalances between the right and left leg, with changes of direction while driving off the weaker leg. In other words, the
researcher wanted to determine if a subject with a weaker left leg would move slower to the right due to the potentially
weaker push off action of the left leg? The results suggested that there was no significant relationship with concentric
muscle power and change of direction speed.
However, Young, et al. (132) demonstrated that lower-extremity muscle imbalances were related to change of direction
speed. Subjects were found to be significantly slower in changing direction off the weaker leg, when comparisons were
made using a unilateral drop jump test for reactive strength, rather than using a concentric power assessment. The
authors suggested that this might be due to the similar push off action when comparing a unilateral drop jump (reactive
strength movement) and that of the dynamic single leg push off in changing direction while sprinting.
Interestingly, when investigating the strength of the relationship between bilateral strength and power, little evidence
supported a strong relationship (32,122,131,132). Further, investigations into unilateral concentric power did not result
in strong correlations (32, 132). However, when investigating unilateral reactive strength, perhaps more specific to the
reactive push-off action involved in changing direction, results indicated a stronger relationship (132).
Based on research findings (8,30,131,134), it is clear that strength and sprinting are related. However, it appears that
typical concentric power measures are not as strong predictors of CODS performance (32, 78, 131, 132), but that
unilateral reactive strength imbalances may be a predictor of imbalances in performance of change of direction sprints
off the stronger and weaker leg (132). Recent research investigating just the aspect of CODS related to the ability to
accelerate after the plant phase of a COD step (therefore isolating COD ability) revealed that significantly stronger
individuals as measured by a unilateral isometric squat had significantly higher velocities exiting a COD step (108).
Future research should focus on an examination into the effects of training methods known to reduce unilateral reactive
strength muscle imbalance (62, 63) and its effect on agility performance. However, from a practical standpoint the
strength and conditioning professional should seek to identify and reduce these imbalances whenever possible in order
to potentially enhance agility performance and minimize potential injury.
Anthropometrics and change of direction speed

Very little research has attempted to correlate anthropometric measures and CODS performance. Theoretically, factors
such as body fat and body segment lengths may contribute to agility performance. When comparing two athletes of
equal total body mass, a fatter athlete will have less lean mass to contribute to the speed requirements of agility
performance (i.e.: force production capabilities). In addition, athletes with large body fat percentages have a greater
inertia, thereby requiring greater force production, to produce a given change in velocity or direction (37). Test batteries
have revealed that athletes in sports such as rugby and soccer who perform better on CODS tests, tend to also have
lower body-fat (88, 89). However, direct correlations between CODS and body-fat were not performed in the
aforementioned studies. A rare study that did involve correlations of body-fat and CODS in rugby players found that the
two variables were not significantly or strongly related (r=0.21) (122). Based on the results of these studies, it appears

11
that we cannot confidently conclude that lower body-fat levels are related to high speed in changing direction. Although
there is a strong theoretical basis for the importance of lower body-fat in maximizing CODS, the relationship between
these two variables is unclear. However, for those athletes with body fat levels that exceed the recommendations of
their respective sports striving to favourably alter their body composition may help improve their power-to-weight ratio
and enhance their speed potential. For example, an 80kg athlete at 16% body fat would have a greater potential for a
higher power-to-weight ratio than an athlete weighing the same amount with a higher body fat percentage as the first
athlete would have greater lean mass that may actively contribute to force production.
Other factors that could potentially be related to CODS performance are height, relative limb lengths, and the height of
the athlete’s centre of gravity (COG). Some research (27) has suggested that limb length has a relationship with certain
sporting tasks, such as lunges typical of directional changes in tennis. However, comprehensive investigations into
anthropometric factors and CODS have not been performed.
A person with a lower COG may conceivably be able to apply greater force horizontally, which may aid in the production
of faster CODS. Although such a relationship has not been investigated with respect to height of an athlete, research
has shown that having a lower relative COG is related to higher velocity lateral CODS (105). While the strength and
conditioning coach may have little impact on these variables, other than the coaching more related to changes in body
position or technique, this information may be valuable from an athletic profiling perspective.
Technique
Running technique has been suggested to play a key role in performance of sprints with directional changes (17, 93).
In particular, utilizing a forward lean and low COG would appear essential in optimising acceleration and deceleration,
as well as increasing stability. The stability afforded by a low COG, as opposed to the upright stance and high COG of
track and field sprinters (46, 65), would allow for more rapid changes of direction. In order to change direction at higher
speeds, athletes must first decelerate and lower their COG (93). In other words, Sayers (93) suggested that because
sprinting with a high COG (as is seen in track and field technique) would require postural adjustments (lowering of the
COG and shortening stride lengths) and deceleration prior to changing direction, athletes in sports that require frequent
changes of direction should run with a lower COG, greater forward lean, and perhaps shorter stride lengths in
comparison to competitive sprinters. However, it could also be argued that the type of running deployed should reflect
the situation in a game, and while the lower COG, and shorter strides are suitable for situations where changes of
direction or physical contact are likely, once an athlete reaches the open field the ability to lengthen strides and run with
a higher COG would be advantageous.
When reviewing the opinions proposed by Sayers (93), it becomes apparent that there is a greater need for specificity
between training for sprinting, and training for speed and agility with sports that require changes of direction, due to the
apparent biomechanical differences. However, the differences between COD during sport and sprinting biomechanics
have not been quantifiably investigated, and this would seem an important investigation to aid in the understanding of
the differences between the sprinting postures of field-sports and that of track and field sprinting.
However, the posture and biomechanics of straight-sprinting during the acceleration phase for track and field sprinters
may share some common themes with the suggestions proposed by Sayers in regards to field-sport running postures
(93). Specifically, pronounced forward lean and low COG is an integral part of acceleration in sprinting for track and field
(42, 68), and these biomechanical considerations are quite similar to field-sports (93). The obvious exception would be
that in track and field, sprinters are taught to keep their visual focus low (looking downward) for a portion of the
acceleration phase, while in field-sports, visual scanning of the playing field is continuous.
In addition, sprinters may purposefully accelerate under greater control, in that they do not necessarily aim to achieve
top speed as quickly as possible, but may favour a more controlled acceleration (38). In most field-sports, sprints are
generally short and involve varying distances. Athletes in these sports will accelerate as much as possible in the shortest
period of time. In the case of a 100-metre sprint, and especially with a 200-metre sprint, the sprinter may control
acceleration (i.e. for the majority of the race), doing so to reach top speed late in the race, and thereby minimize a drop
off in speed near the completion of the race. Although it has been commonly accepted that elite sprinters accelerate for
longer periods simply because they also have higher top speeds that take longer to reach (42), tactics for track and field
sprinting often involve controlling acceleration so that top speed is reached at an optimal time for overall race
performance. The difference seen between track and field sprinting and sprinting in other sports is that the track and
field sprinting event can be planned and strategy can play a role. With sports such as football codes or other field-sports,
short sprints occur throughout the game, and cannot be pre-planned.
In an investigation into knee-joint loads comparing un-planned and planned COD, specific approach-speed technique
differences were reported (12, 13). When subjects were required to react to a light stimulus to change direction, the
loads on the knee were increased, which was thought to be related to a posture imposed by the time-stress in reacting
to the stimulus and changing direction. This implies that when comparing planned changes of direction and unplanned
changes of direction, such as those found in many sports, postural techniques differ as does joint loading. Further, when
subjects are presented with a defender, there are changes in GRF and joint kinematics by where greater GRF and larger
amount of flexion angles are observed when a defender is placed in front of an athlete during a COD (72). Differences

12
in body position have also been observed between offensive and defensive agility, with greater GRF and impulse applied
during the movement were a faster response to the human stimulus was present (112). This indicates that while
technique differs between pre-planned and defensive agility movements, differences in lower body biomechanics are
also evident between an offensive and defensive agility movement, and appear to be a direct result of an athlete’s
perceptual-cognitive ability (112).
Specific, quantitative analysis of techniques in sprints for field sports, and sprints involving CODS performance are non-
existent. Future research that quantifies stride length and biomechanical differences between high and low achievers in
sprints with directional changes would be advantageous. However, the reasons for difficulty and lack of research
identifying the “technique” involved in changing direction is the multitude of situations, implements and body dimensions
that combine to modify what “ technique” is required. With such a large number of degrees of freedom, research has at
least begun to narrow general “body positions” or kinematic aspects that relate to faster lateral CODS such as low COG,
high hip extension velocity and lower hip-abduction velocity (105) and larger knee flexion and hip abduction angles
during 45 degree CODS movements (108).
TESTING AGILITY
The vast majority of tests purported to evaluate agility are actually tests for CODS, as acknowledged by Ellis et al. (36).
The basic movement patterns of many team sports require the player to perform sudden changes in body direction in
combination with rapid movement of limbs. The whole body movement pattern can be in the horizontal plane, as when
the player is dodging, or in the vertical plane, as when a player is jumping or leaping (Draper and Lancaster, 1985). The
ability of the player to use these manoeuvres successfully in the actual game will depend on other factors such as visual
processing, timing, reaction time, perception, and anticipation. Although all these factors combined are reflected in the
player’s on-field ‘agility’, the purpose of most agility tests is simply to measure the ability to rapidly change body direction
and position in the horizontal plane.(Ellis et al. (36). p. 132).
As noted in the section regarding definitions of agility, and as noted by Ellis et al. (36), comprehensive agility testing
may be difficult due to the multiple factors involved in agility performance. The major difficulty clearly lies in the ability to
measure the performance of all factors involved in agility, while retaining the consistency required for reliable and valid
testing measures. For the most part, sports scientists and strength and conditioning coaches have resigned to using
tests that involve the testing of physical factors such as CODS, or cognitive tests that involve measuring reaction time
or visual scanning and recognition abilities. Tests that evaluate performance of both the cognitive and physical factors
have gained popularity over the past decade and have been shown to be reliable and valid (41, 45, 48, 94, 97, 101,
104, 109, 113, 128).
Tests of Change of Direction Speed (CODS)

When Draper and Lancaster (35) reviewed agility literature, they questioned whether a valid measure of agility existed
and reported that no studies could be found to address this question. These researchers set out to develop a reliable
and valid test for agility in terms of a single change of horizontal direction in the dynamic state.
The Illinois agility test (28, 51), a 20-metre sprint, the Up and Back test (UAB), and the 505 test were examined to
compare their two new tests (UAB and 505) with the Illinois test and 20-metre sprint. At the time, the Illinois test (Figure
2) was considered a standard and universal test of agility. The researchers concluded that the 505 test was the most
valid test of agility examined, because of its high correlation with the measures of acceleration (20-metre sprint). The
theory was proposed that acceleration must be a key component of agility, as changing direction relies on deceleration
and then acceleration. However, the authors do not substantiate this claim further, other than to outline the apparent
theoretical connection.

13
3.66 Metres
9.15 metres
Start Finish
Figure 2 - Illinois agility test.
Source: Adapted from Cureton, 1951, p. 68.
Draper and Lancaster (35) did not consider any decision-making factors in their test design of agility. Both the 505 and
the UAB tests involved pre-planned movements. Therefore, these tests do not test agility in general, but are more likely
testing the physical components more appropriately termed change of direction speed (CODS).
When analysing the validity of the 505 test (35) (Figure 3), it seems appropriate that this test be used for sports where
180 degree change in direction occurs or to highlight a COD off each leg, which may be useful in assessing potential
imbalances in changing direction off either leg. In the 505 test, the athlete sprints forward 10 metres (run-up) through a
timing gate (timing starts) to a line 5 metres ahead. The athlete then pivots 180 degrees, before returning through the
timing gate (stopping the timing). The design of this test would conceivably be appropriate for cricket batsmen, as this
is quite similar to the movement patterns of the batsmen running to the wickets. However, this test has been utilized to
assess CODS for other sports as well, such as netball (50), softball, (79, 80), rugby league (48) and ARF (56). The
reason for its use across a broad spectrum of sports may be that it is a very physically demanding COD test that may
be able to differentiate higher and lower performers as it requires a high entry velocity and an extreme change of
direction involving a full deceleration and then subsequent re-acceleration. This 180-degree change of direction,
although seemingly rare, is performed in a multitude of sports when one considers evading an opponent, a “run down”
as in baseball and softball, running a pattern as in American football or performing a “back door cut” as in basketball or
soccer.
Figure 3 - The 505 test of agility.

Source: Adapted from Draper and Lancaster, 1985, p. 16.

14
In comparison, some sports develop specific tests based on the their dimensions, such as the Baseball Agility test (51).
This test also involves planned changes of direction, utilizing the distances and angles of a baseball diamond. As this
is precisely what is required of base running for the sport, the test obviously has face validity. The Baseball Agility test
involves planned movements, and is thereby better classified as a CODS test. Furthermore, its application to sports
other than baseball may be questionable.
In North America, the T-test (83, 96) is generally accepted as a standard test of agility (Figure 4). In order to perform
this test the athlete is required to run forward 10 metres (often yards), shuffle left 5 metres (or yards) then shuffles 10
metres (or yards) to the right. The athletes must then shuffle back 5 metres then backpedal to the starting line. Since
the T-Test has no reactive component involved, and all movements can be pre-planned it is evident that this test should
be used to assess CODS rather than agility. Further, considering the number of changes in direction and different types
of movement patterns, this test may have a large component of movement skill required in comparison to something
requiring just a short, singular COD such as with the 505 CODS test.
Figure 4 - The T-test.

Source: Adapted from Semenick, (96), p. 37.
Similarly, Webb and Lander (122) proposed a fitness testing battery for high school and college rugby union teams. To
test agility, the authors suggested an “L-run” test (Figure 5), which has been subsequently used with rugby league (73).
In this pre-planned running test, the player runs 5 metres before turning 90 degrees to the left, runs 5 metres, and makes
a full 180 degree turn around a cone, returning back to the original cone, making another 90 degree turn, before returning
to the start position. This test is similar to the “cone drill” or “L-run” by American football athletes, performed at their
combine but with distances of five yards between each cone.
Figure 5 - L-run for rugby (completed in metres) or American football (completed in yards).
Source: Adapted from Webb and Lander, (122), p. 45.
Thissen-Milder and Mayhew (117) also incorporated a planned agility test in a fitness testing battery, in this instance for
the sport of volleyball. This test, the Schall Volleyball Agility, is identified as being introduced by Schall in an unpublished
report at Graceland College. The timed test involves five planned changes of direction around cone obstacles placed
on a volleyball court.
When examining the tests used by Draper and Lancaster (35), Webb and Lander (122), and Thiseen-Milder and Mayhew
(117), as well as zig-zag runs used by Baker (7), Young et al. (131, 132) as well as countless variations not mentioned
in this review, each share a common theme. None of these tests present a stimulus in which the individual must react,
thus none of these tests challenge an individual’s cognitive or decision making skills. Therefore, by a more exclusive
definition of agility, these tests do not actually test agility, and are more appropriately termed CODS tests, and in fact all
appear to be valid methods to assess CODS. Additionally, as no stimulus is present within these tests the only aim of

15
the test is to minimise the time spent in completing the test. In this way movements such as shuffling and backpedalling
are performed with the sole aim of maximising change of direction speed. In reality, during sports performance many of
these movements are performed quite differently, with the main aim being to maintain a position of control from where
a specific-sports action can be performed. Again, the performance of the test may not reflect the movement requirements
during a game, and thus may not differentiate between players of varying performance levels.
Not only does this present questions as to our current ability to measure the perceptual and decision making factors
involved in changing direction in most sports, it also is unlikely to mimic, accurately the physiological requirements during
an agility manoeuvre during sport. This was highlighted previously in discussions indicating that both kinematics and
kinetics are affected by the reaction to a stimulus (12) or response to a defender (72, 112). In other words, planned
movements may not only be distinct from reactive agility movements in that they do not require perceptual and decision
making factors, but also in that they have distinct force characteristics and impose different demands on the joints and
musculoskeletal system.
In fact, the authors of the aforementioned study suggest (12) that their findings indicate a great need for specificity in
training and testing the athlete for unplanned movements, if they are required in the sport. Although these authors placed
an emphasis on injury prevention for the purposes of their study, their findings also support the need for greater
specificity in performance-related testing and training as well. In addition to increasing performance through more
specific preparation, a testing and training emphasis on greater diagnostic and performance abilities in unplanned
movements may decrease injury, and better prepare athletes for the force demands of unplanned changes of direction
and velocity.
Cognitive considerations in testing agility

Challadurai et al. (23) addressed reactive considerations in an investigation where the authors outlined the creation of
an apparatus that would trigger a display to provide a stimulus from which the athlete responded. The participant
triggered the activator switch, and then would be exposed to one of several different variations in the illumination of one
of the light bulbs on the light display. Upon the display of the light stimulus the participants would move as quickly as
possible off the reaction mat, sprint to the illuminated bulb, press a switch located beneath the bulb (which would then
turn the bulb off). Once the switch was pressed the individuals returned to the start area and pressed the activator switch
to stop timing. The measure taken from this apparatus included total time of the task, forward time (time from leaving
the mat to touching the switch below the bulb), and return time (time taken to return from the bulb switch to the mat).
Based on the classifications offered by Challendurai (23), this apparatus would be testing universal agility, as the timing
of the stimulus is uncertain, and there is limited confidence in where the participant is to move in response (indicating
both spatial and temporal uncertainty).
Other than being limited by the lack of availability of this apparatus (it was never commercially available for use), it also
involves a generic, and two-dimensional stimulus. Although this test was a significant step towards including a stimulus
in agility testing, by responding to a light bulb there is no possibility for inclusion of sport-specific perceptual and decision-
making components, such as recognition of movement patterns. For this reason, although not investigated, the
apparatus is unlikely to be valid in discriminating between elite and non-elite performers in sport, as it is not sport
specific. To discriminate between players of varying expertise in a sport, evidence suggests that the stimulus needs to
be highly sport-specific (52).
Hertel et al. (53) attempted to establish the reliability of a commercially available testing apparatus for agility
performance, the Cybex Reactor (Cybex Corp., Ronkonkoma, NY). The testing device consists of 14 target sensors on
the floor of the training facility. These sensors are inter-faced with a small video monitor and a computer terminal. The
computer contains several pre-programmed scenarios that require the participant to react to the video prompts on the
monitor, and move to the corresponding target on the floor, before being given the next stimulus. The device involves
both spatial and temporal uncertainty (open skill), and therefore is a test of agility. However, the generic stimulus of the
light targets would not account for individual differences that may occur if a sport-specific stimulus was used.
Another concern with the Cybex Reactor is the nature by which the athlete moved to the target. If a coach were to utilize
the Reactor with developmental athletes, whose movement patterns are likely still subject to training development, the
Reactor may promote technical errors in movement. This has been discussed in recent research indicating the
breakdown of lower body biomechanics and movement control as the perceptual-cognitive demands of the task increase
(112). The targets are placed on the ground and developmental athletes would likely move to the targets without respect
for the appropriate movement pattern inherent to their sport. In order to ensure that the athlete indeed makes contact
with the target on the floor, they may be inclined to look down to the target, a key technical error in field and court sports
that require change of direction in response to a visual stimulus that is presented in front of them.
As noted previously, Besier and colleagues (12) utilised a straightforward timing system where an examination was
conducted to compare planned and un-planned change of direction tasks. The researchers examined the influence of
planned movements in comparison to unplanned movements on knee joint loading during straight-line running and
running with a COD.

16
Interestingly, the researchers created a target board that displayed a light stimulus to indicate various possible direction
changes for the athlete (Figure 6). This stimulus was triggered in response to the athlete’s movement, and the entire
apparatus was inter-faced with speed timing gates. Although this test design seems ideal for the purposes of the
aforementioned investigation, it did not involve timing of the entire agility task. As indicated in Figure 6, the timing lights
were set up so that the approach speed just prior to the decision-making moment could be measured. The actual time
to complete the change of direction task in response to the stimulus was not measured.
Target board displaying

directional arrow stimulus
A B
C D
10 metres
Figure 6 - Unanticipated conditions task.

Source: Adapted from Besier and colleagues (12), p. 1177.
As outlined in the cognitive section of this literature review, sport psychology research supports the theory that the
anticipatory cues of high-performance athletes are directly linked to specific cues displayed by opponents within their
sport (2, 4, 40). Therefore, tests that involve generic cues will likely be limited in their ability to distinguish between elite
performers and non-elite performers in a sport that requires a reaction to highly specific stimuli.
Farrow and Young (41) developed a more comprehensive agility testing protocol that addressed the concern for sport-
specific movement patterns (Figure 7). This method used pre-recorded video of various movements in netball as the
stimulus for the participant. The participant triggered the playing of the video when the athlete’s body passed through a
timing gate. The athlete was then required to utilize perceptual and decision making skill components to move either left
or right in response to the video stimulus. The trial was complete when the athlete’s body passed through the timing
beam on the left or right side of the testing area. A quantifiable decision-making analysis was made possible with the
use of high-speed video cameras, which allowed the investigators to determine response-time of the participants.
Screen with life

5 size image
m
Timing lights trigger footage of netball

attacker passing a ball
Figure 7 - AIS reactive agility test for netball (41).
There are significant limitations in the application of this testing protocol to training centres and teams that do not have
access to high speed cameras and the advanced multimedia equipment required to accurately record, time, and display
the images needed for the athlete’s stimulus presentation. At this point in time, the technology has only been applied to
the sport of netball, and a different set of video clips would be required for any other sport. In addition, although the
stimulus was displayed as a life-sized image, it was presented in a two-dimensional format, which may limit the amount
and specificity of cues available from which the athlete is to react (2,4,123).

17
The Reactive Agility Test (RAT) (104) was adapted from the work of Farrow and colleagues (41), as a general ‘defensive
agility’ test. It can be performed in a field setting using timing lights. In the studies conducted by Sheppard et al. (101,
104) and Gabbett et al. (46, 48), the athlete began on the marked line, as illustrated in Figure 8. Timing gates were
placed 5 metres to the left and right and 2 metres forward of the start line. Therefore, the timing gates were placed 10
metres from each other.
When conducting this assessment the tester stood behind a set of timing gates opposite the participants, facing them.
Each trial involved the tester initiating the movement, and thereby beginning the timing. The athlete reacted to the
movements of the tester by moving forward, then to the left or right in response, and in the same direction as, the left or
right movement of the tester. The timing stopped when the athlete triggered the timing beam on either side.
2 metres
are 3 meters apart

Both timing gates
Tester starts here on a
timing mat
Figure 8 - The reactive agility test (RAT).
The tester displayed one of four possible scenarios for the athlete to react to; however the athlete’s did not explicitly
know this. The four possible scenarios all involved steps of approximately one-half metre, and were presented in a
random order that was different for each athlete:
Step forward with right foot and change direction to the left.
Step forward with the left foot and change direction to the right.
Step forward with the right foot, then left, and change direction to the right.
Step forward with the left foot, then right, and change direction to the left.
There was an equal number of each scenario presented for each participant. The test protocol involved a randomized
presentation of 4 different cues, for a total of 8 trials. These cues created varying demands on the participants (as in a
game setting), resulting in inter-trial variability. For this reason, the recorded score used was the mean of all trials (8),
which was an average of all trials to the left (4) and to the right (4).
The participants sprinted forward prior to any change of direction, in reaction to the forward movement of the tester. The
participant was instructed to recognize the cues as soon as possible (essentially while moving forward), and react by
changing direction and sprinting through the gates on the left or right in response to complete the test. The participants
were instructed to emphasize accuracy (decision-making accuracy) and speed of movement.
Recently a modification of the RAT was made to examine differences between an offensive and defensive agility
movement (109, 112, 113). In its current form the RAT required participants to respond in the same direction as the
human stimulus, completed a defensive change in direction, as the stimulus and response are occurring spatially in the
same direction (110). While this movement pattern reflects the defensive nature of team sports, athletes are often
required to evade opponents to progress up the field or court to enable scoring opportunities. Further, in some sports
like American Football (NFL), athletes are categorised into either offensive or defensive roles, which suggests that
offensive and defensive agility are two distinct qualities, and should therefore be examined separately. The modified
RAT involved the same human stimulus movement patterns as the RAT, however involved a longer initial sprint of 7
meters, and an additional eight trials requiring the participants to move in the opposite direction (offensive) to the human
stimulus. This modified RAT was found to be highly reliable in both men and women athletes (109, 113)
In both ARF (104) and rugby league (48), the RAT was found to be highly reliable, and valid in discriminating between
higher and lower performers. In addition, results of a case study suggest that the RAT may be able to track and detect

18
training-induced changes in agility performance (101). However, the RAT is somewhat limiting in that it does not involve
high speed prior to the change of direction, as the athletes generally only take a few steps prior to their decision-making
(and subsequent change of direction). As such, it may only reflect agility performance in ‘traffic’ situations, where both
the offensive and defensive players are moving at relatively slow speeds. However, this limitation has been addressed
within the modified RAT, involving a longer entry distance and therefore higher entry velocity prior to the COD
movement, replicating a high-speed directional change. Furthermore, the RAT is a ‘pursuant’ test only, in that the athlete
being tested is reacting in a manner that is similar to defensive (i.e. pursuant) roles, and is likely relevant to field or court
running sports only.
Based on a review of the current paradigm of agility testing, there is a great need for clearly establishing awareness
within the sporting community as to what characteristics are actually being assessed with the existing tests intended to
be for agility. Although CODS tests may be valid in certain circumstances, the generalization involved in simply
classifying all tests involving changes of direction, as agility tests, is misleading.
The purpose of testing is to identify talents and limitations. Agility is an open skill, and therefore, testing agility with
closed skill tests only, such as CODS tests, has certain limitations as a predictor of on field agility performance. If the
coach is unable to differentiate between a CODS test, or general agility, and a reactive agility test, than their ability to
prescribe appropriate training methods to improve performance is hindered. In other words, if it is unclear as to whether
the athlete has a physical deficit or has a difficulty with perceptual and decision making skills selecting the most effective
drills and training methods to address these deficits cannot be accomplished.
AGILITY IN TEAM SPORT SETTINGS
Several authors have outlined the need for speed and agility training with team sport athletes (49,93,120,133). The
purpose of this section will be to identify previous research investigations that have involved physical performance
testing and training, including CODS tests, in an attempt to distinguish players of differing ability.
Reilly et al. (88) proposed a multi-disciplinary approach to talent identification in soccer by comparing the results of
several physiological and psychological tests between elite and non-elite performers. The researchers used a 40-metre
sprint, with multiple directional changes. Based on significant between-group differences, the researchers concluded
that sprinting with changes of direction is likely to be an important factor in the determination of high performances in
soccer. However, in this study, the elite group was also superior in the straight sprinting tests, maximal aerobic power,
technical skills, as well as vertical leap. In other words, the elite performers were superior in almost all physical tests.
Baker (7) investigated performance differences between elite professional and younger rugby league players.
Interestingly, Baker’s investigation yielded similar straight speed scores between the groups. However, as with Reilly et
al. (88), the elite rugby players performed considerably better when the sprints involved changing direction. Baker (8)
concluded that the investigation demonstrated, not only that sprints and sprints with directional changes are somewhat
separate qualities, but that the elite performers are superior in the task of changing direction while sprinting.
Similar findings were reported in an analysis of the CODS of volleyball players (117). The higher-performance players
were also superior in volleyball-specific vertical leaping and skill tests, but were not distinguished by any of the
anthropometric or power measures. These findings are in agreement with the results of Baker (8) in that the higher-
performance group was distinguished by change of direction testing, but not by all of the physical tests thought to be
relevant to the sport.
Similar to the findings of Reilly et al. (88), Keogh et al. (60) reported superior CODS scores (using the Illinois Agility
Run) for representative level field hockey players in comparison to developmental field hockey players, but with several
other anthropometric and physical performance tests yielding significant differences as well. Specifically, sprinting
speed, body-fat levels, aerobic power, technical skill, and lower body muscle power tests were also able to distinguish
between the two groups.
The results of Baker (8), Keogh et al. (60), Reilly et al. (88), and Thissen-Milder and Mayhew (117) all indicate that
speed in changing direction were useful determinants of sporting performance level. Consistently, elite performers have
scored superiorly in these tests when compared to lesser skilled athletes within the same sport. One explanation as to
why more experienced players, or players of greater ability may demonstrate superior CODS results, is that it is a highly
skilled task, and experience may play a vital role. Even though the aforementioned studies do not involve sport-specific
recognition and response to a stimulus, an element of skill still exists (which thereby may be influenced by experience)
in controlling the athlete’s body positions, and avoiding unnecessary movements, while effectively controlling and using
mechanical braking forces to change direction (technique).
It could be asserted that developing speed and CODS, with priority on movement efficiency and effectiveness, is a
priority for developing athletes, and that testing and training with closed skill tasks can be emphasized early in the long
term development of an athlete (65). However, as athletes mature, these developed physical qualities are likely best

19
applied to open skill agility training and testing, such that the cognitive challenge is included in a sport relevant context
(65, 100).
Gabbett (47) performed a physiological characteristic comparison between semi-professional first and second grade
rugby league teams (just prior to the start of the competition phase) over two seasons. Because the sample in this study
involved players who were successful in earning a place on either the first or second grade team, the two groups were
likely to be closer in general physical ability than subjects in previous investigations involving developmental level
athletes (i.e. Gabbett’s athletes were physically mature and near-elite). Gabbett (47) reported that only playing
experience and body-mass were significantly different between groups, with the first grade players having more playing
experience and being of greater mass. Physical characteristics, such as speed, power, and CODS, did not distinguish
between those two relatively homogenous groups.
Sheppard et al. (104) did not find that a simple CODS test discriminated between higher and lower performers in highly
competitive level athletes, but that an agility test, inclusive of cognitive factors, did discriminate between first and second
grade players in ARF. Similar findings were reported in rugby league, where a significant difference was found between
higher and lower classed athletes on the results of the agility test (RAT), but not on other test measures (48).
It appears that, in general, several physical performance tests can be used to determine level of play when assessing
groups that are dissimilar in physical maturation or playing level. Comparing “representative” level players and “club” or
recreational level athletes may simply demonstrate the effects of increased training on performance. Studies of elite vs.
sub-elite (or closely matched higher vs. lower performers) suggest that speed movement tests that involve a relevant
stimulus are valid in discriminating between groups (48,100,104), highlighting the importance of open skills in agility
training for higher performers.
COGNITIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Visual search pattern findings: Implications for the specificity of a stimulus

Based on cognitive research, it appears there are distinct differences between experts and non-experts in visual search
strategies (2,11,76,114,115). This is an important consideration in the specificity of the stimulus used in any test or
evaluation of a skill that involves anticipation and reaction. Experts utilise different cues than novices, and therefore
utilising a generic stimulus is unlikely to be a valid measure in gauging performance in specific situations. In other words,
a general reaction test is unlikely to be a reliable and valid method to determine the response-time differences of varying
performance levels of players in the specific domain of their sport (2, 76, 123).
Further, not only do experts utilize different cues from which to anticipate and respond to stimuli, but they also may
perform these tasks with a higher search rate (2, 123). These differences further strengthen the need for a highly specific
stimulus as in the current research. Therefore, more research is needed to determine whether visual search pattern
strategies and search speed differences exist between athletes in specific types of sports it stands to reason that the
more highly specific the stimulus type and pace, the more likely the strength and conditioning coach may be able to
differentiate between experts and novices in this task.
Testing and research into anticipation and reaction: Techniques utilized

There is a great deal of research in the field of motor learning in regards to anticipation and decision-making
(4,39,40,70,76,91). Most investigations, such as those conducted by Farrow et al. (40), and Farrow and Abernethy (39),
have assessed the efficacy of various learning techniques intended to accelerate an athletes’ ability to anticipate.
The studies by Farrow et al. (40) and Farrow and Abernethy (39), as well as research by Abernethy et al. (4), Borgeaud
and Abernethy (19), Abernethy and Russell (2), and Tenenbaum et al. (115) investigated the efficacy of cognitive testing
and training (using video clips of sporting plays) in an attempt to identify differences in expertise, and to increase
performance in several factors that are dependent on anticipation.
Temporal occlusion techniques are often used in these studies, wherein a video is played of a skill (eg: tennis
strokes/serves), and then stopped at certain points prior to the actual execution of the skill. The subject is then expected
to respond to that stimulus, either generically (pushing a button), or specifically (eg: mimic the appropriate
countermovement to the move displayed), in order to indicate what an appropriate reaction would be in the sport setting.
The responses in these cases can be measured for accuracy of response (ie: did the subject choose the right
response?), and to a certain extent the speed of response (ie: how quickly did the subject initiate or carry out a
response?).
When reviewing training studies addressing anticipation and reaction in sport, it is apparent that there has been a logical
progression in the advancement of the methods used. Initially, studies involved anticipation and reaction time based
around generic stimuli, and generic athletic responses (20, 53). Abernethy et al. (4) stressed that future research in the
area of anticipation and reaction time with athletes should involve a sport-specific presentation, in order to truly assess
the visual skills and recognition required in a specific sporting context. The authors stated that experimental evidence

20
has demonstrated that generic visual training approaches to motor learning are ineffective, likely because they are
training perceptual factors that do not limit performance in the specific sporting environment.
It would appear that a more fruitful approach would be to train, using sport-specific protocols, those perceptual skills
(such as pattern recognition and anticipation) known to reliably discriminate between experts and novices and known,
therefore, to be linked to skill in the sport of interest.(Abernethy et al. 1999, p. 314).
Researchers have since attempted to improve the ecological validity of the stimulus presented in motor learning studies,
by providing a sport-specific stimulus (4, 91), but with a generic response (ie: pushing a button). This advancement in
the specificity of the stimulus presented may allow for greater discrimination between the anticipation of novices and
experts, as anticipation and recognition of the stimulus is likely to be trained though experience within the context of the
sport setting (2, 26).
Recently the assessment of athlete’s reaction time (RT), and movement time in response to a stimulus, whilst changing
direction has been reported in the literature (23, 28). In addition to the total time taken to complete agility test, the
measurement of RT and subsequent response whilst performing the COD movement, has been shown to discriminate
between athlete expertise and identify, as previously discussed, the strengths and weaknesses in an athlete’s overall
agility performance. Further, by distinctly separating RT from movement time, these two research studies have been
able to identify an athlete’s ability to anticipate (indicated as a negative RT) the upcoming stimulus, to produce a faster
COD movement. Whilst these studies address the limitations of previous agility protocols by assessing RT using a sport
specific stimulus in conjunction with a physical quality, such as COD, these tests fail to replicate sport specific movement
patterns commonly observed during competition.
As noted previously in reviewing literature involved in agility testing, Farrow and Young (41) have attempted to overcome
the generality of previous research by developing a state of the art stimulus in conjunction with a measured
speed/change of direction test. This test is highly sport-specific as both the stimulus used, and specific movement
patterns performed in the test replicates the competitive sporting environment of these athletes. While many reactive
agility tests replicate a sport specific stimulus in the form of a video or human stimulus the movement patterns prior to
the directional change involve little specificity. To over-come this limitation Spiteri and colleagues (112) isolated the
COD step, investigating athletes exit velocity immediately following the COD movement in response to a human
stimulus. This allows the identification of an athlete’s actual COD ability in response to a stimulus by isolating the
movement, therefore being a specific agility test for multiple court and field based sports.
Perceptual skills development in team sports

Two studies have attempted to distinguish perceptual skills with ARF athletes (11, 91). Both of these studies used video
clips as the stimulus from which the athlete reacted. Interestingly, neither study was able to distinguish between elite
and non-elite performers in ARF. The question remains as to whether this occurred because ARF athletes develop
perceptual expertise early in their development, or if the actual presentation of the stimulus was inadequate when using
video.
The specificity of the stimulus presentation is of extremely high importance, as anticipatory expertise appears to be
dependent on the specific stimulus used to test this quality (2,87,115). When considering the human information-
processing model, a stimulus produces specific mental operations that are based on the subject’s retrieval of stored
memory information, prior to initiating a response (Figure 9). The accuracy and speed of this response is dependent on
previously stored information specific to that situation (26). In other words, if the testing stimulus is not adequately
specific to the sport setting, then the measurement of response time is not valid in measuring sporting expertise,
because the participants do not necessarily have memory storage that involves the generic stimulus.
Mental
Operations
Stimulus specific to the Response
stimulus
Figure 9 - Information processing model.

Source: Adapted from Cox, 2002, p. 133.
Higher-performance athletes have demonstrated unique visual search rates (123) and unique visual cues (2, 76, 115)
that are specific to the domain of that sport, when compared to lower-performers. In other words, research has
demonstrated that the higher-performing athlete can be distinguished by cognitive abilities (anticipation, decision-
making time, decision-making accuracy) when these cognitive abilities are tested with sport-specific cues. Therefore,
physical performance tests that involve a reaction to a relevant, sport-specific stimulus should be used in preference to
those that do not involve a reaction, or involve a reaction to a generic stimulus such as a light bulb or other non-domain-
specific cue. These tests should involve cues that are highly similar to the sport of the athlete being tested.

21
TRAINING INDUCED CHANGES IN AGILITY
One of the first studies to assess the effect of training on overall agility performance was a simple case study of rugby
union players (101). In recent years, there is still limited research but the research is promising and has begun to show
evidence of training induced changes in overall agility performance (97). Although physical performance characteristics
that underpin agility performance are trainable (59, 66, 80, 102, 106, 107, 133), and cognitive and decision-making
factors relevant to agility performance are trainable (1, 3, 4, 39, 40, 115, 116), there is still limited research documenting
longitudinal changes in overall agility performance. Considering recent research stating that decision making time was
the largest determinant of agility performance in male basketball players (94), research investigating the effect of training
on agility is imperative.
CONCLUSIONS
Clearly, an accepted and common definition for agility is inconsistent in the literature, as cited in this review. In some
cases, agility seems to involve any task that requires athleticism (5, 23), whereas others limit the term to include tasks
that require changes of direction (32, 35, 132, 133). This literature review has illustrated a need for the strength and
conditioning and sports science community to become more cognisant of the terminology used to describe agility drills
and testing, and to specify between sprint tests, CODS tests, and reactive agility tests. In addition, this review of the
literature has highlighted the need for an understanding of the underpinning relationship that physical and cognitive
components have on influencing agility performance, but that separate assessment of the sub-components of agility
likely does not adequately reflect agility performance as a whole.
Agility is a multi-dimensional and complex skill. Viewing agility as a simple physical quality limits our understanding of
the multiple influences involved in testing and training to increase agility performance. Strong correlations between
agility and a single individual physical quality have not been seen in the literature. As noted, agility performance is likely
dependent on cognitive factors, such as decision-making, pattern recognition, and anticipation, as well as the more
obvious physical relationships, such as deceleration, acceleration, and reactive strength. Future research and
professional communication must also specify between tasks that require simple changes of direction and tasks that
actually involve an agility task, and those that require response to a sport-specific stimulus.
As indicated by the review, sprinting, sprints with changes of direction, and sport-specific skill tasks while sprinting are
separate qualities, and, depending on the context, are not always strongly related. One might speculate that because
agility tasks are considerably more complex than straight sprinting, or even CODS tasks, agility performance cannot be
predicted with simple pre-planned CODS tests. Considering the implications that these findings may have on testing
and training methods, it becomes apparent that there is a great need to include reliable and valid field tests for agility
performance, inclusive of cognitive factors.
As proposed by several authors (4,11,39,97,132), the cognitive component involved in agility is complex, and highly
trainable. Therefore, an athlete may conceivably be highly trained in sprinting with directional changes, but not skilled
in recognizing sport-specific stimuli, and implementing an appropriate reaction to these stimuli, and therefore will never
be maximally effective in a game specific context despite scoring well on closed agility tests. This viewpoint is supported
by several research studies (41,48,104), where there were low correlations between performances on pre-planned
change of direction tasks and un-planned or reactive agility tasks. However, this is not to say that fundamental physical
factors do not underpin agility. Instead it suggests that these factors are (or should be) very well developed during early
development, and thereby become a lower priority with elite athletes whose success is, to a greater extent, determined
by agility tasks inclusive of anticipation and decision-making skills.
It is likely that the most important conclusion of this literature review is that there exists a greater need for understanding
of the effects of agility training. Although there have been some investigations into the trainability of agility (101), the
influence of warm-up on agility performance (46), and a recent investigation into several cutting movements (20), there
are still many unanswered questions in regards to how to best train agility for improved sports performance. At this time,
the utility of possible agility movement (i.e. technique) and cognitive strategies have received minimal attention in the
literature, yet these are likely very important concepts for the strength and conditioning coach to teach in an aim to
improve agility performance. Additionally, the importance of improving physical factors or cognitive factors, as sub-
qualities of agility, has not been investigated thoroughly. The results of these studies may better assist the strength and
conditioning coach in understanding how to prioritize training for each individual within their squad.
MAIN FINDINGS
Agility is viewed as including both a physical (e.g. direction change) and cognitive (i.e. anticipation, perceptual, and
decision-making factors) components. Strength and conditioning coaches can potentially assess agility in a sport
relevant manner, as well as its sub-components (e.g. acceleration, speed, change of direction speed) and underpinning
qualities (e.g. strength, mobility, balance, etc.) to determine the specific needs of his or her athletes. Training to improve
agility can include training of the underpinning qualities, the sub-components, and agility as a whole, depending on the
athletes’ needs, development level, and other factors. When athletes are progressing from a developmental stage or

22
returning from injury, a progression may be appropriate involving straight-sprint closed skills; closed skills with changes
of direction; changes of direction from simple, generic stimuli; changes of direction from simple, sport-specific stimuli, to
appropriate/complex situations similar to that encountered in the athletes’ sport setting.
REFERENCES
1. Abernethy, B., Baker, J., and Cote, J. Transfer of pattern recall 26. Cox, R. Sport psychology: concepts and applications. New York:
skills may contribute to the development of sport expertise. McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 19: 705-718, 2005. 27. Cronin, J., McNair, P.J., and Marshall, R.N. Lunge performance
2. Abernethy, B. and Russell, D.G. Expert-novice difference in an and its determinants. Journal of Sports Sciences 21: 49-57,
applied selective attention task. Journal of Sport Psychology 9: 2003.
326-345, 1987. 28. Cureton, T. Physical Fitness of Champions. Urbana: University of
3. Abernethy, B., Wann, J., and Parks, S. Training perceptual-motor Illinois Press, 1951.
skills for sport, in: Training in Sport: Applying Sport Science. BC 29. Dawson, B., Hopkinson, R., Appleby, B., Stewart, G., and Roberts,
Elliot, ed. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1998, p pp. C. Player movement patterns and game activities in the Australian
426. Football League. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 7:
4. Abernethy, B., Wood, M.J., and Parks, S. Can the anticipatory skills 278-291, 2004.
of experts be learned by novices? Research Quarterly for 30. Delecluse, C. Influence of strength training on sprint running
Exercise and Sport 70: 331-318, 1999. performance. Sports Medicine 24: 148-156, 1997.
5. Alricsson, M., Harms-Ringdahl, K., and Werner, S. Reliability of 31. Delecluse, C., Van Coppennolle, H., Willem, E., Van Leemputte,
sports related functional tests with emphasis on speed and agility M., Diels, R., and Goris, M. Influence of high-resistance and high-
in young athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and velocity training on sprint performance. Medicine and Science in
Science in Sports 11: 229-232, 2001. Sports and Exercise 27: 1203-1209, 1995.
6. Baechle, T.R. Essentials of strength and conditioning. Champaign, 32. Djevalikian, R. The relationship between asymmetrical leg power
IL: Human Kinetics, 1994. and change of running direction. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
7. Baker, D. A comparison of running speed and quickness between North Carolina, 1993.
elite professional and young rugby league players. Strength and 33. Docherty, D., Wenger, H.A., and Neary, P. Time-motion analysis
Conditioning Coach 7: 3-7, 1999. related to the physiological demands of rugby. Journal of Human
8. Baker, D. and Nance, S. The relationship between running speed Movement Studies 14: 269-277, 1998.
and measures of strength and power in professional rugby league 34. Donati, A. The association between the development of strength
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13: and speed. New Studies in Athletics 2: 51-58, 1996.
230-235, 1999. 35. Draper, J.A. and Lancaster, M.G. The 505 test: A test for agility in
9. Barnes, J.L., Schilling, B.K., Falvo, M.J., Weiss, L.W., Creasy, the horizontal plane. Australian Journal for Science and
A.K., and Fry, A.C. Relationship of jumping and agility performance Medicine in Sport 1: 15-18, 1985.
in female volleyball athletes. Journal of Strength and 36. Ellis, L., Gasin, P., Lawrence, S., Savage, B., Buckeridge, A., and
Conditioning Research 21: 1192-1196, 2007. Stapff, A. Protocols for the physiological assessment of team sport
10. Barrow, H. and McGee, R. A practical approach to measurement players, in: Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. CJ Gore, ed.
in physical education. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1971. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission., 2000, pp 128-144.
11. Berry, J.T. Pattern recognition and expertise in Australian football, 37. Enoka, R. Neuromechanics of Human Movement. Champaign, Ill:
in: School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences. Ballarat: Human Kinetics, 2000.
University of Ballarat, 1999. 38. Faccioni, A. Modern Speed Training. Faccioni, 2003, p 135.
12. Besier, T.F., Lloyd, D.G., Ackland, T.R., and Cochrane, J.L. 39. Farrow, D. and Abernethy, B. Can anticipatory skills be learned
Anticipatory effects on knee joint loading during running and cutting through implicit video-based perceptual training? Journal of
maneuvers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 33: Sports Sciences 20: 471-485, 2002.
1176-1181, 2001. 40. Farrow, D., Chivers, P., Hardingham, C., and Sachse, S. The effect
13. Besier, T.F., Lloyd, D.G., Cochrane, J.L., and Ackland, T.R. of video-based perceptual training on the tennis return of serve.
External loading of the knee joint during running and cutting International Journal of Sport Psychology 29: 231-242, 1998.
manoeuvres. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 33: 41. Farrow, D., Young, W., and Bruce, L. The development of a test of
1168-1175, 2001. reactive agility for netball: a new methodology. Journal of Science
14. Blazevich, T. Resistance training for sprinters (part 1): Theoretical and Medicine in Sport 8: 52-60, 2005.
considerations. Strength and Conditioning Coach 4: 9-12, 1997. 42. Francis, C. Training for Speed. Canberra: Faccioni, 1997.
15. Blazevich, T. Resistance training for sprinters (part 2): Exercise 43. Fry, A.C., Kraemer, W.J., Weseman, A.C., Conroy, P.B., Gordon,
suggestions. Strength and Conditioning Coach 5: 5-10, 1997. E.S., Hoffman, R.J., and Maresh, C.M. The effects of an off-season
16. Bloomfield, J., Ackland, T.R., and Elliot, B.C. Applied anatomy and strength and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in
biomechanics in sport. Melbourne: Blackwell Scientific women's intercollegiate volleyball. Journal of Applied Sports
Publications, 1994. Science Research 5: 174-181, 1991.
17. Bompa, T. Theory and methodology of training. Dubuque, Iowa: 44. Fulton, K.T. Off-season strength training for basketball. National
Kendall-Hunt, 1983. Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 14: 31-33,
18. Booher, L.D., Hench, K.M., Worrell, T.W., and Stikeleather, J. 1992.
Reliability of three single-leg hops tests. Journal of Sport 45. Gabbett, T. and Benton, D. Reactive agility of rugby league
Rehabilitation 2: 165-170, 1993. players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 12: 212-214,
19. Borgeaud, P. and Abernethy, B. Skilled perception in volleyball 2009.
defense. Journal of Sport Psychology 9: 400-406, 1987. 46. Gabbett, T., Sheppard, J.M., Pritchard-Peschek, K.R., Leveritt,
20. Bradshaw, R.J. Comparison of offensive agility techniques in M.D., and Aldred, M.J. Influence of closed skill and open skill
Australian Rules Football, in: School of Human Movement and warm-ups on speed, change of direction speed, vertical jump, and
Sport Science. Ballarat: University of Ballarat, 2009, p 96. reactive agility in team sport athletes. Journal of Strength and
21. Brughelli, M., Cronin, J., Levin, G., and Chaouachi, A. Conditioning Research 22: 1413-1415, 2008.
Understanding change of direction ability in sport: A review of 47. Gabbett, T.J. Influence of physiological characteristics on selection
resistance training studies. Sports Medicine 38: 1045-1063, 2008. in a semi-professional first grade rugby league team: a case study.
22. Buttifant, D., Graham, K., and Cross, K. Agility and speed in soccer Journal of Sports Sciences 20: 399-405, 2002.
players are two different parameters, in: Science and football. 48. Gabbett, T.J., Kelly, J.N., and Sheppard, J.M. Speed, change of
Sydney, Australia: Routledge, 1999. direction speed, and reactive agility of rugby league players.
23. Chelladurai, P. Manifestations of agility. Canadian Association of Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22: 174-181,
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 42: 36-41, 1976. 2008.
24. Clark, S., Martin, D., Lee, H., Fornasiero, D., and Quinn, A. 49. Gambetta, V. How to develop sport-specific speed. Sports Coach
Relationship between speed and agility in nationally ranked junior 19: 22-24, 1996.
tennis players. Presented at Australian Conference of Science and 50. Gore, C.J. Physiological tests for elite athletes. Canberra:
Medicine in Sport, Adelaide, 1998. Australian Sports Commission, 2000.
25. Clarke, H.E. Application of measurement to health and physical 51. Hastad, D.N. and Lacy, A.C. Measurement and evaluation in
education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959. physical education and exercise science. Scottsdale: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick, 1994.

23
52. Helsen, W.F. and Starkes, J.L. A multidimensional approach to 74. Mero, A. and Komi, P. EMG, force, and power analysis of sprint-
skilled perception and performance in sport. Applied Cognitive specific strength exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics
Psychology 13: 1-27, 1999. 10: 1-13, 1994.
53. Hertel, J., Denegar, C.R., Johnson, P.D., Hale, S.A., and Buckely, 75. Moreno, E. Developing quickness-part 2. Strength and
W.E. Reliability of the cybex reactor in the assessment of an agility Conditioning 17: 38-39, 1995.
task. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 8: 24-31, 1999. 76. Muir, P.A. Expertise in surfing: nature of the perceptual advantage.
54. Hoffman, J.R., Cooper, J., Wendell, M., and Kang, J. Comparison Ballarat: University of Ballarat, 1996.
of olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football 77. Murray, P.F. Psychology and speed. New Studies in Athletics 11:
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18: 115-120, 1996.
129-135, 2004. 78. Negrete, R. and Brophy, J. The relationship between isokinetic
55. Hoffman, J.R., Ratamess, N.A., Cooper, J.J., Kang, J., Chilakos, open and closed chain lower extremity strength and functional
A., and Faigenbaum, A.D. Comparison of loaded and unloaded performance. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 9: 46-61, 2000.
jump squat training on strength/power performance in college 79. Nimphius, S., McGuigan, M.R., and Newton, R.U. Relationship
football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning between strength, power, speed, and change of direction
Research 19: 810-815, 2005. performance of female softball players. Journal of Strength and
56. Hori, N., Newton, R.U., Andrews, W.A., Kawamori, N., McGuigan, Conditioning Research 24: 885-895, 2010.
M.R., and Nosaka, K. Does performance of hang power clean 80. Nimphius, S., McGuigan, M.R., and Newton, R.U. Changes in
differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of muscle architecture and performance during a competitive season
direction? The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research in female softball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
22: 412-418, 2008. Research 26: 2655-2666, 2012.
57. Hoyle, R.J. and Holt, L.E. Comparison of athletes and non-athletes 81. Nogueira, R.C., Weeks, B.K., and Beck, B.R. Exercise to Improve
on selected neuromuscular tests. Australian Journal of Sports Pediatric Bone and Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Sciences 3: 13-18, 1983. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 46: 610-621, 2014.
58. Johnson, B.L. and Nelson, J.K. Practical measurements for 82. Parsons, L. and Jones, M. Development of speed, agility, and
evaluation in physical education. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1969. quickness for tennis athletes. Strength and Conditioning
59. Keiner, M., Sander, A., Wirth, K., and Schmidtbleicher, D. Long- Journal 20: 14-19, 1998.
Term Strength Training Effects on Change-of-Direction Sprint 83. Pauole, K., Madole, K., Garhammer, J., Lacourse, M., and
Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Rozenek, R. Reliability and validity of the t-test as a measure of
28: 223-231, 2014. agility, leg power, and leg speed in college-aged men and women.
60. Keogh, J., Weber, C.L., and Dalton, C.T. Evaluation of Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 14: 443-450,
anthropometric, physiological, and skill-related tests for talent 2000.
identification in female field hockey. Canadian Journal of Applied 84. Peterson, M.D., Alvar, B.A., and Rhea, M.R. The contribution of
Physiology 28: 397-350, 2003. maximal force production to explosive movement among young
61. Knicker, A.J. Neuromechanics of sprint-specific training skills. collegiate athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Presented at Paper presented at the Biomechanics in sport XV: Research 20: 867-873, 2006.
Proceedings of the 18th symposium on biomechanics in sport, 85. Peterson, M.D., Alvar, B.A., and Rhea, M.R. The contribution of
Denton, Texas, 1997. maximal force production to explosive movement among young
62. Knight, C., Cohen, D., and Woodward, C. The effect of unilateral collegiate athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
plyometric, ballistic resistance and agility training on vertical jump Research 20: 867-873, 2006.
ability in the trained and untrained leg. Presented at Paper 86. Pyne, D. Testing the athlete, in: Better coaching: advanced coach's
presented at the 12th Commonwealth International Sport manual. FS Pyke, ed. Belconnen, ACT: Human Kinetics, 2001, pp
Conference, Manchester, U.K., 2002. 77-86.
63. Kuhn, W. The effects of unilateral and bilateral maximal strength 87. Quinn, J. The need for speed. Presented at Australian Football
training program upon the bilateral strength index. Presented at Fitness Conference, University of Ballarat, 2003.
Paper presented at the International Association of Physical 88. Reilly, T., Williams, A.M., Nevill, A., and Franks, A. A
Education and Sport for Girls and Women, Melbourne, Australia, multidisciplinary approach to talent identification in soccer. Journal
1993. of Sports Sciences 18: 695-702, 2000.
64. Letzelter, M., Sauerwein, G., and Burger, R. Resistance runs in 89. Rigg, P. and Reilly, T. A fitness profile and anthropometric analysis
speed development. Modern Athlete and Coach 22: 20-29, 1994. of first and second class rugby union players. Presented at First
65. Lloyd, R.S., Read, P., Oliver, J.L., Meyers, R.W., Nimphius, S., and World Congress on Science and Football, Liverpool, England,
Jeffreys, I. Considerations for the development of agility during 1987.
childhood and adolescence. Strength and Conditioning Journal 90. Rimmer, E. and Sleivert, G. Effects of a plyometrics intervention
35: 2-11, 2013. program on sprint performance. Journal of Strength and
66. Lockie, R.G., Schultz, A.B., Callaghan, S.J., Jeffriess, M.D., and Conditioning Research 14: 295-301, 2000.
Lockie, R. The Effects of Traditional and Enforced Stopping Speed 91. Ritchie, N. An investigation of pattern recognition anticipation
and Agility Training on Multidirectional Speed and Athletic within Australian rules football. Ballarat: University of Ballarat,
Performance. Journal of strength and conditioning 1999.
research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 2013. 92. Saraslandis, P. Maximum speed: flat running or resistance training.
67. Luchtenbern, B. Training for running. Science Periodical of New Studies in Athletics 3: 45-51, 2000.
Research and Technology in Sport 10: 1-6, 1990. 93. Sayers, M. Running techniques for field sport players, in: Sports
68. Mann, R.V. A kinetic analysis of sprinting. Medicine and Science Coach. 2000, pp 26-27.
in Sports and Exercise 13: 325-328, 1981. 94. Scanlan, A., Humphries, B., Tucker, P.S., and Dalbo, V. The
69. Mathews, D.K. Measurements in physical education. Philadelphia: influence of physical and cognitive factors on reactive agility
Saunders, 1973. performance in men basketball players. Journal of Sports
70. Maxwell, J.P., Masters, R.S.W., and Eves, F.F. From novice to no Sciences: 1-8, 2013.
know-how: A longitudinal study of implicit learning. Journal of 95. Scanlan, A.T., Dascombe, B.J., Reaburn, P., and Dalbo, V.J. The
Sport Sciences 18: 111-120, 2000. physiological and activity demands experienced by Australian
71. McBride, J.M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., and Newton, R.U. female basketball players during competition. Journal of Science
The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development and Medicine in Sport 15: 341-347, 2012.
of strength, power and speed. Journal of Strength and 96. Semenick, D. Tests and measurements: the T test. National
Conditioning Research 16: 75-82, 2002. Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 12: 36-37,
72. McLean, S.G., Lipfert, S.W., and Van Den Bogert, A.J. Effect of 1990.
gender and defensive opponent on the biomechanics of sidestep 97. Serpell, B.G., Young, W.B., and Ford, M. Are the perceptual and
cutting. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 36: 1008- decision-making components of agility trainable? A preliminary
1016, 2004. investigation. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
73. Meir, R., Newton, R., Curtis, E., Fardell, M., and Butler, B. Physical 25: 1240-1248, 2011.
Fitness qualities of professional rugby league football players: 98. Sheppard, J. Strength and conditioning exercise selection in speed
determination of positional differences. Journal of Strength and development. Strength and Conditioning Journal 25: 26-30,
Conditioning Research 15: 450-458, 2001. 2003.

24
99. Sheppard, J. Improving the sprint start with strength and 116. Tenenbaum, G. and Summers, J. Perception-action relationship in
conditioning exercise. Modern Athlete and Coach 42: 18-23, strategic-type settings: Covert and overt processes. Journal of
2004. Sport Sciences 15: 559-572, 2006.
100. Sheppard, J., Young, W., Doyle, T., and Newton, R. The 117. Thissen-Milder, M. and Mayhew, J.L. Selection and classification
relationship between straight-sprint speed, planned change of of high school volleyball players from performance tests. The
direction speed, and reactive agility in Australian Rules football. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 31: 380-384,
Presented at Australian Association of Exercise and Sports 1991.
Sciences, Brisbane, 2004. 118. Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R., and Ugrinowitsch, C. Short-
101. Sheppard, J.M., Barker, M., and Gabbett, T. Training agility in elite term effects on lower-body functional power development:
rugby players: a case study. Journal of Australian Strength and weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. Journal of
Conditioning 16: 15-19, 2008. Strength and Conditioning Research 19: 433-437, 2005.
102. Sheppard, J.M., Gabbett, T., and Borgeaud, R. Training repeated 119. Tsitskarsis, G., Theoharopoulus, A., and Garefis, A. Speed, speed
effort ability in national team male volleyball players. International dribble and agility of male basketball players playing in different
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 3: 397-400, positions. Journal of Human Movement Studies 45: 21-30, 2003.
2008. 120. Twist, P. and Benicky, D. Conditioning lateral movement for multi-
103. Sheppard, J.M. and Young, W.B. Agility literature review: sport athletes: practical strength and quickness drills. Strength
classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences and Conditioning Journal 18: 10-19, 1996.
24: 919-932, 2006. 121. Vescovi, J.D. and McGuigan, M.R. Relationships between
104. Sheppard, J.M., Young, W.B., Doyle, T.L.A., Sheppard, T.A., and sprinting, agility, and jump ability in female athletes. Journal of
Newton, R.U. An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its Sports Sciences 26: 97-107, 2008.
relationship to sprint speed and change of direction speed. 122. Webb, P. and Lander, J. An economical fitness testing battery for
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 9: 342-349, 2006. high school and college rugby teams. Sports Coach 7: 44-46,
105. Shimokochi, Y., Ide, D., Kokubu, M., and Nakaoji, T. Relationships 1983.
among performance of lateral cutting maneuver from lateral sliding 123. Williams, A.M., Davids, K., Burwitz, L., and Williams, J.G. Visual
and hip extension and abduction motions, ground reaction force, search and sports performance. The Australian Journal for
and body center of mass height. The Journal of Strength & Science and Medicine in Sport 25: 55-65, 1993.
Conditioning Research 27: 1851-1860, 2013. 124. Williford, H.N., Olson, M.S., Gauger, S., Duey, W.J., and Blessing,
106. Smith, D.J., Stokes, S., and Kilb, B. Effects of resistance training D.L. Cardiovascular and metabolic costs of forward, backward, and
on isokinetic and volleyball performance measures. Journal of lateral motion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 30:
Applied Sports Science Research 1: 42-44, 1987. 1419-1423, 1998.
107. Spinks, C.D., Murphy, A.J., Spinks, W.L., and Lockie, R.G. The 125. Wisloff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R., and Hoff, J.
effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint
kinematics in soccer, rugby union, and Australian football players. performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21: 77-85, British Journal of Sports Medicine 38: 285-288, 2004.
2007. 126. Yap, C.W. and Woodman, G. Development of speed, agility, and
108. Spiteri, T., Cochrane, J.L., Hart, N.H., Haff, G.G., and Nimphius, S. quickness for the female soccer athletes. Strength and
Effect of strength on plant foot kinetics and kinematics during a Conditioning Journal 22: 9-12, 2000.
change of direction task. European Journal of Sport Science: 1- 127. Young, W. Laboratory strength assessment of athletes. New
7, 2013. Studies in Athletics 10: 89-96, 1995.
109. Spiteri, T., Cochrane, J.L., and Nimphius, S. Human stimulus 128. Young, W., Farrow, D., Pyne, D., McGregor, W., and Handke, T.
reliability during an offensive and defensive agility protocol. Validity and reliability of agility tests in junior Australian football
Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning 20: 14-21, players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25:
2012. 3399-3403, 2011.
110. Spiteri, T., Cochrane, J.L., and Nimphius, S. The evaluation of a 129. Young, W.B. Sprint bounding and the sprint bound index. NSCA
new lower-body reaction time test. Journal of Strength and Journal 14: 18-21, 1992.
Conditioning Research 27: 174-180, 2013. 130. Young, W.B., Benton, D., Duthie, G., and Pryor, J. Resistance
111. Spiteri, T. and Hart, N. Ball inclusion into the AFL agility test can training for short sprints and maximum-speed sprints. Strength
improve change of direction performance. Journal of Australian and Conditioning Journal 23: 7-13, 2001.
Strength and Conditioning 21: 75-77, 2013. 131. Young, W.B., Hawken, M., and McDonald, L. Relationship between
112. Spiteri, T., Hart, N., and Nimphius, S. Offensive and defensive speed, agility, and strength qualities in Australian rules football.
agility: A gender comparison of lower body kinematics and ground Strength and Conditioning Coach 4: 3-6, 1996.
reaction forces. Journal of Applied Biomechanics In Press, 132. Young, W.B., James, R., and Montgomery, I. Is muscle power
2014. related to running speed with changes of direction? Journal of
113. Spiteri, T., Nimphius, S., and Cochrane, J.L. Comparison of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 43: 282-288, 2002.
running times during reactive offensive and defensive agility 133. Young, W.B., McDowell, M.H., and Scarlett, B.J. Specificity of
protocols. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning 20: sprint and agility training methods. Journal of Strength and
73-78, 2012. Conditioning Research 15: 315-319, 2001.
114. Starkes, J. Skill in field hockey: The nature of the cognitive 134. Young, W.B., McLean, B., and Ardagna, J. Relationship between
advantage. Journal of Sport Psychology 9: 146-160, 1987. strength qualities and sprinting performance. Journal of Sports
115. Tenenbaum, G., Levy-Kolker, N., Sade, S., Lieberman, D., and Medicine and Physical Fitness 35: 13-19, 1995.
Lidor, R. Anticipation and confidence of decisions related to skilled
performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology 27:
293-307, 1996.

25
The Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Author Guidelines
The Official Journal of the Australian Strength and Conditioning Association
"The Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning (JASC) is an educational publication designed to provide the
strength and conditioning coach with useful information to aid the development of their athletes and to further the
strength and conditioning profession in general. To this end the journal is highly applied and seeks articles that are
clearly directed to these purposes."
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
Effective December 2013
Affiliation Disclosure: If an author has a financial interest or relationship with any product or product supplier, and the topic of their
article is directed at that product or product supplier (even if it does not specifically mention the product or supplier) then that
relationship must be declared at the end of the article prior to the reference list.
Ethical Considerations: When reporting information from Experimental Research Studies, Case Studies or From the Field
contributions involving subjects (e.g. Videos of exercises etc) it is important that such research and/or observations are conducted
using sound ethical principles. In particular all such information should be obtained from subjects who are clearly informed of the
nature of the study, the risks and benefits of participation, and should be freely permitted to withdraw their consent from participation
in the study at any time if they desire. The study should be performed in a way that minimizes any risk to the subject and the
researcher should conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner throughout, respecting the rights and human dignity of
the subject(s). JASC will only publish contributions from authors that obtain their research information in accordance with these
ethical principles. Further information on this topic can be obtained from the "National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Human Research" produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council and available for free on their website
www.nhmrc.gov.au
Please ensure that your manuscript follows the below criteria;
1. Manuscript should be sent in Microsoft word (double spaced) to facilitate emailing to reviewers and a faster
reviewing process. The ASCA will not deal with hard copies of manuscripts.
2. Please ensure the submission is in accordance with the guidelines outlined below for all different categories of
submissions.
3. Referencing must conform to the guidelines, irrespective of the manuscript or article. Please check the new
electronic referencing guidelines.
4. From the field articles do not necessarily require referencing, though it is encouraged.
5. All video files that are emailed to the ASCA are required to be 5MB or less. If files are larger please place on disc and
post to the ASCA National office. Please do not send flash files. All video footage should be professional in
appearance with athletes wearing tidy clothes, shoes etc.
It is the author(s) responsibility to gain permission from other publishers if they are going to include copyrighted
information in their articles and to include appropriate acknowledgement of the material(s) in the article. Authors must
provide proof to JASC of such permission otherwise the reviewers will return the article to the author.
PEER REVIEW MANUSCRIPTS
Each peer review submission will be reviewed by 2 independent reviewers (The Editor and 1 Associate Editor). Once reviewed the
author will be required to respond to each reviewers comments in a point-by-point fashion to each comment made and submit the
responses together with the revised paper.
Please avoid using the words I, me, we, us etc. and write the paper from the 3rd person narrative point of view, written in past tense.
PEER-REVIEWED ORIGINAL RESEARCH MANUSCRIPTS
1. Title Page
The title page should include the manuscript title, brief running head, setting(s) where the research was conducted, authors’ full
name(s) spelled out with middle initials, department(s), institution(s), full mailing address of corresponding author including telephone
and email address. Please ensure no abbreviations are used in this information.
2. BLUF
On a separate sheet of paper, the manuscript must begin with a ‘BLUF’ (Bottom Line Up Front) statement. This statement should be
a single sentence of no more than 40 words. The intent of this statement is to provide the reader with the key message of the paper
(the main conclusion). This BLUF differs from an abstract in that it does not summarise the background, methods, evidence or
arguments. No acronyms or references are to be used.
3. Abstract and Key Words

Following the BLUF is the abstract. The abstract is limited to 275 words and followed by 3 – 6 key words. The abstract should have
sentences (no headings) related to the purpose of the study, brief methods, results, conclusions and practical applications.

26
4. Text
The text must contain the following sections with titles in ALL CAPS in this exact order:
A - INTRODUCTION
This section should demonstrate the need for the study or the underlying reason for the study. Focus on the studies lending support
to your hypothesis(es) and giving the proper context to the problem being studied. In most cases use no subheadings in this section
and try to limit it to 4 – 6 concisely written paragraphs. At the end of the introduction please include one sentence that clearly outlines
the purpose of the study.
B - METHODS
Within the METHODS section, the following subheadings are required in the following order:
Approach to the Problem: where the author(s) show how their study design will be able to test the hypotheses developed in the
introduction and give some basic rationales for the choices made for the independent and dependent variables used in the study;
Subjects: All subject characteristics that are not dependent variables of the study (e.g. subject height, weight, age etc.) should be
included in this section and not in the RESULTS.
Procedures: After reading this section another investigator should be able to replicate your study or totally understand how it was
carried out. Under this subheading you can add others but please limit their use to that which makes the methods clear and in order
of the investigation (e.g. 1RM bench press test procedures or Agility testing procedures etc). The ASCA encourages authors to submit
photos or short videos of their procedures and methods where such contributions aid the reader’s understanding of the methods and
procedures used.
Statistical Analyses: Here is where you clearly state your statistical approach to the analysis of the data and also whether it be
statistical or practical significance and so on. Please outline the specific statistical tests used (if any) and also the level of statistical
significance applied. As most of the JASC readership are strength and conditioning coaches please try not to use overly complicated
statistical procedures where possible.
NB – JASC will publish manuscripts of note that do not have control groups or that have low subject numbers and limited statistical
comparisons: JASC understands that this is the typical case when training elite athletes and JASC seeks to embrace studies done
upon elite athletes.
C - RESULTS
Present the results of your study in this section. Put the most important findings in Figure or Table format and less important findings
in the text. Make sure that you cite each Figure and Table and that each Figure and Table is numbered and has a title. Where
possible place the Figures and Tables in the text in the location they should appear in the final published document. If this is not
possible then indicate in the text where each Figure and Table should be placed.
D - DISCUSSION
Discuss the meaning of the results of your study in this section. Relate them to the literature that currently exists and make sure that
you bring the paper to completion with each of your hypotheses.
E - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This is an important section for the JASC reader. In this section, tell the “coach” or practitioner how your data can be applied and
used. This section of the paper should speak directly to this audience and not to the exercise or sport scientist.
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE MANUSCRIPTS
1. Title Page
The title page should include the manuscript title, brief running head, setting(s) where the research was conducted, authors’ full
name(s) spelled out with middle initials, department(s), institution(s), full mailing address of corresponding author including telephone
and email address.
2. BLUF
On a separate sheet of paper, the manuscript must begin with a ‘BLUF’ (Bottom Line Up Front) statement. This statement should be
a single sentence of no more than 40 words. The intent of this statement is to provide the reader with the key message of the paper
(the main conclusion). This BLUF differs from an abstract in that it does not summarise the background, methods, evidence or
arguments. No acronyms or references are to be used.
3. Abstract and Key Words

Following the BLUF is the abstract. The abstract is limited to 275 words and followed by 3 – 6 key words. The abstract should have
sentences (no headings) related to the purpose of the study, brief methods, results, conclusions and practical applications.
4. The main body of your manuscript should contain the following sections:
The text must contain the following sections with titles in ALL CAPS in this exact order:
INTRODUCTION
This section should demonstrate the need for the review of the literature. Focus on what the review will bring to the field. In most
cases use no subheadings in this section and try to limit it to 4 – 6 concisely written paragraphs. At the end of the introduction please
include one sentence that clearly outlines the purpose of the study.

27
METHODS
Within this section, detail which papers and/ or why papers were chosen for review (i.e. a brief of recent literature versus an extensive
review of literature from high-impact journals). Outline the specific inclusion criteria identified for inclusion of the paper in the review
and the total number of studies that met the inclusion criteria. For example,
Specific inclusion criteria included (1) nutritional supplementation, (2) carbohydrates, (3) Protein and/ or amino acid, (4) detailed
explanation of procedures and methods, and (5) research studies with human participants.
DISCUSSION
Due to the unique nature of these types of manuscripts, authors may then choose to review papers in specialized headings in this
section. For example, if reviewing jump training studies, authors may include headings upon the basic mechanics of jumping,
physiology of jumping, bodyweight jump training studies, barbell training studies, depth jump training studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This is an important section for the JASC reader. In this section, tell the ‘coach’ or practitioner how the findings can be applied and
used. This section of the paper should speak directly to this audience and not to the exercise or sport scientist.
FOR REVIEWED ARTICLES ‘FROM THE FIELD’
Please ensure that your manuscript follows the below criteria.
Submissions to ‘From the Field’ categories of JASC will be editorially reviewed by the editor. If the editor deems that the submission
is within the scope of the journal, once reviewed will be returned and the author will be required to respond to each comment in a
point-by-point fashion and submit the response together with the revised paper. Where the submission is greater the 1000 words
please also include an abstract, as outlined in the above section.
From the Field submissions are accepted in the following categories:
1. Directed Topic: A directed article with very specific recommendations (e.g. Practical applications for the use of jump squats in
the development of lower body power or coaching considerations for the Olympic lifts with very tall athletes).
Specific recommendations required. Some review of previous work permitted (scientific study), but focus is to provide a basis of
rationale for opinion on a relevant topic. Sections: Introduction, Main-body category sections, Practical Applications. Tables,
Figures, and Videos permitted. Label and refer to video files as “Video Figure”.
2. Program Outline: (e.g. A pre-season program for hamstring injury reduction in elite soccer players). Background of Athlete(s),
Needs Analysis, Program (can be a table), Results (observational, scientific, qualitative, all permitted), Discussion Points (what
you learned, what you think should be done next, etc.) Tables, videos and figures are encouraged.
3. Exercise Highlight: (e.g. using sled towing exercise to strengthen the posterior chain). This submission type should include
Figures or Video files, as well as commentary and text to outline the methods used in a particular exercise or group of exercises,
the rationale involved, and key areas of focus and progression. There is no specific limit for this submission type, but Figures and/
or Video are considered essential.
4. Roundtable Discussion: Commentary (<1000 words) on a relevant topic by 3-5 professionals (relevant to topic). Invitation by
editorial board, based on topic selected for each issue.
5. Point-Counterpoint: Members are encouraged to submit a focused question or statement of interest to the strength and
conditioning community, for the purposes of debate.
6. Case Study: Members are encouraged to submit a detailed analysis of a single subject or small group of subjects. This paper
should have the same overall structure as the "Original Research Manuscripts" which have been outlined above, but not include
any statistical analysis. The basic idea is to describe a specific case and hence the article will include the background of the
subject(s), the exercise intervention(s) or techniques applied, the results achieved and practical applications with an emphasis on
what would be done differently if a similar case was presented in the future.
REFERENCING
Referencing must conform to the guidelines, irrespective of the manuscript or article. Please check the new electronic
referencing guidelines.
All references must be outlined at the end of the document and numbered. References are cited in the text by numbers [e.g.,(4,9)].
All references listed must be cited in the manuscript and be referred to by number therein. For original investigations, please limit the
number of references to fewer than 40 or explain why more are necessary. Please follow the examples below.
Journal Article
3. Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V. Effect of different combined concentric and eccentric muscle work regimens on maximal strength
development. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 7: 33-44. 1981.
Book
4. Lohman, T.G. Advances in Body Composition Assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1992.
Chapter in an edited book
5. Yahara, M.L. The shoulder. In: Clinical Orthopedic Physical Therapy. J.K. Richardson and Z.A. Iglarsh, eds. Philadelphia:
Saunders, 1994. pp. 159 – 199.

28
References from Electronic Sources

Referencing electronic sources poses problems due to the changing nature of websites. Please limit electronic references in peer-
reviewed manuscripts to on-line refereed journals where possible. However, it is recognized that popular media websites (i.e. non-
refereed) may also need to be referenced from time to time for some points in peer-reviewed manuscripts and will often be used in
“From the Field” and other Applied Training manuscripts in JASC. In either case, please use the format below when referencing web
based sources.
Example
Refereed Online Journal
6. Simon JA, Hudes, ES. Relationship of ascorbic acid to blood lead levels. Journal of the American Medical Association
[online]. 281: 2289–2293, 1999. Available at www.jama.amaassn.org/cgi/reprint/281/24/2289 . Accessed November 19,
2007.
Popular media or Commercial Website
1. Baker, D. How to choose and set up your bands. Available at: www.danbakerstrength.com . Accessed February 25, 2009.
‘From the field’ articles do not necessarily require referencing, though it is encouraged. If referencing is used, please
ensure it conforms to the guidelines above.
TABLES, ILLUSTRATIONS, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND VIDEO CLIPS
The JASC encourages authors to submit tables, colour photographs, charts, video clips, and figures that help to illustrate aspects of
the article.
Figures, Photographs and Video Clips

All figures should be professional in appearance. Electronic photographs are encouraged. Please use a digital camera with high
resolution. Ensure images are clear and taken in a well-lit environment. The figure number and description should be placed below
the figure on the same page. Please place your figures in the results section where possible.
All photographs and videos are required to demonstrate health and safety procedures in the training environment (i.e. wearing
appropriate clothing and shoes, removing hats, using safety equipment such as collars on bars, spotters as required etc.). The focus
of the photograph or video should not be on a commercial product or the identity of a school or business. The JASC reserves the
right to remove or request new, revised photos if the original photos or video clips do not follow these guidelines or if the photo or
video is not of acceptable quality.
Tables
Tables must be numbered, professional in appearance and include a brief title above the table. Do NOT submit tables as photographs.
Please place your tables in the results section where possible.
Model Consent
Authors should have consent for use by all models appearing in figures, video clips, audio clips, and possibly other formats. It is the
policy of the JASC to make every effort not to block out the faces of individuals in figures, etc. If a model is under 18 years of age,
parental consent is required along with the consent of the model.
It is understood that all papers are somewhat unique and sensible deviations to the above guidelines will be tolerated where
reasonable.
For further information or to submit articles to the ASCA for publication in the JASC please email -
info@strengthandconditioning.org

29
View publication stats

JASC v22 Iss3 August2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JASC v22 Iss3 August2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Broadening the view of agility: a scientiﬁc review of the literature

Article · July 2014

Jay Dawes Ian Jeffreys

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tania Spiteri Sophia Nimphius

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cluster sets View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Editor-in-chief Editorial Panel Contact and Mailing Details

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Early Bird Pricing Ends

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Jeremy Sheppard PhD Brett Jones Peter Culhane

Please note these presenters are subject to change.

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Thanks to our 2014 Sponsors and Exhibitors!

Platinum Sponsor Gold Sponsor Silver Sponsor

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Broadening the View of Agility: A Scientific Review of the Literature.

Australian Strength & Conditioning Association

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Table 1 - Challendurai’s classifications of agility.

Spatial Spatial Volleyball or racquet sport service-receive: the umpire

Source: Adapted from Challendurai (23), page 39.

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Perceptual & Change of

Foot Body Reactive

Figure 1 - Agility components.

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Table 2 - An exclusive criterion for classification of agility.

Agility Non-agility Skills

Open Skill Closed Skills

PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH AGILITY

Relationship between straight-sprint speed and change of direction speed

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Leg strength qualities and change of direction speed

Change of direction speed and leg muscle strength and power

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Relationship between bi-lateral reactive strength and change of direction speed

Anthropometrics and change of direction speed

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Tests of Change of Direction Speed (CODS)

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Figure 3 - The 505 test of agility.

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Figure 4 - The T-test.

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Cognitive considerations in testing agility

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Target board displaying

Figure 6 - Unanticipated conditions task.

Screen with life

Timing lights trigger footage of netball

Figure 7 - AIS reactive agility test for netball (41).

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

are 3 meters apart

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

AGILITY IN TEAM SPORT SETTINGS

Volume 22 | Issue 3 | July 2014

Visual search pattern findings: Implications for the specificity of a stimulus

Testing and research into anticipation and reaction: Techniques utilized