TECHNICAL REPORT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW STOP’N’GO
REACTIVE-AGILITY TEST
DAMIR SEKULIC,1,2 ANTE KROLO,1 MIODRAG SPASIC,1 OGNJEN ULJEVIC,1
1
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia; and 2University Department of Health Care Studies, University of
Split, Split, Croatia
ABSTRACT
Sekulic, D, Krolo, A, Spasic, M, Uljevic, O, and Peric, M. The
development of a new stop’n’go reactive-agility test. J Strength
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 01/25/2021
Cond Res 28(11): 3306–3312, 2014—The main objective of
this study was to evaluate the reliability and the validity of a newly
constructed reactive-agility test that can be used to define the
reactive-agility performance in sports that employ repeated sce-
narios of “stop’n’go” agility. Measuring is done by original hard-
ware based on the ATMEL microcontroller AT89C51RE2. A
total of 36 college-aged male athletes (age, 22.1 6 2.4 years;
body height, 182.45 6 5.19 cm; body mass, 80.67 6 7.69 kg)
and 21 college-aged female athletes (age, 21.4 6 2.5 years;
body height, 171.45 6 6.81 cm; body mass, 61.95 6 6.70 kg)
were evaluated for a stop’n’go reactive-agility test (SNG-RAT),
stop’n’go change of direction speed (SNG-CODS), counter-
movement jump, and anthropometrics. The reliability analyses
suggested a high consistency for the applied tests (SNG-
CODS, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.87 and
0.92; SNG-RAT, ICC = 0.81 and 0.86, for men and women,
respectively). The SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS shared ,40% of
the common variance. The longer version of the SNG-RAT,
which included 5 unpredictable changes of direction, was found
to be valid among men. At the same time, the shorter version of
the SNG-RAT (3 unpredictable changes of direction) is sug-
gested for women because it better discriminates more agile
from less agile athletes. Because the SNG-RAT and SNG-
CODS were performed on the same course, we believe that
simultaneously performing both tests can be beneficial when
defining “stop’n’go” agility. This implies that the calculated
SNG-CODS to SNG-RAT ratio will allow strength and condi-
tioning coaches to indirectly determine the perceptual and reac-
tion capacities of their athletes.
KEY WORDS change of direction, reliability, validity,
performance
Address correspondence to Damir Sekulic, PhD, dado@pmfst.hr.
28(11)/3306–3312
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
3306 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND MIA PERIC1
INTRODUCTION
A
gility is defined as a rapid whole-body movement
with changes of velocity or direction in response
to a stimulus (13). This motor ability influences
performance in sports where quick changes of
direction are common (3,5). It is generally accepted that
agility is a multifaceted quality that depends on several
motor abilities, such as power, speed, and balance, and on
morphological–anthropometric factors (11).
Because of the different agility manifestations (e.g.,
forward–backward, rotational, lateral, zig-zag, and “stop’n’-
go”), previous studies frequently investigated predictors of
agility. The idea was to identify motor qualities that could
be effectively trained and used to improve different agility
capacities (9,15). However, nearly all the studies that evalu-
ated agility predictors studied “nonreactive agility” (i.e.,
change of direction speed [CODS]). Agility in sport environ-
ments primarily depends on CODS and also on perceptual
and cognitive processes. In short, perceptual and cognitive
abilities allow an athlete to recognize the need to change
direction and execute it effectively. In other words, in sports
in which agility is an important quality, a change of direction
is exclusively executed in response to unpredictable visual
stimuli (e.g., opponent, teammate, and ball); therefore, agile
maneuvers may not be explicitly preplanned (12,14).
Previous studies have already developed agility tests in
which subjects have to quickly change direction in response
to unpredictable visual stimuli (12,14). Regardless of the evi-
dent strengths of these methods (e.g., idea and development
of the measuring procedures), we must emphasize certain
limitations. In those studies, agility is observed through
“nonstop running change of direction.” Basically, examinees
sprinted over a “Y-shaped” course and changed their running
directions only once. Because our respected colleagues were
originally investigating rugby, where such maneuvers are
meaningful and frequent, this was a logical experimental
approach. However, there is no doubt that other sports
demand more specialized reactive-agility tests.
In sports such as soccer, basketball, handball, and/or
tennis, athletes have to change direction repeatedly through-
out “stop’n’go” movements. While doing so, they often per-
form turns, alternate between running and lateral shuffling,
change from forward to backward running, etc. The main

difference between “stop’n’go” scenarios and the previously
described “Y-shaped-course” scenario is that the latter sce-
nario lacks a moment of “zero velocity” (i.e., “Y-shaped-
course” agility consists of nonstop running). The distinction
between “nonstop” and “stop’n’go” agility has been directly
proven in recent studies, which demonstrated separate pre-
dictors for these 2 scenarios (10,11,15). Therefore, it is rea-
sonable to conclude that the “Y-shaped course” is not an
appropriate template with which to study reactive agility
for all sports (12).
The first aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability
and the validity of the newly constructed reactive-agility test
to measure reactive-agility performance in sports in which
“stop’n’go” agility exists. The secondary aim was to study the
relationship between reactive and nonreactive agilities in
college-level athletes.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Previous studies have highlighted the importance of reactive
agility. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no
study presenting testing protocols that would be useful in
defining reactive agility in sports that involve repeated
reactive “stop’n’go” directional changes (i.e., soccer, basket-
ball, handball, and tennis). In this study, both within-subject
and between-subject experimental designs were used to
determine the reliability and the validity of the newly con-
structed “stop’n’go” reactive-agility test (SNG-RAT).
The experimental approach consisted of several phases. In
the first phase, the test of nonreactive agility (i.e., CODS) and
the complementary test of reactive agility were theoretically
designed through consultations with renowned strength and
conditioning experts from different sports (basketball, handball,
and tennis), including consultations of professionals involved in
the training of several national teams. After a consensus was
reached about the test design, the approximate time frame and
the most appropriate movement scenarios, the technical
construction of the testing equipment commenced (i.e., the
second phase of the investigation). We assembled and
constructed digital equipment for the detection and recording
of multiple time points throughout the tests. We constructed
a novel hardware device system based on the ATMEL
microcontroller (model AT89C51RE2; ATMEL Corp., San
Jose, CA) as the core of the system. The photoelectric infrared
sensor (E18-D80NK) was used as an external time-triggering
input, and light-emitting-diode (LED) illuminations were used
as controlled outputs. The photoelectric infrared sensor has
been shown to be as reliable as high-speed sensors, with
a response time of ,2 milliseconds (.500 Hz) and a digital
output signal. The detection distance of the sensor was from 3
to 80 cm, and was capable of detecting transparent or opaque
objects. Because it has a digital output (high-low state) with an
NPN transistor open collector, the sensor is connected
through a microcontroller input-output port. For the purposes
of our study, this device was connected to a laptop that
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
worked on a Linux operating system (OS), although a MAC
platform or other operating systems (e.g., Windows and Mac
OS) would also be suitable. Measurement is more precisely
explained later in the text. The third phase of the experiment
included testing and reliability analysis for the newly con-
structed tests. The fourth phase involved validity analysis,
through comparison of the characteristic groups of athletes
(those involved in agility-saturated sports vs. noninvolved in
agility-saturated sports).
Subjects
College-aged athletes of both genders (N = 66), all 18–24
years old, were recruited for this study. The testing was
performed as a part of the initial screening at the beginning
of their respective competitive seasons. All subjects were in
good health, based on an initial medical screening. In total,
3 participants had suffered recent musculoskeletal disorders
(i.e., injury or prevalent pain) and were, therefore, not
included in the study.
The participants were required to answer a questionnaire
that was designed to assess the type of sport in which they
were engaged. Additionally, their answers were checked by
the university staff. If participants played in sports where
running was not a regular part of the sports training and
competition (e.g., rowing, swimming, synchronized swim-
ming, water polo, and sailing), they were not included in this
study (n = 6). As a result, a total of 36 college-aged male
athletes (age 22.1 6 2.4 years) and 21 college-aged female
athletes (age 21.4 6 2.5 years) participated. For the purposes
of this study, the participants were additionally divided into
2 groups: those involved in agility-saturated sports ([AG];
soccer, basketball, handball, and volleyball; 11 women and
21 men) and those not involved in agility-saturated sports
(nonagility sports [NAG]; gymnastics, track and field, and
sport dance; 10 women and 15 men).
The subjects regularly participated in 8–14 hours of train-
ing per week, consisting of strength training (10–30%),
endurance exercise (10–50%), and sport-specific exercise ses-
sions (50–60%). All the measurement procedures and poten-
tial risks were verbally explained to each participant before
obtaining their written informed consent. The Institutional
Ethical Board gave written consent for the investigation after
reviewing the experimental methods and procedures.
Procedures
The measurements consisted of body height (BH); body
mass (BM); body mass index (BMI), biceps, triceps, sub-
scapular, and suprailiac skinfold thickness (for the calcula-
tion of the body fat percentage [BF%]); the SNG-RAT; the
test of stop’n’go change of direction speed (SNG-CODS);
and the countermovement jump (CMJ).
The BH and BM were assessed using a Seca stadiometer
and weighing scales (Seca Instruments Ltd., Hamburg,
Germany). The BMI was computed by calculating the ratio
of BM (kilograms) and squared BH (meters). Body fat
percentage was calculated using body density (BD)
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2014 | 3307
 Stop’n’go Reactive-Agility Test
according to the following formula: BD = 1.162 2 0.063 3
log S4KN (where S4KN = sum of biceps, triceps, subscap-
ular, and suprailiac skinfolds). Body density was converted to
body fat percentage: BF% = (4.95/BD 2 4.5) 3 100 (2,6).
The CMJ was used to compare the overall training status
of the AG and NAG groups. The test began with the
participant standing in an upright position. A fast downward
movement to approximately 908 knee flexion was immedi-
ately followed by a quick, vertical movement as high as
possible, all in 1 sequence. This test was performed without
arm swinging and with the hands steadied by placing them
on the hips.
The SNG-RAT was performed on the testing field as
shown in Figure 1. The subjects began running from the start
line when ready. Timing began the moment each subject
crossed the infrared (IR) signal. When the subject crossed
the IR signal, a hardware module (microcontroller—MC)
ignited 1 of the 4 LED lights placed within 30-cm-high cones
A–D. The subject had to assess which cone was lit, run to that
particular cone, touch the top of the cone with his or her
preferred hand, and return to the start line as quickly as pos-
sible. He or she had to then cross or step on the start line with
his or her preferred leg, turn, and run again over the next
course. Each time when the subject crossed the IR, the MC
ignited one of the LED lights. The single-test trial consisted of
5 courses, and the single trial was completed when the exam-
inee crossed the IR signal after returning from the fifth course.
Three trials were performed. All the subjects were tested using
Figure 1. Testing of the stop’n’go reactive agility (SNG-RAT) and stop’n’go change of direction speed (SNG-
CODS).
the TM
3308 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 equal scenarios (i.e., 3 testing trials), though they had no
knowledge of it in advance. The first scenario was 1-2-4-3-3,
the second was 2-2-4-3-1, and the third was 4-1-4-1-2. The
best result was retained as the final score. Although the testing
equipment was designed to allow a random selection of test-
ing scenarios, the same 3 scenarios were used to ensure equal
testing conditions for all the subjects.
The SNG-CODS was performed on the same testing field
as that for the SNG-RAT (Figure 1). Throughout this test, the
testing scenario was simple (1,2), and the subjects knew it in
advance. As for the SNG-RAT, the timing began the moment
each subject crossed the IR. The subjects ran as quickly as
possible to cone A (course 1), touched the top cone with his
or her preferred hand and ran back to the start line. He or she
then had to cross or step on the start line with his or her
preferred leg, turn, and run over courses 2–5. The test was
completed when the subject crossed the IR signal at the end
of course 5. The test was repeated 3 times (i.e., 3 trials were
performed) using the same scenario, and, after reliability anal-
yses, the best score was retained as the final result.
As a measuring remark, it must be stressed that the MC
recorded the result of each single course for both tests. On
a day of testing, throughout the 2–3 practice trials before both
tests (i.e., SNG-CODS and SNG-RAT), the subjects were
familiarized with the testing procedures and established their
most convenient maneuvers. More precisely, the examinees
were instructed to use their preferred movement procedure
and type of running (i.e., forward, backward, lateral displace-
ment, and grapevine steps) and
to strive for their best score.
Data Collection
On the first day of testing, data
on the subjects’ anthropometric
measurements and CMJ were
collected. On the second day,
the SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS
were evaluated. One half of the
examinees conducted the SNG-
RAT first, followed by the SNG-
CODS, whereas the remaining
half performed the SNG-CODS
and then the SNG-RAT. Stan-
dardized 3-minute pauses
between the trials and tests
were used for all subjects.
However, if the subjects asked
for extra recovery time, this
was allowed.
Each subject performed
a standard warm-up that con-
sisted of 5 minutes of forward
running, 2 minutes of back-
ward running, 1 minute of
lateral shuffling (30 seconds
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

To determine the relation-

ships between SNG-CODS
TABLE 1. Reliability parameters for the stop’n’go reactive-agility test and
stop’n’go change of direction speed.*† and SNG-RAT, Pearson’s cor-
relations were calculated.
Men Women Differences between AG and
NAG for all measured variables
Mean SD CA CV ICC Mean SD CA CV ICC
were established using an inde-
SNG-RATtrial1 11.36 0.99 12.13 1.00 pendent t-test. Additionally, the
SNG-RATtrial2 11.01 0.96 11.95 1.05 differences between AG and
SNG-RATtrial3 10.91 0.72 12.18 1.11 NAG were also analyzed using
SNG-RATfinal score 10.68 0.78 0.88 0.04 0.81 11.70 0.97 0.89 0.04 0.86
a magnitude-based Cohen’s
SNG-CODStrial1 9.69 0.80 10.75 0.77
SNG-CODStrial2 9.55 1.03 10.40 0.56 effect size (ES) statistic with
SNG-CODStrial3 9.32 0.98 10.35 0.68 modified qualitative descriptors.
SNG-CODSfinal score 9.17 0.80 0.91 0.05 0.87 10.14 0.54 0.79 0.04 0.92 Effect sizes were assessed using
the following criteria: ,0.2 =
*CA = Cronbach Alpha; CV = coefficient of the variation; ICC = intraclass coefficient;
SNG-RAT = stop’n’go reactive-agility test; SNG-CODS = stop’n’go change of direction trivial, 0.2–0.6 = small, .0.6–
speed. 1.2 = moderate, .1.2–2.0 =
†The single best achievement of each individual is retained as the final score.
large, and .2.0 very large dif-
ferences (17).
All the coefficients were
considered significant at
each side), 10 squats, 10 push-ups, and 3 minutes of dynamic a 95% confidence level (p # 0.05). Statsoft’s Statistic version
stretching exercises. Warm-up was performed before the 11.0 (Tulsa, OK, USA) was used.
CMJ testing on the first day and at the beginning of the
second day of testing. RESULTS
To avoid diurnal variation, all tests were carried out in the In general, the reliability parameters suggest a high consis-
morning between 8 AM and 11 AM in December 2013. tency for the SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS (ICC of 0.81–
0.92). The between-subject reliability (CA of 0.79–0.91)
Statistical Analyses and within-subject reliability (CV of 4–5%) were similar for
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test defined all variables as nor- both genders. There is no evident difference between the
mally distributed. The reliability of the applied measure- reliability of the SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS (Table 1).
ments was checked via their coefficients of variation (CV), The ANOVA found no significant differences between the
Cronbach Alpha values (CA), and intraclass correlation SNG-RAT trials for women. Meanwhile, the ANOVA for
coefficients (ICCs). The repeated measures analysis of vari- repeated measures reached statistical significance (p # 0.05)
ance (ANOVA), and Tukey’s post hoc test were used to for the SNG-CODS (for both men and women) and the
detect any systematic bias between the trials (items). SNG-RAT (for men). As expected, there was a trend of

TABLE 2. Comparison between male athletes involved in AG and NAG.*

AG (n = 21) NAG (n = 15) t-Test ES

Mean SD Mean SD t Value p ES CI95%2 CI95%+

BH (cm) 183.41 5.56 182.69 5.30 0.41 0.69 0.13 20.53 0.79
BM (kg) 80.41 6.66 80.47 8.95 20.02 0.98 20.01 0.67 0.66
BMI (kg$m22) 23.88 1.34 24.08 2.13 20.33 0.74 20.12 20.78 0.55
BF% (%) 12.60 3.21 13.21 2.99 20.63 0.53 20.19 20.86 0.47
SNG-RAT (s) 10.41 0.73 10.96 0.76 22.28 0.03 20.75 21.42 20.05
SNG-CODS (s) 8.99 0.77 9.36 0.80 21.42 0.17 20.47 21.13 0.21
CMJ (cm) 34.36 4.27 35.57 3.92 20.93 0.36 20.29 20.95 0.38

*AG = agility-saturated sports; NAG = not involved in agility-saturated sports; ES = effect size; BH = body height; BM = body
mass; BMI = body mass index; BF% = percentage of body fat; SNG-RAT = stop’n’go reactive-agility test; SNG-CODS = stop’n’go
change of direction speed; CMJ = countermovement jump; p = level of significance; CI = confidence interval for the effect size.

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2014 | 3309

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Stop’n’go Reactive-Agility Test

TABLE 3. Comparison between female athletes involved in AG and NAG.*

AG (n = 11) NAG (n = 10) t-Test ES

Mean SD Mean SD t Value p ES CI95%2 CI95%+

BH (cm) 173.14 8.17 170.00 7.43 0.86 0.40 0.40 20.48 1.25
BM (kg) 62.86 6.44 60.75 7.57 0.62 0.55 0.30 20.57 1.15
BMI (kg$m22) 20.93 1.13 20.99 1.91 20.07 0.94 20.04 20.89 0.82
BF% (%) 23.56 2.25 22.09 1.35 1.76 0.09 0.75 20.13 1.64
SNG-RAT (s) 11.49 0.65 11.84 1.15 20.88 0.39 20.39 21.23 0.49
SNG-CODS (s) 9.99 0.32 10.20 0.53 20.30 0.61 20.49 21.34 0.40
CMJ (cm) 24.28 2.35 24.42 3.09 20.12 0.91 20.05 20.90 0.81

*AG = agility-saturated sports; NAG = not involved in agility-saturated sports; ES = effect size; BH = body height; BM = body
mass; BMI = body mass index; BF% = percentage of body fat; SNG-RAT = stop’n’go reactive-agility test; SNG-CODS = stop’n’go
change of direction speed; CMJ = countermovement jump; p = level of significance; CI = confidence interval for the effect size.

improvement with repeated trials. In all cases where the
ANOVA was significant, post hoc analyses revealed no sig-
nificant differences between the second and third trials, dem-
onstrating that the results were stabilized by the third testing
trial. Consequently, the best score was retained as the final
result for each subject on both tests (Table 1).
Correlations between the SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS
were significant (p # 0.05) but moderate (0.62 and 0.68 for
men and women, respectively), demonstrating that reactive
and nonreactive agilities share 36–46% of the common var-
iance. Women and men performed better in the SNG-CODS
than in the SNG-RAT (15 and 16% for women and men,
respectively) (Table 1).
For men, the AG group achieved significantly better
results in the SNG-RAT (t value = 22.28; p = 0.03;
ES = 20.75, moderate differences), but no significant differ-
ences were observed between groups for the SNG-CODS
(t value = 21.42; p = 0.17; ES = 20.47, small differences). No
significant differences (p . 0.05) were observed between
groups for anthropometrics (ES from 0.01 to 0.13, all trivial
differences) and CMJ (t value = 20.93; p = 0.36; ES = 0.29,
small differences), which indicated their similar overall train-
ing status (Table 2).
Among women, the AG and NAG did not differ
significantly in SNG-CODS (t value = 20.30; p = 0.61; ES
= 20.49, small differences) and SNG-RAT (t value = 20.88;
p = 0.39; ES = 20.39, small differences). There were no
significant differences for the anthropometrics (p . 0.05;
ES from 0.04 to 0.40, trivial to small differences), but the
ES for BF% indicated moderate (ES = 0.75) differences
between groups (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Regarding the main objectives of this study, there are several
important findings. First, the newly constructed test was
found to be appropriately reliable for both male and female
the TM
college-aged athletes. Second, the moderate correlation
between the SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS suggests that
reactive agility and nonreactive agility should not be
considered as single (i.e., equal) capacity. Third, there is
evidence that the SNG-RAT superiorly measures the type
of agility performance that is characteristic of agility-
saturated sports.
The reliability of the different nonreactive-agility tests
has been frequently studied. Because samples have differed
between studies in terms of training status, gender, and
sport, researchers have found moderate to high reliability
parameters (4,7,8). In general, the reliability of the SNG-
CODS is similar to previously reported values for other
nonreactive-agility tests (3,4,9–11,15). This is particularly
important because the SNG-CODS is relatively complex
and consists of 5 courses and 5 unpredictable changes of
direction. Each change of direction potentially causes
some measurement error because of noncontrollable fac-
tors (e.g., incorrect stepping and sliding on the surface).
Therefore, the high reliability of the SNG-CODS is more
valuable.
The reliability parameters for the SNG-RAT suggest
strong reliability in both genders. The ICC that was
observed for men in this study was somewhat higher than
the one previously reported for the Y-shaped reactive agility
in rugby union players (ICC = 0.82) (12). However, this is
almost certainly related to the higher level of heterogeneity
in our subjects and the consequently higher variability of
their results in comparison with equally trained rugby league
players. To the best of our knowledge, no study has investi-
gated reactive agility among women; therefore, the reliability
of female reactive agility could not be compared.
Although all subjects were familiarized with the testing
procedures, the ANOVA results indicated that testing on
both procedures should be conducted for at least 2 trials.
More precisely, the authors of the study witnessed

3310 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

1 common mistake that was characteristic of the first trials.
Initially, most of the subjects tried to sprint maximally from
the start line to the infrared sensor (Figure 1). As a result,
they accelerated uncontrollably, and their inertia did not
allow them to perform the necessary change of direction
efficiently. By the second or third trial, they anticipated this
problem, which consequently led to superior and stable per-
formances in the remaining trials.
A significant correlation between the SNG-RAT and
SNG-CODS was expected because both tests were per-
formed on the same course, and, as a result, the performance
on both tests depended on similar conditioning capacities
(i.e., running speed, power, and balance). Regardless of this
significant correlation, however, it is evident that reactive
and nonreactive agilities shared ,50% of the common
variance, which indicates that these 2 capacities should be
observed as independent qualities (1,16,18). While studying
rugby-specific agility, Australian authors identified an even
smaller percentage of common variance between reactive
and nonreactive components (12). However, the participants
in that study watched a video recorded scenario before even
starting the reactive-agility test (i.e., they stand still and
received the video information), whereas the nonreactive
test was performed over the same course with prior knowl-
edge of the necessary movement pattern. Therefore, the
majority of the reactive-agility test results in their study were
associated with the early identification of key sport-specific
kinematic cues from the video. On the other hand, our par-
ticipants were already sprinting when they received visual
information about the necessary change of direction. There-
fore, we may suppose that perceptual and reactive capacities
(P&RC, i.e., perception of the visual stimuli and reactions to
stimuli) contribute less to the final result of the SNG-RAT
than in the study that investigated the Y-shaped reactive-
agility test. However, it is probable that the percentage of
the common variance that remained unexplained after the
SNG-RAT and SNG-CODS were correlated (;60% unex-
plained variance) and can be attributed to the athletes’
P&RC to some extent.
The only truly valid conditioning capacity test is one that
efficiently differentiates the groups of interest and can
consequently explain the difference between those groups
(12). In our study, the validity of the test was demonstrated
by its differentiation between 2 groups of athletes: those who
were and those who were not involved in agility-saturated
sports. Among the men, the SNG-RAT was found to be able
to differentiate the AG and NAG athletes, whereas no sig-
nificant differences were found for the SNG-CODS. Previ-
ous studies have confirmed that the nonreactive agility in
men is mostly related to speed, power, and balance
(10,11). Therefore, it is logical that those athletes who pos-
sessed advanced levels of these qualities would achieve good
results in the SNG-CODS regardless of their P&RC. On
the contrary, P&RC, especially visual stimuli, are factors that
are systematically and nonsystematically trained almost
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
exclusively in agility-saturated sports. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to conclude that P&RC directly and indirectly
influenced the reactive-agility performance of the AG group
and defined this group’s superiority in the SNG-RAT.
To some extent, the lack of significant difference between
AG and NAG among women is contradictory to the
previous discussion offered for men in which the SNG-
RAT discriminated the 2 observed groups of subjects.
However, this most likely does not mean that the SNG-
RAT is not valid for women, but rather that certain
modifications to the SNG-RAT test are necessary. For that
purpose, we propose that shortening the test would be
particularly useful. In short, there was certainly a possibility
that other conditioning capacities (e.g., anaerobic lactate
capacity) influenced the SNG-CODS and SNG-RAT per-
formances among women. This was particularly probable
observing the moderate differences in BF% between groups.
The hardware equipment designed for this study allowed
us to measure and to record each testing sequence (i.e., the
time necessary to complete each single course of the test).
Therefore, we reanalyzed the test results for women, but this
time as a final result, we have used the time necessary for
them to complete the first 3 courses of the SNG-CODS and
SNG-RAT (note that the original test result was recorded as
the time necessary to complete 5 courses, which included 5
unpredictable changes of direction). After shortening the
test, the results of the studied female groups were as follows:
the AG group (women) achieved 6.71 6 0.45 and 6.13 6
0.56 seconds, whereas the NAG group’s results were
7.55 6 1.12 and 6.15 6 0.87 seconds for the SNG-RAT
and SNG-CODS, respectively. This time, the groups
significantly differed only in the SNG-RAT (i.e., the AG
group performed significantly better than the NAG group;
t value = 21.98; p = 0.03; ES = 20.88).
This modification allowed us to determine the reactive-
agility performance of women more accurately and
consequently ensured the validity of the performance
measurements. It is interesting to note that the between-
subject-reliability parameters (CA) of both tests slightly
improved when the shorter test version was applied among
the women (0.83 and 0.90 for the SNG-CODS and SNG-
RAT, respectively).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The originally developed reactive- and nonreactive-agility
tests consisting of 5 courses were found to be appropriately
reliable. However, the shorter version of the reactive-agility
test (i.e., 3 courses) was able to differentiate the more agile
female athletes from the less agile ones, and therefore, we
strongly suggest the usage of a shorter version of the test (i.e.,
3 courses) when testing female athletes. Although in this
article, we presented a wired measurement system, the
wireless version of the testing equipment is also in develop-
ment. The authors are at disposal for all details about testing
equipment availability, construction, and calibration.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2014 | 3311
 Stop’n’go Reactive-Agility Test
We emphasize the high applicability of simultaneously
performing both tests (i.e., reactive and nonreactive agilities).
This implies that tests are performed over the same course
and are therefore practically identical regarding the move-
ment scenario. Therefore, the calculated ratio of the
performance between the 2 tests (i.e., reactive-agility to
nonreactive-agility ratio) would allow strength and condi-
tioning coaches to indirectly determine the perceptual and
reaction abilities (PRA) of the tested athletes.
The calculated PRA should be observed as a valuable
conditioning parameter. It is reasonable to expect that PRA
could be developed through the use of conditioning games
or unplanned agility drills. This would also positively
influence the agility that appears in the playing environment
(i.e., decision-making agility).
Future studies should explore additional versions of the
proposed tests and their applicability in sport-specific
conditioning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are particularly grateful to the reviewers for
their constructive comments and suggestions. Special thanks
go to Mario Tomljanovic (Croatian Handball Federation),
Mato Stankovic, Igor Jukic, and Mario Jelicic (Croatian
Football Federation); and Stjepan Medak (Croatian Tennis
Federation) for their valuable suggestions and overall help in
this study. The results of this study do not constitute
endorsement of the product by the authors or the National
Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Cavar, M, Corluka, M, Cerkez, I, Culjak, Z, and Sekulic, D. Are
various forms of locomotion-speed diverse or unique performance
quality? J Hum Kinet 38: 53–61, 2013.
2. Durnin, J and Womersley, J. Body fat assessed from total body density
and its estimation from skinfold thickness: Measurements on 481 men
and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32: 77–97, 1974.
3. Hachana, Y, Chaabene, H, Nabli, MA, Attia, A, Moualhi, J,
Farhat, N, and Elloumi, M. Test–retest reliability, criterion-related
validity, and minimal detectable change of the Illinois agility test in
male team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2752–2759, 2013.
the TM
3312 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
4. Haj-Sassi, R, Dardouri, W, Gharbi, Z, Chaouachi, A, Mansour, H,
Rabhi, A, and Mahfoudhi, M-E. Reliability and validity of a new
repeated agility test as a measure of anaerobic and explosive power.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 472–480, 2011.
5. Jakovljevic, ST, Karalejic, MS, Pajic, ZB, Macura, MM, and
Erculj, FF. Speed and agility of 12- and 14-year-old elite male
basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2453–2459, 2012.
6. Jelicic, M, Sekulic, D, and Marinovic, M. Anthropometric
characteristics of high level European junior basketball players. Coll
Antropol 26: 69–76, 2002.
7. Mirkov, D, Nedeljkovic, A, Kukolj, M, Ugarkovic, D, and Jaric, S.
Evaluation of the reliability of soccer-specific field tests. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 1046–1050, 2008.
8. Munro, AG and Herrington, LC. Between-session reliability of four
hop tests and the agility T-test. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1470–1477,
2011.
9. Salaj, S and Markovic, G. Specificity of jumping, sprinting, and quick
change-of-direction motor abilities. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1249–
1255, 2011.
10. Sekulic, D, Spasic, M, and Esco, MR. Predicting agility performance
with other performance variables in pubescent boys: A multiple-
regression approach. Perc Mot Skills 0: doi: 10.2466/25.10.PMS.
118k16w4, 2014.
11. Sekulic, D, Spasic, M, Mirkov, D, Cavar, M, and Sattler, T. Gender-
specific influences of balance, speed, and power on agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 27: 802–811, 2013.
12. Serpell, BG, Ford, M, and Young, WB. The development of a new
test of agility for rugby league. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3270–3277,
2010.
13. Sheppard, JM and Young, WB. Agility literature review:
Classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci 24: 919–932, 2006.
14. Sheppard, JM, Young, WB, Doyle, TLA, Sheppard, TA, and
Newton, RU. An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its
relationship to sprint speed and change of direction speed. J Sci Med
Sport 9: 342–349, 2006.
15. Spasic, M, Uljevic, O, Coh, M, Dzelalija, M, and Sekulic, D.
Predictors of agility performance among early pubescent girls. Int
J Perf Anal Sport 13: 480–499, 2013.
16. Thomas, JR and Nelson, JK. Research Methods in Physical Activity
(4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2011.
17. Uljevic, O, Esco, MR, and Sekulic, D. Reliability, validity and
applicability of isolated and combined sport-specific tests of
conditioning capacities in top-level junior water polo athletes.
J Strength Cond Res doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000308, 2013.
18. Young, WB, McDowell, MH, and Scarlett, BJ. Specificity of sprint
and agility training methods. J Strength Cond Res 15: 315–319, 2001.