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

net/publication/258526078

Planned and Reactive Agility Performance in Semi-Professional and Amateur

Basketball Players.

Article  in  International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · November 2013

DOI: 10.1123/IJSPP.2013-0324 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
77 8,354

5 authors, including:

Robert George Lockie Matthew Daniel Jeffriess

California State University, Fullerton University of Technology Sydney
238 PUBLICATIONS   5,439 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   1,143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tye S. Mcgann Samuel John Callaghan

The University of Newcastle, Australia 56 PUBLICATIONS   1,616 CITATIONS   
8 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Relationships of Lower-body Power Measures to Sprint and Change of Direction Speed among NCAA Division II Women’s Lacrosse Players View project

Accuracy of Body Mass Index Based on Self-Report Data among Law Enforcement Cadets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert George Lockie on 17 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2014, 9, 766-771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2013-0324
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Planned and Reactive Agility Performance

in Semiprofessional and Amateur Basketball Players
Robert G. Lockie, Matthew D. Jeffriess, Tye S. McGann, Samuel J. Callaghan, Adrian B. Schultz

Context: Research indicates that planned and reactive agility are different athletic skills. These skills have not been adequately
assessed in male basketball players. Purpose: To define whether 10-m-sprint performance and planned and reactive agility
measured by the Y-shaped agility test can discriminate between semiprofessional and amateur basketball players. Methods: Ten
semiprofessional and 10 amateur basketball players completed 10-m sprints and planned- and reactive-agility tests. The Y-shaped
agility test involved subjects sprinting 5 m through a trigger timing gate, followed by a 45° cut and 5-m sprint to the left or right
through a target gate. In the planned condition, subjects knew the cut direction. For reactive trials, subjects visually scanned to
find the illuminated gate. A 1-way analysis of variance (P < .05) determined between-groups differences. Data were pooled (N
= 20) for a correlation analysis (P < .05). Results: The reactive tests differentiated between the groups; semiprofessional play-
ers were 6% faster for the reactive left (P = .036) and right (P = .029) cuts. The strongest correlations were between the 10-m
sprints and planned-agility tests (r = .590–.860). The reactive left cut did not correlate with the planned tests. The reactive right
cut moderately correlated with the 10-m sprint and planned right cut (r = .487–.485). Conclusions: The results reemphasized
that planned and reactive agility are separate physical qualities. Reactive agility discriminated between the semiprofessional and
amateur basketball players; planned agility did not. To distinguish between male basketball players of different ability levels,
agility tests should include a perceptual and decision-making component.

Keywords: change-of-direction speed, visual perception, decision making, Y-shaped agility test, court sports

Agility is an essential component for team sports including
basketball. Agility has been defined as an action that features an
initiation of body movement, change of direction, or rapid accelera-
tion or deceleration.1 There are also physical and cognitive com-
ponents such as recognition of a stimulus, reaction, and execution
of a physical response.1 Maximal runs in basketball often feature a
change in direction.2 Furthermore, elite basketball players perform
more movement changes, whether transitioning from actions like
running, jumping, shuffling, or dribbling, than subelite players.3
This illustrates the need for basketball players to effectively change
direction and the importance of how coaches can assess this capacity.
It is important to define the agility component actually being
assessed by a test, with Sheppard and Young1 illustrating the many
factors that agility comprises. Change-of-direction speed forms 1
branch of agility and incorporates factors such as the athlete’s sprint
technique, strength, and power. Perception and decision making
form a second branch, incorporating visual scanning, knowledge
of situations, and pattern recognition.
Many traditional tests of agility only assess change-of-direction
speed; they do not incorporate a decision-making component.
Examples include the 505,4,5 proagility shuttle,6 and 3-cone drill.4,6
Change-of-direction speed can also be classified as planned agility,
At the time of the study, the authors were all with the Exercise and Sport
Science Dept, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, Australia. Lockie is now
with California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA. Jeffriess is
with the Sport and Exercise Discipline Group, University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia. Callaghan is with the School of Exercise and Health
Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia. Address author cor-
respondence to Robert Lockie at robert.lockie@newcastle.edu.au.
in that subjects are aware of the direction changes required.7,8 Cer-
tain change-of-direction-speed tests can delineate between athletes
of different ability levels. For example, better American football
players tend to complete the proagility shuttle and 3-cone drill faster
than players from lower levels of play.6 Regarding basketball, a test
that incorporated six 5-m shuttle runs designed to mimic basketball-
specific cuts delineated between elite and subelite female players.9
However, planned agility has also been found to not discriminate
between players of different athletic capabilities. This includes the
3-cone drill10 for rugby league players and an adapted Y-shaped
change-of-direction-speed test in netball players8 and Australian
football players.11 Previous research has also shown that there is
little commonality between planned and reactive agility,8,11 indicat-
ing they are 2 different actions.
To test reactive agility, the assessment task must include an
introduced stimulus. The athlete responds to this stimulus to change
direction within the task confines. This stimulus is required to stress
athletes’ visual-scanning and decision-making capacities.7 The most
common model used is a Y-shaped drill, in which athletes receive
a stimulus that requires them to complete a 45° cut to the left or
right.7,8,11–13 In an attempt to increase the specificity of a reactive
Y-shaped agility test, researchers have used video projections
for netball players8 and Australian football players13 and a live
opponent for Australian football players.11,14 In each instance, the
reactive-agility drill was able to discriminate between athletes of
different playing levels. However, when incorporating a person in
an assessment, the variability associated with a live opponent can
have a meaningful effect on test performance.14 Previous research
has also found low reliability associated with reactive-agility tests
using video for Australian football (intraclass correlation coefficient
= .33).13 Perhaps more important, the practicality of using video
projections to assess reactive agility in the field is problematic.13

766

Many basketball teams do not have access to the equipment neces-
sary to perform this type of assessment. Therefore, a protocol that
can distinguish athletes of different ability levels that is practically
appropriate and easy to implement would be of great value for
basketball coaches.
Light stimuli have also been used in reactive-agility testing.7,12
Although a flashing light may not be specific to stimuli that are
generally present in team sports,1 it is frequently used in an applied
setting due to commercial availability in timing-gate systems.7 Reac-
tion time for a physical response to a light stimulus does provide
an indication of an individual’s information-processing speed,15
which is an important component of reactive agility,1 and this pro-
vides evidence of criterion validity. As evidence of the construct
validity of this type of protocol, a reactive-agility test that used a
light stimulus to induce a direction change differentiated between
higher- and lower-level rugby league7 and rugby union12 players.
The reliability of such an assessment was high, with a coefficient
of variation of approximately 3%.7 Given that this type of testing
can be used across a range of team-sport athletes, it is important
that research clarify the legitimacy of reactive-agility testing for
specific athletic populations. No research has analyzed reactive
agility specifically in basketball players.
There is an argument that a valid test for assessing a player’s
agility must include both a reactive and a visual-perceptual compo-
nent. Therefore, the current research compared linear 10-m-sprint
performance, as well as planned and reactive agility using the
Y-shaped agility test, in semiprofessional and amateur basketball
players. The inclusion of the 10-m sprint was to ensure that any
differences in reactive agility could be linked to visual-perceptual
capacities, rather than just physical capabilities relating to better
planned sprint or agility performance. We hypothesized that semi-
professional players would perform better in both the sprint and
planned-agility tests, as well as the reactive-agility tests but that the
differences will be more pronounced for the reactive assessments.
These hypotheses were based on research documenting the fact
that elite basketball players make more direction changes during
match play3 and higher-level team-sport athletes perform better in
light-stimulus reactive-agility tests.7,12 This research has importance
for basketball and strength and conditioning coaches. The findings
document the value of testing reactive agility specific to basketball
players and indicate whether there is a greater need to assess this
capacity than planned agility.
Methods
Subjects
Twenty male basketball players (age 22.30 ± 3.97 y, height 1.84 ±
0.09 m, mass 85.96 ± 11.88 kg) were recruited. This included 10
players from a semiprofessional team (age 21.40 ± 3.13 y, height
1.88 ± 0.10 m, mass 88.45 ± 10.70 kg) that play 1 tier below the
Australian professional league. Ten recreational amateur players
(age 23.20 ± 4.66 y, height 1.81 ± 0.08 m, mass 83.47 ± 13.02 kg),
age-matched as closely as possible to the semiprofessional group,
were also recruited. Subjects were recruited if they were currently
playing basketball at either a semiprofessional or amateur level,
had a history of physical activity (≥2 times per week) extending
over the previous 6 months, had played basketball for at least 5
years,16 and did not have any existing medical conditions that would
compromise study participation. Subjects were tested in-season. All
subjects played 1 game per week; the semiprofessional players also
attended 2 basketball training sessions per week. The methodology
Agility in Basketball Players   767
and procedures used in this study were approved by the institutional
ethics committee and conformed to the policy statement with respect
to the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects received an explanation
of the study, including the risks and benefits of participation. Written
informed consent was obtained.
Design
This research involved a cross-sectional analysis of basketball play-
ers. One testing session was used, where after having their height,
mass, and age recorded, subjects completed three 10-m sprint trials
and 12 maximal efforts in the Y-shaped agility test (6 planned, 6
reactive, with 3 each to the left and right). Three minutes recovery
was allocated between trials. All testing was conducted on an indoor
basketball court with a sprung wooden floor. The same dynamic
warm-up was completed by all subjects, consisting of 5 minutes
of jogging around the court at a self-selected pace, 10 minutes of
dynamic stretching of the lower limbs, and progressive speed runs
(50%, 60%, 70%, and 90% of perceived maximum) over the length
of half the basketball court (14 m). Subjects then completed the
10-m sprints. After this, the trials for the planned or reactive sprints
were completed in successive order. Which group of 6 trials was
completed first (planned or reactive) was randomized among the
subjects. Before the test trials, 2 submaximal (~80% of perceived
maximum) practice trials were provided for each condition. Times
were recorded to the nearest 0.001 second.
10-m Sprint
The 10-m sprint was used as an assessment of planned linear accel-
eration and has been previously included in agility research.7,11,12
Timing light gates (Fusion Sports, Coopers Plains, Australia) were
positioned at 0 m and 10 m. Gates were set at a width of 1.5 m and
height of 1.2 m. Subjects began the sprint 30 cm behind the start
line to trigger the first gate7 and were instructed to sprint maximally
through both gates. The fastest trial was analyzed.
Y-Shaped Agility Test
The Y-shaped agility test was used in this study.7,12 This has previ-
ously been found to be reliable.7 The dimensions for the test can be
seen in Figure 1. A timing-lights system (Fusion Sports, Coopers
Plains, Australia) was used to record time and set the planned and
reactive conditions. As in the 10-m sprint, gates were set at a width
of 1.5 m and height of 1.2 m. A goniometer was used to determine
the 45° angle from the middle of the trigger gate to the middle of
the target gates, and the photoelectric cells were positioned on the
inside of these gates.12 Subjects began their sprint 30 cm behind
the start line7 and ran maximally through the first 2 gates. In the
planned condition, subjects were told before the trial which direction
they were to turn. They were encouraged to perform the change-of-
direction task as fast as possible, resulting in an approximate 45°
change of direction. They were also told not to initiate the change of
direction until they had passed through the trigger gate. Three trials
each cutting left and right were completed for the planned-agility
conditions. The fastest trial for each direction change was analyzed.
The conditions for the reactive test were modeled on estab-
lished methods.12 Subjects sprinted through the first 2 gates as
per the planned test. However, after passing through the trigger
gate, subjects visually scanned for the flashing gate and, once they
located it, performed a 45° cut to sprint through the gate. During
the reactive trials, subjects were required to perform a split-step
768  Lockie et al
after they passed through the trigger gate. A split-step is a small
vertical jump that is preparatory motion before making a lateral
movement.17 Although the split-step was not incorporated into the
planned tests, it was included in the reactive test to reduce subjects’
ability to guess which gate they thought would illuminate and
helped ensure that the resulting position of the feet did not favor
movement to either side.18 Furthermore, the body position adopted
after the split-step is coached in basketball players to encourage a
stance that can facilitate movement on the court in reactive condi-
tions.19,20 If a subject did guess during a trial (eg, did not perform
a split-step and the trial resembled a planned change-of-direction
sprint or initiated movement to the incorrect gate), the trial was
Figure 1 — The Y-shaped agility test. Participants ran 5 m through the
start gate to pass the trigger gate. After this, they cut left or right depending
on which reactive gate was illuminated. Gates were 1.5 m wide.
Table 1  Descriptive Statistics for Semiprofessional (n = 10) and Amateur (n = 10)
Basketball Players in a 10-m Sprint, and Y-Shaped Agility Test Under Planned and
Reactive Conditions With Cuts to the Left and Right
Time (s)
Semiprofessional
10-m sprint 1.812 ± 0.094
Planned left 1.877 ± 0.087
Planned right 1.889 ± 0.144
Reactive left 2.519 ± 0.167
Reactive right 2.528 ± 0.191
*Significant (P < .05) difference between the semiprofessional and amateur groups.
discarded and reattempted. Subjects completed 6 trials in total. The
timing-lights software was programmed such that 3 trials to the left
and right were completed, but the order of trials was randomized
such that subjects did not know which direction to turn before the
test, and the order was different for each subject. The fastest trial
for each turn was used.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) were calculated for all results. A
1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; P < .05) determined whether
there were significant differences between the dependent variables
(10-m sprint and Y-shaped agility-test times) for the semiprofes-
sional and amateur groups. Effect sizes (ES) were also calculated,
where the difference between the means was divided by the pooled
standard deviations.21 An ES of 0.50 or lower was considered a
small effect, 0.51 to 0.80 a medium effect, and 0.81 and above a
large effect.21
To further analyze agility, data for all subjects (N = 20) were
then combined and used for a Pearson correlation analysis (P < .05).
A correlation coefficient (r) less than .30 was considered small, .31
to .49 moderate, .50 to .69 large, .70 to .89 very large, and .90 and
higher nearly perfect for predicting relationships.22 All statistical
analyses were computed using the Statistics Package for Social
Sciences (version 20.0, IBM, Armonk, USA).
Results
There were no differences in age (P = .324, ES = 0.45), height
(P = .117, ES = 0.77), or mass (P = .363, ES = 0.42) between the
groups. Table 1 displays the speed-test results for both groups. The
between-groups degrees of freedom for the ANOVA data equaled 1;
within-subject equaled 18. The semiprofessional group displayed
moderately, 4%, quicker 10-m-sprint times than the amateur group,
although the difference was nonsignificant. There were also no
significant differences between the planned-agility tests. In the
reactive tests, the semiprofessional group was significantly faster
for both conditions (6% faster for both cuts). In each instance, large
effects were present.
Figure 2 displays descriptive data for each test for all subjects.
The correlations between the 10-m-sprint and Y-shaped agility tests
are shown in Table 2. All significant relationships were positive,
indicating that a faster time in one test related to a faster time in
the other. Moderate correlations were found between the right-cut
Amateur F P Effect size
1.880 ± 0.072 3.271 .087 0.81
1.936 ± 0.124 1.494 .237 0.55
1.960 ± 0.144 1.199 .288 0.49
2.672 ± 0.132 5.165 .036* 1.02
2.696 ± 0.118 5.597 .029* 1.06
 Agility in Basketball Players   769

Figure 2 — 10-m (m) sprint time and time for planned and reactive cuts to the left and right as measured by the Y-shaped agility test in semiprofes-
sional and amateur basketball players (N = 20).

Table 2  Correlations Between the 10-m Sprint and players (Table 1). This is in line with previous research showing
Y-Shaped Agility Test Under Planned and Reactive that a 10-m sprint and modified planned Y-shaped agility test did
Conditions With Cuts to the Left and Right in not discriminate between first- or reserve-grade Australian football
Semiprofessional and Amateur Basketball Players (N = players.11 The correlation analysis also illustrated the specificity of
20) the requirements in the planned tasks of linear sprinting and agil-
ity (Table 2). The 10-m sprint related to both the planned-agility
0–10 m Planned Planned Reactive tests with cuts to the left and right. The 2 planned-agility tasks also
sprint left right left demonstrated a relationship.
Planned left r .590 The qualities required for linear acceleration and planned agil-
ity have similarities. Lockie et al23 detailed that field-sport athletes
P .006*
who are faster over 10 m exhibit greater leg power and relative
Planned right r .755 .860 strength, while Chaouachi et al24 established links between absolute
P <.001* <.001* leg strength and power, and performance in a 10-m sprint and T test
Reactive left r .240 .443 .393 (a test involving linear sprinting, lateral shuffling, and backward
running) in male basketball players. These results fit into the change-
P .309 .051 .087 of-direction-speed branch of the model presented by Sheppard and
Reactive right r .485 .278 .457 .590 Young,1 in that both leg strength and leg power should contribute
P .030* .236 .043* .006* to planned agility. Furthermore, the relatively simple nature of the
change of direction required in the planned-agility task (ie, 1 cut
*Significant (P < .05) relationship between the variables.
followed by a straight sprint) also demonstrates why there were
significant relationships found. The fewer changes of direction
required in an agility task, the stronger the relationship with linear
sprinting speed.25 This phenomenon has also been demonstrated by
reactive-agility test and the 10-m sprint and right-cut planned-agility
Nimphius et al5 in female softball players, where the 505 change-
test. Large correlations were established between the 10-m sprint
of-direction-speed test, which features one 180° cut, correlated
and left-cut planned-agility test and between the 2 reactive-agility
with 10-m-sprint performance (r > .90). These results suggest that
directions. Very large correlations were found between the 10-m
the physical characteristics that contribute to planned-agility per-
sprint and the planned-agility test with the right cut and the 2
formance in semiprofessional and amateur basketball players are
planned-agility directions.
similar. Thus, there are other factors as to why certain basketball
players are capable of performing at a higher level. For this research,
Discussion this related to the perceptual factors within reactive agility.
The semiprofessional group was significantly faster than
This is the first study to analyze differences in planned and reac- the amateur group in both reactive-agility conditions, with large
tive agility between semiprofessional and amateur male basketball effects found for each difference (Table 2). Previous research has
players. Although there were small to moderate effects for the dif- also demonstrated that when considering agility, tests that include
ferences in the planned-agility tests with cuts to the left or right, perceptual requirements can delineate between team-sport athletes
the semiprofessional group was not significantly faster than the from different levels of play.8,11,12 The importance of reactive agility
amateurs for these assessments (Table 1). Linear acceleration as relates to the demands of basketball. Maximal runs in basketball
measured by a 10-m sprint, which is a component of agility,1 also will generally include some form of direction change,2 often in
did not discriminate between the semiprofessional and amateur response to opponents or the ball. Similar to previous research,8,11
770  Lockie et al
there were few significant correlations found between planned and
reactive agility, although the 2 reactive conditions were significantly
correlated (Table 2). The right-cut reactive-agility test did corre-
late with the 10-m sprint and right-cut planned-agility test. These
relationships illustrate how certain qualities (ie, leg strength and
power) contribute to both planned and reactive agility.1 Given that
relationships were found for cuts in the same direction, unilateral leg
strength and power may also be important. Indeed, the preferred leg
can display higher power as measured by a maximal hop26 and also
has greater proprioceptive function for dynamic stability.27 Although
leg preference or preferred cutting direction was not investigated in
this study, this is an avenue for future research.
The light stimulus used to assess reactive agility in this study
has been found to be both reliable and valid in team-sport athletes.7,12
The inclusion of visual scanning and decision making makes reac-
tive agility a unique capacity in athletes. The process of making a
decision can have a marked effect on the gait patterns of a change-
of-direction movement. Before changing direction in planned condi-
tions, there is an increase in lateral speed in the intended direction.28
The inclusion of a decision-making component limits the degree
of lateral speed an athlete can generate,28 which contributes to an
overall slower time than with a planned cut (Figure 1). Nevertheless,
the use of effective technique during a change-of-direction task will
allow an athlete to react and complete the necessary movement more
quickly than an opponent in match situations. Indeed, the use of a
split-step, as in this study, ensures that subjects control their lateral
movements before transferring into a body position that allows them
to cut effectively.17–20 It should be acknowledged that the split-step
may have contributed to the slower time of the reactive cuts, as
this action did not feature in the planned cuts. Nonetheless, further
research should analyze the technique used during a reactive-agility
task in basketball players, to identify movement characteristics
typical of an effective change of direction.
While not directly measured in this study, the perceptual and
decision-making processes athletes use affect how quickly they can
react in given situations. This may relate to faster neural process-
ing from seeing the stimulus to initiating movement15 and could
be important for certain basketball playing positions such as the
point guard, who must make quick decisions during match play.
Nevertheless, Bruce et al29 demonstrated how using a stimulus
such as an illuminated light can reduce the advantages a high-level
athlete may have in a reactive-agility task. By using a cue that does
not maintain the perception- and action-coupling links inherent to a
basketball-specific stimulus, the semiprofessional players may not
be able to demonstrate their ability to recognize appropriate cues
that would underpin their decision-making process.29 Indeed, elite
performers differ in their ability to use more cues earlier in a skill
execution by anticipating an opponent’s movements.30 Given the
importance of sport-specific cues, future research should explore a
basketball-specific reactive-agility test. This could include the use
of video projections as long as the test has acceptable reliability
and validity, is practical for use in the field, and used equipment
easily accessible for the basketball coach. Nonetheless, in support
of previous research,7,12 this study was able to distinguish between
semiprofessional and amateur basketball players in reactive agil-
ity as measured by a practically appropriate and valid assessment.
Practical Applications
The practical application of this research emphasizes that basketball
and strength and conditioning coaches should test reactive agility
in their players. This capacity, rather than just the mechanics of
planned agility, can differentiate between higher- and lower-level
basketball players. This could aid talent-identification practices, as
reactive agility may provide a better indication of basketball players
with higher skill levels, possibly relating to cognitive processing.
Reactive-agility assessment could influence player selection and
possible positions for players (eg, point guards). It would be appro-
priate for further studies to investigate the use of basketball-specific
stimuli in reactive-agility situations, as long as the test validity,
reliability, and practicality are appropriate. Future research should
analyze the technique adopted by basketball players during a reac-
tive change of direction, as well as the influence of cutting from
the preferred and nonpreferred legs.
Conclusions
This research analyzed differences in 10-m sprint, and planned-
and reactive-agility performance using a Y-shaped agility test, in
semiprofessional and amateur basketball players. Reactive agility
discriminated between the semiprofessional and amateur groups;
linear speed and planned agility did not. To thoroughly distinguish
agility performance between basketball players of differing ability
levels, there must be the inclusion of some type of perceptual and
decision-making component. This can include stimuli that may not
be considered sport-specific (an illuminated timing gate) but are
still practically appropriate.
Acknowledgments
This research project received financial assistance from the NSW Sporting
Injuries Committee. The authors would like to acknowledge the subjects
for their contribution to the study. Special thanks to Tim Hudson and the
Central Coast Crusaders basketball association. None of the authors have
any conflict of interest.
References
1. Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: classifications,
training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24(9):919–932. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02640410500457109
2. Ben Abdelkrim N, El Fazaa S, El Ati J. Time–motion analysis and
physiological data of elite under-19-year-old basketball players
during competition. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(2):69–75. PubMed
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.032318
3. Scanlan A, Dascombe B, Reaburn P. A comparison of the activity
demands of elite and sub-elite Australian men’s basketball competi-
tion. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(11):1153–1160. PubMed doi:10.1080/02
640414.2011.582509
4. Gabbett TJ, Kelly JN, Sheppard JM. Speed, change of direction speed,
and reactive agility of rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res.
2008;22(1):174–181. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815ef700
5. Nimphius S, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Relationship between
strength, power, speed, and change of direction performance of female
softball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(4):885–895. PubMed
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d41d
6. Sierer SP, Battaglini CL, Mihalik JP, Shields EW, Tomasini NT.
The National Football League Combine: performance differences
between drafted and nondrafted players entering the 2004 and 2005
drafts. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):6–12. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31815ef90c
7. Oliver JL, Meyers RW. Reliability and generality of measures of
acceleration, planned agility, and reactive agility. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2009;4(3):345–354. PubMed

8. Farrow D, Young W, Bruce L. The development of a test of reactive
agility for netball: a new methodology. J Sci Med Sport. 2005;8(1):52–
60. PubMed doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(05)80024-6
9. Erculj F, Blas M, Coh M, Bracic M. Differences in motor abilities
of various types of European young elite female basketball players.
Kinesiology. 2009;41(2):203–211.
10. Gabbett T, Kelly J, Pezet T. Relationship between physical fitness
and playing ability in rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(4):1126–1133. PubMed
11. Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TL, Sheppard TA, 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.
2006;9(4):342–349. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.019
12. Green BS, Blake C, Caulfield BM. A valid field test protocol of
linear speed and agility in rugby union. J Strength Cond Res.
2011;25(5):1256–1262. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d8598b
13. Young W, Farrow D, Pyne D, McGregor W, Handke T. Validity and
reliability of agility tests in junior Australian football players. J
Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(12):3399–3403. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318215fa1c
14. Young WB, Willey B. Analysis of a reactive agility field test. J Sci Med
Sport. 2010;13(3):376–378. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.05.006
15. Kai S, Nagino K, Nomura T, et al. Relationships between whole body
reaction time and the motion-silent period and the action period in
jump. J Phys Ther Sci. 2012;24(3):227–229. doi:10.1589/jpts.24.227
16. Sacco IC, Takahasi HY, Suda EY, et al. Ground reaction force in bas-
ketball cutting maneuvers with and without ankle bracing and taping.
Sao Paulo Med J. 2006;124:245–252. PubMed
17. Uzu R, Shinya M, Oda S. A split-step shortens the time to per-
form a choice reaction step-and-reach movement in a simulated
tennis task. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(12):1233–1240. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02640410903233222
18. Tateuchi H, Yoneda T, Tanaka T, et al. Postural control for initiation
of lateral step and step-up motions in young adults. J Phys Ther Sci.
2006;18(1):49–55. doi:10.1589/jpts.18.49
View publication stats
Agility in Basketball Players   771
19. Krause J, Meyer D, Meyer J. Basketball Skills & Drills. 2nd ed.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1999.
20. Wissel H. Basketball: Steps to Success. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 2012.
21. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd
ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
22. Hopkins WG. A scale of magnitude for effect statistics. Sportscience.
May 6, 2009. www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html. Accessed
May 1, 2013.
23. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Knight TJ, Janse de Jonge XAK. Fac-
tors that differentiate acceleration ability in field sport athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(10):2704–2714. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31820d9f17
24. Chaouachi A, Brughelli M, Chamari K, et al. Lower limb maximal
dynamic strength and agility determinants in elite basketball players.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):1570–1577. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181a4e7f0
25. Young WB, McDowell MH, Scarlett BJ. Specificity of sprint and
agility training methods. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(3):315–319.
PubMed
26. van der Harst JJ, Gokeler A, Hof AL. Leg kinematics and kinetics
in landing from a single-leg hop for distance: a comparison between
dominant and non-dominant leg. Clin Biomech. 2007;22(6):674–680.
PubMed doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.02.007
27. Ross S, Guskiewicz KM, Prentice W, Schneider R, Yu B. Comparison
of biomechanical factors between the kicking and stance limbs. J Sport
Rehabil. 2004;13(2):135–150.
28. Wheeler KW, Sayers MGL. Modification of agility running tech-
nique in reaction to a defender in rugby union. J Sports Sci Med.
2010;9(3):445–451. PubMed
29. Bruce L, Farrow D, Raynor A, Mann D. But I can’t pass that far!: the
influence of motor skill on decision making. Psychol Sport Exerc.
2012;13(2):152–161. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.10.005
30. Abernethy B, Russell DG. Expert-novice differences in an applied
selective attention task. J Sport Psychol. 1987;9(4):326–345.