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

net/publication/309127091

Reactive agility tests: Review and practical

applications.

Article · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 228

2 authors:

Paul Inglis Stephen P Bird

James Cook University James Cook University
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 696 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Inglis on 31 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Reactive agility tests - Review and practical applications. J. Aust. Strength Cond. 24(5) 62-69. 2016 © ASCA.

Review of the Literature

REACTIVE AGILITY TESTS - REVIEW AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Paul Inglis, BExSc(Hons)1,2

Stephen P. Bird, PhD, CSCS, AEP, RNutr1,2

1 Sport and Exercise Science, Division of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns QLD, Australia.
2 High Performance Unit, Northern Pride Rugby League Football Club, Cairns QLD, Australia.

BLUF

Reactive agility tests were found to be a more reliable and valid method of testing agility compared to pre-planned agility
tests and is in alignment with the new definition of agility by incorporating a sport specific stimulus.

ABSTRACT

Agility is defined as a rapid whole-body movement with change of direction or speed in response to a stimulus. However,
traditional agility tests do not address this definition and are pre-planned with no stimulus. In response to this, studies
have been conducted to develop a new agility test that incorporates a sport-specific stimulus. The aim of this review
was to summarize the literature on reactive agility tests and provide coaches with recommendations on the best way to
test and develop agility in athletes. A literature search was conducted to find agility tests that used a sport-specific
stimulus and tested higher and lesser-skilled athletes. Ten articles were identified that meet the criteria for inclusion with
half of the studies incorporating a video based stimulus while the other half used a tester as the stimulus. It was found
that reactive agility tests were a valid and reliable method of testing agility compared to traditional pre-planned agility
tests. Reactive agility tests can also be used as a training drill to improve an at
by using a sport specific stimulus while pre-planned agility drills may not.

Keywords - Agility, reactive agility, perception, anticipation, athlete testing.

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally agility has been defined as (4, 5, 16)

(3, 14)
(2, 6). However, this does not take into account that most changes of direction in sport are in response to a sport-
specific stimulus. It was proposed by Sheppard and Young (23) that a definition of agility should not only recognise the
physical and technical skills involved but the cognitive processes as well. They went on to suggest that the difficulty with
finding an accepted definition could be that the definitions are being presented through the perspective of different
disciplines within sport science. For example a bio-mechanist will view agility in terms of the mechanical changes
involved, whereas, a strength and condition coach will view agility in terms of the physical qualities and a motor learning
scientist will view agility in terms of the information processing and visual scanning. In response to this Sheppard and
Young proposed a that more accurate and encompassing d -body movement
(23).

However, agility is typically tested and trained by using set drills that require an athlete to navigate around a pre-planned
course as quickly as possible (6, 21) with these pre-planned drills being closed-skill drills with no response to a stimulus.
Whereas, in sport, agility movements are typically reactive with few circumstances occurring where a change of direction
is pre-planned with no decision making (20). In light of this reactive agility tests (RAT) were designed as a means of

Farrow, Young and Bruce (8) developed a RAT for netball and found that it was able to differentiate between highly and
lesser skilled netball players while a pre-planned agility test was not. Similar results of RAT have been found in sports
such as rugby league (9, 10, 22), Australian Rules football (11-13, 24) and hockey (18). Collectively, these studies
found that highly-skilled players performed significantly better at the RAT while there were no significant differences
between groups in the pre-planned agility tests. Therefore, the aim of this review was to summarize the literature on
RAT and provide coaches with practical recommendations for the use and application of this test.

METHODS

Search Strategies
An exhaustive search of the literature on RAT was conducted in an effort to locate all relevant studies. A computer
generated key-word search was performed using MEDLINE, CINAHL, SportDiscus, Expanded Academic, Google
Scholar and One Search.

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

62
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

The key-
reference lists of relevant articles were checked to find further studies as well as a search of relevant Journal databases.
The PRISMA flowchart (17) summaries the resourcing process and can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - PRISMA flowchart adapted from Moher (18).

Inclusion Criteria
Studies were considered for inclusion if they were peer reviewed, English language only and from the year 2000 and
onwards. Also, studies were included if they compared higher skilled to lesser skilled athletes, measured either total
movement time or response/decision time and if all results were reported with statistical significances. Only RAT studies
that used a sport specific stimulus were included in the systematic review.

Validity and Reliability of RAT

The RAT were assessed as being valid if it was able to differentiate participants from different skill levels. The RAT was
classified as reliable if it was able to find similar results from their tests on more than one occasion.

Data extraction and analysis

The studies that met all the inclusion criteria were then analysed and common themes were extracted and pooled
together.

RESULTS

The database search identified 42 articles with an additional search through the reference lists and journal databases
identifying another two articles (n = 44). A review of the 44 articles titles and abstracts revealed that 34 did not meet
the inclusion criteria and were therefore excluded. The remaining 10 articles that met the inclusion criteria were
reviewed and assessed (summarised in Table 1 and 2). All of the 10 RAT studies were found to be both valid and
reliable in testing reactive agility in athletes from sports ranging from rugby league, Australian Rules football, netball and

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

63
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

hockey. After an analysis of the studies the common themes identified were: reactive agility test designs, number and
type of scenarios presented and outcome measures of reactive agility.

Reactive Agility Test Designs.

An analysis of the 10 articles revealed that there were two distinct designs for the RAT in the way that the sports specific
stimulus was presented. The stimulus in the tests were presented to the participants by either a life size video projection
of another opponent (VRAT) or the tester acted as the opponent and provided the stimulus to react to (LRAT). The
running patterns of the RAT that the participants had to run were all similar with the athletes having to run in a Y pattern
by running forward and then cutting to the left or the right at 45º when presented with the stimulus.

Table 1 - Summary of reactive agility studies using a video stimulus.

Study & Design Participants Test Design Outcome Measures Results

Farrow, Young & n=32 (Female netball Study: Participants completed a RAT and RAT: RAT: Higher skilled
Bruce (8) players). CODS tests to see if it could discriminate Shuffle time significantly faster
Cross Sectional n= 12 AIS (highly skilled) between higher and lesser skilled. Sprint time than lesser skilled in
study n= 12 ACT state squad RAT Design: Total time decision time.
(moderately skilled) Decision time
Pre-planned:
skilled) Shuffle time
Sprint time
through some timing gates. Following the Total time
same design as the RAT, the athletes then
performed same test with not stimulus
(CODS).

Serpell, Ford, & n= 30 (Rugby League Study: Participants completed a RAT and RAT: RAT: Higher skilled
Young (22) players) CODS tests to see if it could discriminate Total time. group had a
Cross Sectional n= 15 NRL players (highly between higher and lesser skilled. Perception & significantly faster total
study skilled) RAT Design: response time. time and significantly
n= 15 NYC (lesser skilled) Confidence rating. faster perception &
Pre-planned: response time.
Total time. Pre-planned: No
same design as the RAT, the athletes then significant difference
performed same test with not stimulus between groups.
(CODS).

Henry, Dawson, n= 42
Lay, & Young (13) n= 15 Top-echelon under
Cross Sectional 19 AFL team (higher
study skilled0
n= 15 Lower grade AFL
(moderately skilled)
n= 12 non-football low-
agility sport athletes (lesser
skilled)
Study: Participants completed the agility 3m time RAT: Video stimulus
test under three conditions being: pre- Decision time was better able to
planned, light stimulus and a life-size video Total time discriminate between
of an opponent. Agility time groups than light
Test Design: Movement time stimulus.
Light: Decision time
was significantly
quicker with light
stimulus compared to
video.
Pre-planned: No
significant difference
between groups.

Henry, Dawson, n= 28 AFL players Study: Participants completed two Decision time 1 RAT: Movement time
Lay, & Young (12) n= 14 semi-pro (higher reactive agility tests, using video stimulus, Decision time 2 (for was three times
Cross Sectional skilled) with the same design except one had a feint trials) slower during feint
study n= 14 amateur (lesser feint in the displayed stimulus and one did 3m time trials and decision
skilled) not. Total time time was longer (more
RAT Design: : Participants ran approx. Agility time cognitive demand).
7m toward an unpredictable life-size video Movement time Was able to
of opponent a discriminate between
higher skilled and
lesser skilled.

Henry, Dawson, n= 28 AFL players Study: Participants completed a reactive Decision time 1 RAT: Decision
Lay, & Young (11) n= 14 semi-pro (higher agility test using a video stimulus with the Decision time 2 (for accuracy was higher
Cross Sectional skilled) incorporation of a feint in the stimulus. feint trials) in trials without the
study n=14 amateur (lesser Decision making accuracy and the time 3m time feint. No significant
skilled) cost of incorrect responses was compared Total time differences in decision
between higher and lesser skilled players. Agility time making accuracy
RAT Design: Movement time between groups. Was
able to discriminate
between higher and
lesser skilled players.

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

64
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Table 2 - Summary of reactive agility studies using a live stimulus.

Study & Design Participants Test Design Outcome Measures Results
Sheppard et al, n= 38 (male AFL players) Study: Participants completed a 10m 10m straight sprint: 10m sprint & Pre-
(24) n= 23 (highly skilled) sprint, RAT and CODS tests to see if it Total time. planned: No
Cross Sectional n= 14 (lesser skilled) could discriminate between higher and Pre-planned agility: significant difference
study All players are from the lesser skilled. Total time. between groups.
same team playing in the Testing involved: 10m straight sprint, Reactive agility: RAT: Performed
Western Australian Pre-planned agility test (design same as Total time. significantly faster by
football league (WAFL). RAT) & RAT. Did not measure the highly skilled
Highly skilled in the A RAT Design: Tester stood opposite decision time. group.
grade side and the lesser athlete on a timing mat. Tester stepped off
skilled in the reserve timing mat and athlete reacted by sprinting
grade side. in the direction the tester stepped. Timing
stopped when the athlete triggered the
timing beam at the finish line.

Gabbett, Kelly, & n= 42 (Rugby League Study: Participants completed a battery of Speed: RAT: Higher skilled
Sheppard (10) players) tests to see if it could discriminate between Total time players had a
Cross Sectional n= 12 first grade Gold higher and lesser skilled players. Pre-planned: significantly faster
study Coast Rugby League Testing involved: 5m, 10m & 20m sprint. Total time sprint time than lesser
Comp. (Higher skilled) RAT: skilled. Also higher
n= 30 second grade Gold RAT Design: Tester stood opposite Total time skilled had a
Coast Rugby League athlete on a timing mat. Tester stepped off Decision time significantly faster
Comp. (Lesser skilled) timing mat and athlete reacted by sprinting Response accuracy movement and
in the direction the tester stepped. Timing decision time on the
stopped when the athlete triggered the RAT than lesser
timing beam at the finish line. skilled.
Pre-planned: No
significant difference
between groups.

Gabbett, & Benton n= 86 Rugby League Study: Participants completed the RAT to Movement time RAT: Was able to
(9) players. see if it could discriminate between higher Decision time discriminate between
Cross Sectional n= 44 NRL players (highly and lesser skilled players. Response accuracy the higher and lesser
study skilled) RAT Design: Tester stood opposite skilled players with
n= 42 recreational Rugby athlete on a timing mat. Tester stepped off higher skilled players
League club (lesser timing mat and athlete reacted by sprinting performing
skilled) in the direction the tester stepped. Timing significantly better.
stopped when the athlete triggered the
timing beam at the finish line.

Veale, Pearce, & n= 60 Study: Participants completed a reactive Total time RAT: Test re-test was
Carlson (25) n= 20 State u18 AFL agility test using a live stimulus to assess Split 1 found to be reliable.
Cross Sectional (elite) reliability and validity. Split 2 Football players were
study n=20 non rep u18 AFL RAT Design: Split 3 significantly faster
(sub elite) than non-football
n= 20 non AFL (control) players. Elite were
then straightened back up and ran another faster than non-elite.
5 m to the finish line.

Morland et al, (18) n= 20 (teenage female Study: 3 conditions; Pre-planned, RAT Pre-planned, RAT RAT: Higher skilled
Cross Sectional hockey players) with light stimulus & RAT with live light and live: significantly faster
study n= 10 regional players stimulus. Total time. than lesser skilled.
(highly skilled) Test design: 8m straight sprint then Did not measure Pre-planned & RAT
n= 10 school players change of direction at either 45° to the left decision time. light: No significant
(lesser skilled) or right. difference between
For the light and live test, stimulus was higher and lesser
presented when they passed a timing gate skilled.
at the 4m mark of the straight sprint.

Video Based Reactive Agility Tests

Of the 10 articles included in the systematic review five were VRAT. The first VRAT by Farrow et al. (8) who designed
a test to measure the reactive agility of netball players. The video image was projected so that the image of the player
was life size with the screen being positioned 6m from where the participant had to react (Figure 2). The other VRAT
were similar to the Farrow et al. (8) design in both the dimensions of the image projected on screen and distance to the
participant. Serpell et al. (22) designed a test to measure the reactive agility of rugby league players. Their design and
video image for their test was similar to Farrow et al. (8) with the life size stimulus being projected approximately 9m
from the start position and 6m from where the participant had to react. Henry et al. (11-13) tested the reactive agility of
Australian Rules football players with the same distinctive Y pattern run with the video screen being placed
approximately 16m from the start line and 9m in front of where the participants had to react. Although there were
differences in distance in where the screen was from the start position and where they had to react, they were similar in
that they had to run forward and cut either to the left or the right at a 45º when presented with the stimulus.

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

65
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Figure 2 - VRAT by Henry et al. (11-13).

Live Tester Reactive Agility Tests

Of the 10 articles included in the systematic review, 5 of them were LRAT with the first one found being from Sheppard
et al. (24). They designed their test to measure the reactive agility of Australian Rules football players. The LRAT design
involved timing gates being placed 5m to the left and 5m to the right and 2m forward of the start line where the participant
stood (Figure 3). The tester was positioned opposite the participants and would initiate a movement with the participant
reacting to the movement by sprinting in the direction they anticipated the tester was going. Two of the LRAT studies
were replicas of the design by Sheppard et al. (24) however they were tested on rugby league players (9, 10). The other
two LRAT (18, 25) designed their RAT so that the participants ran a Y pattern similar the VRAT.

Figure 3 - LRAT by Sheppard et al. (24).

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

66
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Number and Type of Scenarios Presented

The LRAT were predominately based off the original design in Sheppard et al. (24) study. Their design involved the
tester standing opposite the participant where they presented 1 of 4 possible scenarios for them to respond to. The
scenarios presented in the VRAT varied with some of them involving the opponent with a ball (13) as well as opponent
passing the ball (8, 23). The VRAT used by Serpell et al. (22) comprised 12 different scenarios with some involving
simple cutting manoeuvres with and without a feint, simple cutting manoeuvres with and without a feint with a ball in
hand and cutting left or right with and without a feint with a ball pass.

Outcome Measures of Reactive Agility Tests

All 10 RAT included in the systematic review recorded total time to complete the test as one of their outcome measures.
However, decision/response time was not measured by all of the studies with three (18, 24, 25) only measuring
movement times. Response time was usually assessed via post hoc video analysis and was defined as the time
difference between the first definitive foot contact initiating the movement from the investigator in the final direction they
moved their body, and the first definitive foot contact initiating the response from the participant.

DISCUSSION

The results from all RAT studies demonstrate that the RAT is a valid and reliable method to assess reactive agility
differentiating between lower and higher skill levels. Importantly, the test, re-test reliability was high when the test was
repeated on different occasions. Of practical importance for coaches is the finding that the RAT was able to differentiate
between athletes of different skill levels when compared to pre-planned agility tests, which is a major consideration in
an athletic environment.

Sheppard et al. (24) demonstrated that the RAT was able to differentiate between athlete skill levels, however, a 10m
sprint test and pre-planned agility test was not. Similarly, Gabbett et al. (10) highlighted that the RAT was able to
differentiate rugby league players of different skill levels but three different pre-planned agility tests were not. Likewise,
Serpell et al. (22) reported the RAT was able to differentiate higher and lesser-skilled athletes but a pre-planned agility
test was not. The common finding amongst these studies was, when measured, the higher skilled athletes were faster
on the RAT recording faster decision/response times.

Additionally, in netball players Farrow et al. (8) demonstrated that the RAT was successful in differentiating players from
three different skill levels with the key difference being the decision-making element. Once again, the higher-skilled
players performed significantly better in the RAT possibly due to their superior decision-making ability. Notably, the
authors reported that highly- - meaning that they initiated their
response before the completion of the presented stimulus. In comparison, the lesser-
decision- meaning they waited until the stimulus was completed before initiating their response. The
negative decision-making times from the higher-skilled players may be due, in part, to superior pre-determined
movement strategies as a result of heightened perceptual and cognitive abilities allowing them to anticipate the change
of direction better than the lesser-skilled players.

Similarly, a meta-analysis of expertise in sport (15)

o
identify and acquire environmental information for integration with the athletes existing knowledge so the appropriate
response can be selected and executed. That is to say experts are better able to allocate their attention on the most
appropriate cues which is identified by their visual search behaviours by having fewer fixations, for longer duration and
a prolonged quiet eye.

Collectively, the RAT identified that, the higher-skilled are better able to pick up the environment cues, for example an
g knowledge and past experience to predict the outcome
more accurately than lesser skilled.

In agreement, the results from the RAT included in this systematic review suggest that it is not just the physical qualities
that differentiate higher and lesser-skilled players but more importantly their cognitive qualities or decision-making
abilities. This is emphasised by Morland et al. (18) who examined the reactive agility of hockey players using a sport-
specific stimulus and a light-stimulus. They found that both the higher and lesser-skilled participants performed the
light-stimulus test quicker that the sport-specific stimulus test. Furthermore, the light-stimulus test was not able to
differentiate between the skill levels, however, the sport-specific test was. The authors suggest that the sport-specific
stimulus test is able to differentiate the skill levels because the higher-skilled look for sport-specific cues when
anticipating movements and the light-stimulus provides no cues as it is either off or it is on. This is similar to Oliver and
Meyers (19) who used a light-stimulus as a part of the RAT and observed a positive association (r = 0.85) between pre-
planned agility and the light-stimulus. Interestingly, the authors failed to acknowledge the perceptual requirements of
sport-specific agility. This highlights the fact that pre-planned and light-stimulus agility tests are less sensitive to
discriminating between athletes of different skill levels as they require less perceptual and cognitive skill to perform (15).
Importantly, this emphasises that coaches should include a sport-specific stimulus in agility tests, otherwise, the results
might falsely indicate an athlete being from a higher skill level when they may not be.

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

67
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Strengths and Limitations

The major strength of the RAT is the incorporation of both physical and cognitive elements of agility. However, the
following limitations were identified. Of the 10 studies included into the systematic review 50% (5/10) were VRAT and
50% were LRAT (5/10). There are both advantages and disadvantages for each method which should be taken into
consideration when designing a RAT. It has been said that recreating the experimental tasks and conditions are critical
when analysing the differences between higher and lesser-skilled performers (7). For example, as previously stated,
Moreland et al. (18) revealed that the RAT involving a light-stimulus was not able to differentiate the performers as it did
not allow the expert advantage of superior decision-making abilities to emerge. Abernethy, Thomas and Thomas (1)
suggested that the stimulus should take place in the real world to be more ecologically valid as some sources of
information may be lost in two-dimensional media such as stereoscopic depth information.

The primary limitation of the LRAT is tester variability in presenting the stimulus to the athlete. Sheppard et al. (24) had
two different testers provide the reaction stimulus, with some (22) suggesting this could have a meaningful effect on an
(24) found no significant difference in
results from tester A to tester B. Another potential RAT design limitation is the number of scenarios presented, with the
majority of tests involving only four possible scenarios. Gabbett (10) suggested that having only four scenarios may be
inadequate to challenge the perceptual abilities of experts and recommended that video-based game like scenarios with
more than one attacking player would be a better option. Serpell et al. (22) attempted to address this issue by designing
a RAT that involved 12 different scenarios comprising of running, feints and ball passing manoeuvres. Moreover, adding
to the strength of their study the authors incorporated a confidence rating as an outcome measure. The confidence
rating was introduced to assess whether participants change of direction response was actually executed in response
to the stimulus and was not merely a guess. They explained that if participants did guess their response and were
correct they could be mistakenly identified as having superior reactive agility when they did not. However, if they
guessed and got it wrong they would make an incorrect decision, as noted by Henry et al. (13) where the data of
participants who made incorrect decisions were discarded and may not accurately reflect a true result.

Additionally, some studies did not measure decision/response time (18, 24, 25) and only measured total time. As
discussed by Gabbett (10), if decision time was not recorded, some athletes may be incorrectly classified as having
superior anticipatory skills when in fact they had superior movement time. Finally, as suggested by Serpell et al. (22),
there are inconsistencies in terminology with decision time in RAT. Decision time in all RAT studies was defined as the

accurate description would be perception and response time.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Findings from this systematic review demonstrate that the RAT is a more reliable and valid assessment of agility in
athletes compared to traditional pre-planned and light agility drills. With this in mind, the design and implementation of
the RAT requires careful consideration to ensure the most accurate results possible. Between the two RAT designs
discussed, both the VRAT and LRAT have advantages and disadvantages. However, from practical perspective the
LRAT offers the strength and conditioning coach a field-based assessment and training option, while the VRAT would
be the preferred option for laboratory-based settings. From a coaching perspective the RAT should be as sport specific
as possible, noting that four scenarios may not be enough to challenge athletes. For example, in rugby league (see

be incorporated and measured in the RAT otherwise

cognitive abilit
not only differentiate between athlete skill levels but to identify strengths and weaknesses within the athlete (20). For
example, athletes who record a good perception and response time but poor movement time may be prescribed training
drills that will improve this target area, while those that have good movement time and poor perception and response
time can performed training drills to specifically improve that ability (20).

Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016

68
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning
Video 1 – Reactive agility test.
REFERENCES
1. Abernethy, B., Thomas, K.T., & Thomas, J.T. Strategies for
improving understanding of motor expertise, in Vision and
sport. Stanley Thornes. Cheltenham. 1993.
2. Baechle, T.R. Essentials of strength and conditioning.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994.
3. Barrow, H. & Mcgee, R. A practical approach to measurement in
physical education. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger. 1971.
4. Bloomfield, J., Ackland, T.R., & Elliot, B.C. Applied anatomy and
biomechanics in sport. Melbourne, VIC: Blackwell Scientific. 1994.
5. Clarke, H.E. Application of measurement to health and physical
education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1959.
6. Draper, J.A. & Lancaster, M.G. The 505 test: A test for agility in the
horizontal plane. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport. 17:15-18. 1985.
7. Ericsson, K.A. & Smith, J. Prospects and limits of the empirical study
of expertise: An introduction, in Towards a general theory of
expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge. Cambridge University
Press : 1-29. 1991.
8. Farrow, D., Young, W., & Bruce, L. The development of a test of
reactive agility for netball: A new methodology. Journal of Science
and Medicine in Sport. 8:52-60. 2005.
9. Gabbett, T. & Benton, D. Reactive agility of rugby league players.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 12:212-214. 2009.
10. Gabbett, T.J., Kelly, J.N., & Sheppard, J.M. Speed, change of
direction speed, and reactive agility of rugby league players. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research. 22:174-181. 2008.
11. Henry, G., Dawson, B., Lay, B., & Young, W. Decision-making
accuracy in reactive agility: Quantifying the cost of poor decisions.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 27:3190-31961.
2013.
12. Henry, G., Dawson, B., Lay, B., & Young, W. Effects of a feint on
reactive agility performance. Journal of Sports Sciences. 30:787-
795. 2012.
13. Henry, G., Dawson, B., Lay, B., & Young, W. Validity of a reactive
agility test for Australian football. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance. 6:534-545. 2011.
Volume 24 | Issue 5 | October 2016
69
View publication stats
14. Johnson, B.L. & Nelson, J.K. Practical measurements for
evaluation in physical education. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
1969.
15. Mann, D.T.Y., Williams, A.M., Ward, P., & Janelle, C.M. Perceptual-
cognitive expertise in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology. 29:457-478. 2007.
16. Mathews, D.K. Measurements in physical education. Philadelphia,
PA: W. B. Saunders. 1973.
17. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., & Group, P.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
The PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal. 339:332-336.
2009.
18. Morland, B., Bottoms, L., Sinclair, J., & Bourne, N. Can change of
direction speed and reactive agility differentiate female hockey
players? International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.
13:510-521. 2013.
19. Oliver, J. & Meyers, R. Reliability and generality of measures of
acceleration, planned agility, and reactive agility. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 4:345-354. 2009.
20. Safaric, A.J. & Bird, S.P. Agility drills for basketball: Review and
practical applications. Journal of Australian Strength and
Conditioning. 19:24-32. 2011.
21. Semenick, D. Tests and measurements: The T-test. National
Strength & Conditioning Association Journal. 12:36. 1990.
22. Serpell, B., Ford, M., & Young, W. The development of a new test of
agility for rugby league. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 24:3270-3277. 2010.
23. Sheppard, J.M. & Young, W. Agility literature review: Classifications,
training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences. 24:919-932. 2006.
24. Sheppard, T.A., Sheppard, J., Young, W.B., Doyle, T.L., & Newton,
R.U. An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its relationship
to sprint speed and change of direction speed. Journal of Science
and Medicine in Sport. 9:342-349. 2006.
25. Veale, J.P., Pearce, A.J., & Carlson, J.S. Reliability and validity of a
reactive agility test for Australian football. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance. 5:239-248. 2010.