ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2016
Assessment of Technical Skills in Young Soccer Goalkeepers: Reliability and Validity of Two Goalkeeper-Specific Tests.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing Technical Skills in Talented Youth Athletes: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Pooled it
- Neuromuscular Performance of High-Level Football Goalkeepers by Age Category and Sex: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- The Effect of Proprioceptive Training on Technical Soccer Skills in Youth Professional Soccer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Reliability and Validity of a Novel Reactive Agility Test with Soccer Goalkeeper-Specific Movements.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility and validity of two new tests designed to examine goalkeeper-specific technique. Twenty-six goalkeepers (14.49 ± 2.52 years old) completed two trial sessions, each separated by one week, to evaluate the reproducibility of the Sprint-Keeper Test (S-Keeper) and the Lateral Shuffle-Keeper Test (LS-Keeper). Construct validity was assessed among forty goalkeepers (14.49 ± 1.71 years old) by competitive level (elite versus non-elite), after controlling for chronological age. All participants were examined in vertical jump (CMJ and CMJ-free arms), acceleration (5-m and 10-m sprint) and goalkeeper-specific technique. The S-Keeper requires the goalkeeper to accelerate during 3 m and dive over a stationary ball after performing a change of direction in a total distance of 10 m. The LS-Keeper involves three changes of direction and a diving save over a stationary ball, in a total distance of 12.55 m. Performance was respectively measured as total time for the right and left sides in each protocol. Bivariate correlations between repeated measures were high and significant (r = 0.835 - 0.912). Test-retest results for the S-Keeper and LS-Keeper showed good reliability (reliability coefficients > 0.88, intra-class correlation coefficient > 0.908 and coefficients of variation < 4.37%), even though participants tended to improve performance when diving to their right side (p < 0.05). Both tests were able to detect significant differences between elite and non-elite goalkeepers, particularly to the left side (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that the S-Keeper and LS-Keeper are reliable and valid tests for assessing goalkeeper-specific technique. Both protocols can be used as a practical tool to provide relevant information about the influence of several components of performance in the overall execution of a diving save, particularly movement patterns, take-off movements and possible asymmetries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27803631PMC4974865What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.