ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2022
Reactive-Agility in Touch Plays an Important Role in Elite Playing Level: Reliability and Validity of a Newly Developed Repeated Up-and-Down Agility Test.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Comparison of plyometric repeated sprint and plyometric aerobic training on physical performance in youth soccer players.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Plyometrics with reactive agility or isometrics: divergent effects on change-of-direction ability, sprint, and strength adaptations in adolescent female handball players.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Effects of the SmartACT Intervention on Motor and Psychological Variables in Adolescent Athletes: A Controlled Trial Using BlazePod and Microgate.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Vitamin D and its relationship to performance and health during a competitive period in elite women's basketball and volleyball players.Physiological reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful athletes are better at performing efficiently than the inferior in particular sports scenarios, while most existing performance tests in the field do not cover the sport-specific context fully. There were two purposes in this study: 1) to evaluate the reliability and validity of a novel Sector Reactive Agility Test (SRAT) which mimicked a reactive-agility defensive scenario in Touch, and 2) to determine the relationships between Touch players' agility and sprint performance. Twenty male Touch players from the elite division and another 20 from the amateur division were invited to participate in this study. They performed SRAT and a 20-m sprint test in two days. Excellent reliability and high precision were found in SRAT (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97) and 20-m sprint test (ICC = 0.91). The time of completion in SRAT of the elite Touch players (23.93 s) was 2.95 s significantly shorter than that of the amateur players with a large effect size. Elite Touch players also demonstrated moderately faster (0.11 s) than the amateur Touch players in the 20-m sprint test. SRAT demonstrated high test-retest reliability and accuracy in measuring reactive-agility performance in Touch. The minimal detectable changes in SRAT and 20-m sprint test were 1.04 s and 0.13 s respectively. Furthermore, the speed of the 20-m sprint test and playing experience were associated with the time of completion of SRAT, explaining 56% of its variance (p < 0.001). Other factors, such as cognition and the ability to control own central gravity, are deemed possible to influence Touch players' agility. Therefore, SRAT should be adopted in Touch player selection and training monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.