ArticleScientific reports2025
Reliability and validity of a self-developed virtual reality-based test battery for assessing motor skills in sports performance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Mixed Reality as an Environment for Reaction Speed Assessment in Physically Active Young Adults: Measurement Reliability and Participant Experience Compared with Immersive Virtual Reality.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Construct Validity and Reliability of a Virtual Reality Cricket Batting Simulator.European journal of sport science · 2026Article
- Test-Retest Reliability of a Computerized Hand-Eye Coordination Task.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Integration of the wingate anaerobic test into a virtual reality- based evaluation system.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Athletes must master various motor skills for success in their sports. To assess performance and identify areas of improvement, effective sports-motoric tests are essential. Key abilities such as reaction time, jumping, and complex movement coordination are critical. Virtual reality (VR) offers a practical, traditional equipment-free tool for assessment, though new VR-based tests must be evaluated first. We evaluated a self-developed test battery to measure reaction time (drop-bar test), jumping ability (jump and reach test), and parkour execution involving multiple complex motor tasks (with/without a virtual opponent). 32 participants completed these tests twice in real environment (RE) and VR (pre- and post-test). Intraclass correlation coefficients showed high reliability for reaction time in RE (0.858) and VR (0.888), with moderate significant correlations between them (r = .445), suggesting validity. The jump and reach test showed even better reliability (RE: 0.944, VR: 0.886) with strong correlations between RE and VR (r = .838). The parkour test showed lower reliability (x̄ 0.770), particularly for one task, with significant differences between the conditions indicating different behavior in VR. However, the addition of a virtual opponent eliminated these differences. VR appears to be a promising alternative to traditional testing methods, revealing comparable values across conditions.
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.