ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Performance level discriminative validity of agility tests in youth tennis players.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Data-Driven Multidimensional Performance Profiling in U10 Tennis Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Various studies have shown that the ability to change the direction of movement quickly plays an important role in achieving top performance in tennis. The main goal of this study was to compare different generic and tennis-specific agility tests to determine whether and to what extent they can differentiate youth tennis players in terms of their competitive success and can be used as a tool to identify talented players in youth tennis categories. Methods: Thirty-three youth tennis players took part in the tests, 21 boys and 12 girls (11.05 ± 0.59 years), all of whom competed at national level in the U12 category and were divided into three different performance categories. Five validated agility tests covering three different test types (generic pre-planned CODs/tennis-specific pre-planned CODs/tennis-specific reactive tests) were selected to determine whether the type of agility tests used makes a difference in predicting the future competitive success of youth tennis players. Results: Both intra-subject and inter-subject reliability proved to be high for all agility tests used (Cα .87-.97; ICC .83-.94). The results also demonstrated the construct validity of the test battery used, as a significant latent dimension was extracted and all tests were projected fairly evenly onto the common factor. The between-subjects ANOVA showed that the results of the different agility tests can successfully differentiate young tennis players in terms of their competitive performance. The players who belonged to a higher performance level achieved better results in all agility tests used. However, the differences were only significant between players with "high" (1st) and "low" (3rd) performance levels in all the tests used, and additionally between players with "average" (2nd) and "low" (3rd) performance levels in the three tennis-specific agility tests ( Discussion: The results of the study suggest that agility tests have the potential to discriminate between different quality levels youth tennis players, regardless of which type of test (generic/tennis specific pre-planned/tennis specific reactive) is used.
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.