ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
How many trials are enough? Familiarization requirements in the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Soccer pass performance following caffeine intake with deliberate or maintenance practice.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Trial
- The Effectiveness of Passive Half-Time Interventions on Simulated Second-Half Performance in Elite Youth Soccer Players.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Loughborough Soccer Passing Test (LSPT) has proven to be a valid and reliable method for assessing soccer skill performance. However, there are various preparation protocols that exist for the LSPT. The aim of this study is to determine how many trials are required to gather reliable data during LSPT familiarisation.
methods81 subelite male youths (12.70 ± 2.67 years; 158.32 ± 17.21 cm; 49.01 ± 14.19 kg) and 17 professional female soccer players (21.47 ± 2.37 years; 164.70 ± 5.00 cm; 57.11 ± 4.27 kg) participated in the study. Following a brief explanation, the participants underwent five repetitions of the LSPT, after which differences between trials were analysed using mixed ANOVA for original time, penalty time, and performance time of LSPT. Adjusted residual values and the Smallest Worthwhile Change (SWC) approach were employed to assess the distributions across repetitions and the practical significance of the observed differences.
resultsMixed-repeated measures ANOVA showed that Trial 1 significantly underperformed relative to the subsequent four trials across all LSPT values (p < .05). There were no statistical differences observed within other trials. Considerable improvement was noted solely between the first trials and subsequent attempts; exceeding the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) thresholds of 1.38 s, 2.29 s, and 3.36 s for original time, penalty time, and total performance time, respectively. Performance time enhanced by 5% between first two trials, however strength of acquisitions remain inconsistent and negligible subsequent trials.
conclusionA single trial primarily diminishes the learning effect in LSPT preparation, especially in young sub-elite athletes and professional female athletes. In particular, in situations where samples are large or testing time is limited, implementing a single familiarisation trial seems a practical and efficient option. At the same time, given the higher variability of penalty time, specialists can consider adapting the number of trials depending on the testing objectives. This finding has applicative value for coaches, physical trainers and researchers, as it allows them to reduce the time and resources required for the testing protocol without compromising the validity and reproducibility of the results.
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.