ArticlePeerJ2026
Test-retest reliability of kicking performance assessments over a 2-day interval in elite youth soccer players.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reliable assessment of kicking performance is critical for monitoring technical development in youth soccer players. This study examined the reliability of kicking performance assessments in skilled youth soccer players aged 14-18, focusing on maximum ball speed and accuracy. Method: Using a test-retest design, fifty-three players from a Danish Super League academy completed standardised kicking tests on two occasions separated by 2 days. Maximum ball speed was assessed during penalty-style kicks with a stationary ball, while accuracy was assessed through target-directed kicks with a rolling ball. Two-way mixed-effects intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and limits of agreement (LoA) were used to assess reliability. Results: Results indicated good reliability for maximum ball speed (ICC = 0.87; LoA = [-2.1, 2.5] m/s), consistent with previous studies. Conversely, kicking accuracy demonstrated poor to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.00-0.66; LoA = [-0.46, 0.48] m). Stratified analyses revealed the highest accuracy ICC within the U15 group. Exploratory error ellipse analyses suggested potential utility in assessing kicking distribution, showing good reliability for ellipse angle (ICC = 0.80; LoA = [-0.98, 0.92] rad), though other parameters displayed low reliability. These findings highlight the strengths and limitations of soccer technical assessments. While maximum ball speed tests are highly reliable, kicking accuracy assessments remain problematic and require methodological refinement to improve reliability. Future research should incorporate advanced analytical techniques to enhance test reliability and consistency in elite athlete evaluations.
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.