ArticlePeerJ2026
Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a method for assessing sport-specific reactive agility in badminton 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reactive agility is a critical determinant of badminton performance, reflecting an athlete's ability to rapidly perceive, decide, and execute movement responses under dynamic conditions. However, there is a lack of standardized and sport-specific assessment tools to evaluate this multidimensional skill in badminton. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a badminton-specific reactive agility test (B-RAT). Methods: Nine technical and three strength coaches assessed the content validity of the B-RAT using a four-point scale. A total of 201 professional athletes (119 male, 82 female) from provincial and national teams participated in the testing. Test-retest reliability was examined in 58 athletes across two sessions separated by seven days. Criterion validity was assessed in 28 single players by correlating B-RAT performance with simulated match outcomes, while construct validity was evaluated by comparing B-RAT results with established change of direction speed (CODS) tests and among athletes of different competition levels. Feasibility was assessed based on experts' ratings of practicality, clarity, and resource requirements. Results: The B-RAT demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90, CV = 5.82%), strong content validity (S-CVI = 0.93), and correlations with match ranking ( Conclusions: The B-RAT is a reliable, valid, and feasible test for assessing sport-specific reactive agility in badminton players. It effectively integrates perceptual-cognitive and motor components, providing a practical and standardized tool for evaluating performance, guiding individualized training, and monitoring agility development in competitive badminton contexts.
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.