The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relative and Absolute Reliability of a Modified Agility T-test and Its Relationship With Vertical Jump and Straight Sprint
Abstract
The aims of this study were to evaluate the reliability of a modified agility T-test (MAT) and to examine its relationship to the free countermovement jump (FCMJ) and the 10-m straight sprint (10mSS). In this new version, we preserved the same nature of displacement of the T-test but we reduced the total distance to cover. A total of 86 subjects (34 women: age = 22.6 +/- 1.4 years; weight = 63.7 +/- 10.2 kg; height = 1.65 +/- 0.05 m; body mass index = 23.3 +/- 3.3 kg x m(-2) and 52 men: age = 22.4 +/- 1.5 years; weight = 68.7 +/- 8.0 kg; height = 1.77 +/- 0.06 m; body mass index = 22.0 +/- 2.0 kg x m(-2)) performed MAT, T-test, FCMJ, and 10mSS. Our results showed no difference between test-retest MAT scores. Intraclass reliability of the MAT was greater than 0.90 across the trials (0.92 and 0.95 for women and men, respectively). The mean difference (bias) +/- the 95% limits of agreement was 0.03 +/- 0.37 seconds for women and 0.03 +/- 0.33 seconds for men. MAT was correlated to the T-test (r = 0.79, p < 0.001 and r = 0.75, p < 0.001 for women and men, respectively). Significant correlations were found between both MAT and FCMJ, and MAT and 10mSS for women (r = -0.47, p < 0.01 and r = 0.34, p < 0.05, respectively). No significant correlations were found between MAT and all other tests for men. These results indicate that MAT is a reliable test to assess agility. The weak relationship between MAT and strength and straight speed suggests that agility requires other determinants of performance as coordination. Considering that field sports generally include sprints with change direction over short distance, MAT seems to be more specific than the T-test when assessing agility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Agility literature review: Classifications, training and testing
Sheppard, J. M., & Young, W. B. (2006) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640410500457109 · Cited by 1,707
Cited by
Determinants of performance in a new test of planned agility for young elite basketball players
Delextrat, A., Grosgeorge, B., & Bieuzen, F. (2015) · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0097 · Cited by 60
Picabea, J. M., Cámara, J., & Yanci, J. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18179362 · Cited by 38
Hermassi, S., Schwesig, R., Aloui, G., Shephard, R. J., & Chelly, M. S. (2019) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000003068 · Cited by 36
Kaabi, S., Mabrouk, R. H., & Passelergue, P. (2022) · Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000003972 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Sassi, R. H., Dardouri, W., Yahmed, M. H., Gmada, N., Mahfoudhi, M. E., & Gharbi, Z.
- Venue
- Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1644-1651
- ISSN
- 1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059409632
- Cited by
- 431
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.