The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · 2026
Reliability and anthropometric influence of a new Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test in basketball.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Snieckus Audrius, Pathadan Titus Jerald, Matulaitis Kestutis, Ziv Gal, Kamandulis Sigitas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of a newly developed Reactive Agility Test and examine the impact of body dimensions on performance.
METHODS: Male university-level basketball players (N.=32; age: 22.3±2.2 years; height: 190.7±8.2 cm; arm span: 189.9±9.6 cm; weight: 80.1±10.9 kg) completed testing over three laboratory visits within one week. Tests on days 1 and 2 assessed the test-retest reliability of the Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test (LBRAT-W), developed through multiple pilot trials using the Witty SEM electronic system. On day 3, to evaluate the influence of anthropometric factors, the equipment layout was customized to each participant's height, arm span, and downward reach. Each session included eight trials: four unplanned (Unplanned Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test, U-LBRAT-W), with unpredictable light sequences, and four planned (Planned Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test, P-LBRAT-W), with numbered plates indicating the sequence.
RESULTS: Both U-LBRAT-W and P-LBRAT-W demonstrated good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.895 and 0.848), the same as the time difference between planned and unplanned tasks (Reactivity Index [RE-Index], ICC=0.891). Performance improved on day 2 for both tests (P<0.05), suggesting a learning effect, while RE-Index remained stable (P>0.05). Height explained approximately 10.8% of the variance in the unplanned test and 5.0% in the planned test but had minimal influence on the RE-Index.
CONCLUSIONS: The LBRAT-W is a reliable tool for assessing reactive agility, with the RE-Index independent of height, although scaling may be considered for planned and unplanned task completion times if these are the primary outcome.
METHODS: Male university-level basketball players (N.=32; age: 22.3±2.2 years; height: 190.7±8.2 cm; arm span: 189.9±9.6 cm; weight: 80.1±10.9 kg) completed testing over three laboratory visits within one week. Tests on days 1 and 2 assessed the test-retest reliability of the Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test (LBRAT-W), developed through multiple pilot trials using the Witty SEM electronic system. On day 3, to evaluate the influence of anthropometric factors, the equipment layout was customized to each participant's height, arm span, and downward reach. Each session included eight trials: four unplanned (Unplanned Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test, U-LBRAT-W), with unpredictable light sequences, and four planned (Planned Light-Based Reactive Agility Wall Test, P-LBRAT-W), with numbered plates indicating the sequence.
RESULTS: Both U-LBRAT-W and P-LBRAT-W demonstrated good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.895 and 0.848), the same as the time difference between planned and unplanned tasks (Reactivity Index [RE-Index], ICC=0.891). Performance improved on day 2 for both tests (P<0.05), suggesting a learning effect, while RE-Index remained stable (P>0.05). Height explained approximately 10.8% of the variance in the unplanned test and 5.0% in the planned test but had minimal influence on the RE-Index.
CONCLUSIONS: The LBRAT-W is a reliable tool for assessing reactive agility, with the RE-Index independent of height, although scaling may be considered for planned and unplanned task completion times if these are the primary outcome.