EVALUATION OF BASKETBALL-SPECIFIC AGILITY:

APPLICABILITY OF PREPLANNED AND NONPLANNED

AGILITY PERFORMANCES FOR DIFFERENTIATING
PLAYING POSITIONS AND PLAYING LEVELS
DAMIR SEKULIC,1 MIRAN PEHAR,2 ANTE KROLO,1 MIODRAG SPASIC,1 OGNJEN ULJEVIC,1
JULIO CALLEJA-GONZÁLEZ,3 AND TINE SATTLER4
1
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia; 2Faculty of Natural Sciences Mathematics and Education,
University of Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 3Laboratory of Human Performance, Department of Physical
Education and Sport, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria, Spain; and 4Faculty of
Sport, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

ABSTRACT 3.37, 0.04, respectively). First division Guards achieved better

Sekulic, D, Pehar, M, Krolo, A, Spasic, M, Uljevic, O, Calleja-
González, J, and Sattler, T. Evaluation of basketball-specific
agility: applicability of preplanned and nonplanned agility per-
formances for differentiating playing positions and playing
levels. J Strength Cond Res 31(8): 2278–2288, 2017—The
importance of agility in basketball is well known, but there is
an evident lack of studies examining basketball-specific agility
performances in high-level players. The aim of this study was
to determine the reliability and discriminative validity of 1
standard agility test (test of preplanned agility [change-of-
direction speed] over T course, T-TEST), and 4 newly devel-
oped basketball-specific agility tests, in defining playing
positions and performance levels in basketball. The study
comprised 110 high-level male basketball players (height:
194.92 6 8.09 cm; body mass: 89.33 6 10.91 kg; age:
21.58 6 3.92 years). The variables included playing position
results than second division Guards in BBCODSdom (t: 2.55; p
= 0.02; moderate effect size differences), BBAGILdom, and
BBAGILnond (t: 3.04 and 3.06, respectively; both p = 0.01
and moderate effect size differences). First division Centers out-
performed second division Centers in BBAGILdom (t: 2.50; p =
0.02; moderate effect size differences). The developed
basketball-specific agility tests are applicable when defining
position-specific agility. Both preplanned and nonplanned agili-
ties are important qualities in differentiating between Guards of
2 performance levels. The results confirmed the importance of
testing basketball-specific nonplanned agility when evaluating
the performance level of Centers.
KEY WORDS reliability, ecological validity, reactive agility,
change of direction speed
INTRODUCTION

(Guard, Forward, Center), performance level (first division vs.
second division), anthropometrics (body height, body mass,
and percentage of body fat), T-TEST, nonplanned basketball
agility test performed on dominant (BBAGILdom) and nondom-
inant sides (BBAGILnond), and a preplanned (change-of-direc-
tion speed) basketball agility test performed on dominant
(BBCODSdom) and nondominant sides (BBCODSnond). The
reliability of agility tests was high (intraclass correlation coef-
ficient of 0.81–0.95). Forwards were most successful in the
T-TEST (F test: 13.57; p = 0.01). Guards outperformed
Centers in BBCODSdom, BBCODSndom, BBAGILdom, and
BBAGILnond (F test: 5.06, p = 0.01; 6.57, 0.01; 6.26, 0.01;
Address correspondence to Damir Sekulic, dado@pmfst.hr.
31(8)/2278–2288
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
A
gility is a performance quality that directly con-
tributes to success in sports in which athletes have
to rapidly change direction and speed (7,32,33).
This ability is recognized as one of the most
important conditioning capacities in basketball (3,27,38). In
general, agility performance comprises: (a) the ability to
change direction rapidly with advanced knowledge of the
directional change (i.e., preplanned agility, nonreactive agil-
ity, closed-skill agility, change-of-direction speed) and (b)
the ability to rapidly change direction while responding to
an unpredictable visual or audio stimulus (i.e., nonplanned
agility, reactive agility, open-skill agility) (14,28,29).
In team sports (i.e., football, handball, soccer, basketball),
preplanned agility (i.e., closed-skill agility, change-of-
direction speed—CODS) allows an athlete to outperform
his or her opponent in situations in which he or she is in
a position to define the movement pattern (12,31).

2278 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Nonplanned agility (i.e., open-skill agility, reactive agility) is
accentuated in all situations in which players perform
a change in direction while reacting to an external stimulus
(e.g., the trajectory of the ball, an opponent’s change in
direction) (32,37). However, reactive agility and CODS are
generally considered independent qualities. In short, studies
to date have shown relatively low correlations between tests
of these 2 capacities, with common variances ranging from
,5 to 20% (5,24,29). Consequently, there is a clear consen-
sus on the need for an independent evaluation and condi-
tioning of these 2 abilities (24,32).
Position-specific tasks and position-specific body builds in
basketball are well known (i.e., Centers are the tallest and
heaviest, Guards are the shortest and most mesomorphic)
(3,15,20). The differences in specific fitness between playing
positions have also been studied (1,30). It is regularly reported
that Guards possess advanced sprinting capacities and aerobic
capacity (2,16). However, results of studies that have investi-
gated agility performances among positions are inconsistent
(3,16,27). In some cases, authors have reported better pre-
planned agility performance in Guards than in Forwards
and Centers (3,16). In contrast, another study reported the
opposite results, with superior preplanned agility performance
observed for frontcourt players (Forwards and Centers) com-
pared with backcourt players (Guards) (27). Finally, a recent
study showed no significant positional differences in pre-
planned agility, as evaluated by 3 different tests (31).
Although agility is hypothesized to be directly related to
performance quality in basketball, only few studies reported
differences between playing levels for this conditioning
capacity (2,16,28). When compared first and second division
players from Turkish league, Koklu et al. (16) found no sig-
nificant differences for preplanned agility measured by test of
preplanned agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course
(T-TEST). Recently, Scanlan et al. reported better perfor-
mance of starter players in reactive agility (nonplanned agil-
ity), with no significant difference between observed playing
levels in preplanned agility (CODS) (15,27). Finally, Ben
Abdelkrim et al. (2) compared 3 Tunisan national teams
and reported results for T-TEST preplanned agility of
10.53 6 0.67 seconds (U18 team), 10.05 6 0.44 seconds
(U20 team), and 9.99 6 0.40 seconds (Senior team), with
significant differences between U18 and other 2 teams.
It is clear from this brief literature overview that a limited
number of investigations have reported differences in agility
performances between playing positions in basketball, and
their results are inconsistent. In addition, to the best of our
knowledge, only 1 study has investigated nonplanned agility
as a position-specific determinant of fitness status in
basketball in examining only a few participants (altogether,
12 athletes divided into 2 positions) (27). What is particularly
important is that studies investigating differences in agility
between playing levels have examined this problem for all
athletes without dividing them according to their position in
the game (2,16,28). Finally, all studies reported to date have
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Figure 1. Testing of the basketball-specific preplanned and nonplanned
agility (IR = infrared beam, PC = personal computer, MC =
microcontroller).
used general and not sport-specific tests of agility perfor-
mance, and we may therefore suppose that the present re-
sults are of limited ecological validity (21,32,35).
The main aims of this study were to determine the reliability
and discriminative validity of different agility tests in defining
position-specific agility in basketball. In addition, we examined
the applicability of agility tests to identify differences among
basketball athletes at 2 competitive levels (i.e., top level and
high level). A working hypothesis assumed the existence of
differences in agility performance related to the playing
position and competitive level of basketball players.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Due to the highly specific movement techniques that occur
in basketball, we believe that the agility tests used to date
have limited applicability in this sport. Therefore, the main
rationale for this study arose from the low ecological validity
of tests previously used for evaluating real-game preplanned
and nonplanned agility performances in basketball. Our
study intended to determine whether newly developed
agility tests would be valid for distinguishing between (a)
basketball playing positions and (b) the performance levels
of basketball athletes.
This cross-sectional, field-based study consisted of 4
phases. In the first one, we consulted 5 top-level experts
(3 coaches and 2 players) regarding the agility movement
patterns that are relatively common across all playing
positions. In addition, they were instructed to determine
the technique that would be applicable for testing the
agility performance of all athletes, regardless of their
primary playing duties in basketball. These experts agreed
that the basketball defensive technique usually called “help-
and-recover” would be highly applicable for this purpose.
In general, this defensive skill consists of a quick forward
movement of 1–2 m, followed by a diagonal (i.e.,
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2017 | 2279
 Agility Performances in Basketball

Subjects
We tested 110 high-level male
TABLE 1. Reliability of the agility tests.*
basketball athletes from Bosnia
Intrasession Intersession and Herzegovina (height:
194.92 6 8.09 cm; body mass:
ICC CV (%) ICC CV (%) 89.33 6 10.91 kg; body fat:
T-TEST (s) 0.95 3.0 0.91 4.1 8.98 6 3.41%; age: 21.58 6
BBCODSdom (s) 0.91 4.0 0.90 4.3 3.92 years). All athletes were
BBCODSnond (s) 0.90 4.9 0.87 5.5 performing at the highest
BBAGILdom (s) 0.86 5.2 0.88 5.6 national (professional/semi-
BBAGILnond (s) 0.85 5.0 0.81 5.4 professional) rank at the
*ICC = intraclass coefficient; CV = coefficient of variation; T-TEST = test of preplanned moment of testing (beginning
agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course; BBCODSdom = basketball-specific change of the 2014–15 competitive
of direction test executed on dominant side; BBCODSnond = basketball-specific change of season). Among the total sam-
direction test executed on nondominant side; BBAGILdom = basketball-specific nonplanned
agility test executed on dominant side; BBAGILnond = basketball-specific nonplanned agility ple, 58 participants were com-
test executed on nondominant side. peting in the first division and
52 in the second division. Test-
ing was performed at the
beginning of the season, and
semilateral) shuffle of approximately 2–3 m (left or right, all participants had completed a preseason preparation
depending on the offensive player’s change in direction), period of at least 1 month before the testing was conducted.
and a quick return to the initial position (Figure 1). This Only participants who had no injuries and/or illnesses for 30
technique is familiar to basketball players because all of days before the experiment were included in this investiga-
them do it often during game play. In the second phase of tion. The players were categorized as Guards (n = 49), For-
the experiment, the dimensions of the test and type wards (n = 22), or Centers (n = 39). Playing positions were
of execution were standardized (see the Procedures section self-reported by the athletes and additionally checked by the
for more test details). In the third phase, we made an team manager (coach).
a priori estimate of the sample size. To obtain the sample The ethics board of the first author’s institution provided
size estimate, we used data obtained in a pilot test of 20 approval of the research experiment (Ethical Board
athletes (10 first division and 10 second division players). Approval No: 2181-205-02-05-14-001). All participants were
An analysis using the G*Power software (version 3.1.9.2; older than 18 years and were informed of the purpose, ben-
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) efits, and risks of the investigation. Participants voluntarily
for an independent 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (per- took part in the testing after they provided written consent.
formance level 3 playing position; p-value of 0.05, power of All players had been playing basketball for at least 7 years. In
0.90, and effect size (ES) of 0.5) recommended 58 participants addition to the standard technical and tactical practice ses-
as an appropriate sample size. The fourth phase involved sions (1–4 hours per day; 5 days a week plus competitive
testing of all participants. games) and competitions, the players were involved in

TABLE 2. Pearson’s product-moment correlations between observed variables (data reported as r and p).*

Body height Body mass Body fat T-TEST BBCODSdom BBCODSnond BBAGILdom

Body mass (kg) 0.79 (0.01) —

Body fat (%) 20.02 (0.80) 0.15 (0.15) —
T-TEST (s) 0.34 (0.01) 0.38 (0.01) 0.25 (0.02) —
BBCODSdom (s) 0.21 (0.03) 0.13 (0.18) 0.27 (0.01) 0.56 (0.01) —
BBCODSnond (s) 0.31 (0.01) 0.19 (0.04) 0.11 (0.29) 0.52 (0.01) 0.72 (0.01) —
BBAGILdom (s) 0.20 (0.04) 0.10 (0.29) 0.24 (0.02) 0.44 (0.01) 0.54 (0.01) 0.53 (0.01) —
BBAGILnond (s) 0.23 (0.03) 0.13 (0.18) 0.17 (0.10) 0.44 (0.01) 0.40 (0.01) 0.56 (0.01) 0.58 (0.01)

*T-TEST = test of preplanned agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course; BBCODSdom = basketball-specific change of
direction test executed on dominant side; BBCODSnond = basketball-specific change of direction test executed on nondominant side;
BBAGILdom = basketball-specific nonplanned agility test executed on dominant side; BBAGILnond = basketball-specific nonplanned
agility test executed on nondominant side.

the TM

2280 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance effects.*

Playing positions Divisions ANOVA effects

Guards, mean 6 Forwards, mean 6 Centers, mean 6 First, mean 6 Second, mean 6 Positions, F Divisions, F Interaction, F
SD SD SD SD SD (p) (p) (p)

Body height (cm) 188.23 6 5.52†z 197.10 6 5.09z 201.72 6 5.26 197.38 6 7.65 191.59 6 7.53 75.30 (0.01) 27.40 (0.01) 1.30 (0.27)
Body mass (kg) 81.69 6 6.33†z 90.81 6 6.10z 97.78 6 10.94 92.56 6 10.79 85.33 6 9.75 42.05 (0.01) 14.07 (0.01) 1.11 (0.33)
Body fat (%) 8.21 6 2.82†z 9.16 6 4.11 9.79 6 3.53 7.75 6 2.72 10.52 6 3.58 3.37 (0.03) 19.78 (0.01) 0.31 (0.73)
T-TEST (s) 8.96 6 0.37†z 8.84 6 0.34z 9.37 6 0.50 9.02 6 0.49 9.14 6 0.43 13.57 (0.01) 1.37 (0.25) 0.17 (0.84)
BBCODSdom (s) 1.66 6 0.11z 1.68 6 0.15 1.75 6 0.20 1.66 6 0.13 1.74 6 0.17 5.06 (0.01) 9.21 (0.01) 0.16 (0.85)
BBCODSnond (s) 1.77 6 0.13z 1.80 6 0.14 1.88 6 0.19 1.79 6 0.13 1.84 6 0.19 6.57 (0.01) 2.83 (0.09) 0.04 (0.96)
BBAGILdom (s) 1.94 6 0.14z 1.95 6 0.17 2.04 6 0.17 1.93 6 0.13 2.03 6 0.19 6.26 (0.01) 8.89 (0.01) 0.91 (0.41)

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2.08 6 0.15z 6 6 2.06 6 0.14 6

the
BBAGILnond (s) 2.10 0.13 2.15 0.18 2.16 0.17 3.37 (0.04) 10.29 (0.01) 0.18 (0.83)

*T-TEST = test of preplanned agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course; BBCODSdom = basketball-specific change of direction test executed on dominant side;
BBCODSnond = basketball-specific change of direction test executed on nondominant side; BBAGILdom = basketball-specific nonplanned agility test executed on dominant side;
BBAGILnond = basketball-specific nonplanned agility test executed on nondominant side.
†Values significantly different from those observed in Forwards.
zValues significantly different from those observed in Centers.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2017 |

TM
| www.nsca.com
2281
 Agility Performances in Basketball

TABLE 4. Descriptive statistics and differences between first division and second division Guard players.*

First division Second division

Guards (n = 25) Guards (n = 24) Student’s t-test Effect size

Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD t (p) d 95% CI

Body height (cm) 189.73 6 4.00 186.59 6 6.51 1.99 (0.06) 0.58 0.00 to 1.15
Body mass (kg) 84.79 6 4.89 78.14 6 5.99 4.10 (0.01) 1.22 0.59 to 1.81
Body fat (%) 7.14 6 2.58 9.43 6 2.63 22.87 (0.01) 20.87 21.51 to 20.21
T2TEST (s) 8.88 6 0.41 9.02 6 0.33 21.34 (0.19) 20.42 20.93 to 0.20
BBCODSdom (s) 1.62 6 0.09 1.70 6 0.11 22.55 (0.02) 20.80 21.37 to 20.20
BBCODSnond (s) 1.74 6 0.12 1.79 6 0.13 21.56 (0.12) 20.40 20.96 to 0.17
BBAGILdom (s) 1.89 6 0.13 2.00 6 0.13 23.04 (0.01) 20.85 21.42 to 20.25
BBAGILnond (s) 2.02 6 0.12 2.14 6 0.15 23.06 (0.01) 20.89 21.46 to 20.29

*T-TEST = test of preplanned agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course; BBCODSdom = basketball-specific change of
direction test executed on dominant side; BBCODSnond = basketball-specific change of direction test executed on nondominant side;
BBAGILdom = basketball-specific nonplanned agility test executed on dominant side; BBAGILnond = basketball-specific nonplanned
agility test executed on nondominant side.

strength and conditioning programs (2–3 times per week)
that included resistance exercises and aerobic or anaerobic
endurance training. The average training frequency of all
players ranged from 4 to 10 training sessions per week, with
an average of 5–6 sessions weekly, depending on the level of
competition.
Procedures
The variables included participants’ playing position (Guard,
Forward, Center), performance level (i.e., first division vs.
second division players), anthropometrics (body height,
body mass, and body fat percentage), and 5 agility perform-
ances. Anthropometrics were measured with Seca measur-
ing equipment (Seca, Birmingham, United Kingdom) and
skinfold caliper (Holtain, London, United Kingdom), with
testing procedures explained in detail previously (15). The
agility tests were tested under similar conditions for all par-
ticipants (standard basketball court, wooden floor, tempera-
ture 20–258 C, 9–11 AM, and self-preferred type of footwear)
in a single day. After anthropometric measurements, athletes
participated in a standardized warm-up protocol consisting
of jogging (10 minutes), body weight exercises (5 minutes),
various change-of-direction exercises (2–3 minutes), and
dynamic stretching (5 minutes). Before each of the agility
tests, participants performed 3 familiarization trials to
familiarize themselves with the test task, type of execution,
and test distances. The rest between familiarization trials and
testing was 3–4 minutes. The agility tests were conducted in
random order, with 4–5 minutes of rest between different
tests and 3–4 minutes between trials for each test. The time
was measured in intervals of 0.01 second.
The agility performances observed in this study were
a T-TEST, a basketball-specific nonplanned agility test
performed on the dominant (BBAGILdom) and nondomi-
the TM
nant sides (BBAGILnond), and a preplanned (i.e., change-
of-direction speed—CODS) basketball-specific agility test
performed on the dominant (BBCODSdom) and nondomi-
nant sides (BBCODSnond). Measurements were performed
by a hardware device system based on an ATMEL micro-
controller (model AT89C51RE2; ATMEL Corp, San Jose,
CA, USA) as the core of the system. A photoelectric infrared
sensor (E18-D80NK) was used as an external time triggering
input, and LEDs were used as controlled outputs. The pho-
toelectric infrared sensor has been shown to be as reliable as
high-speed sensors, with a response time of less than 2 milli-
seconds (.500 Hz) and a digital output signal. The sensor’s
detection distance ranged from 3 to 80 cm and was capable
of detecting transparent or opaque objects. Because it has
a digital output (high-low state) with an NPN transistor
open collector, the sensor is connected through a microcon-
troller IO port. For the purposes of our study, this device was
connected to a laptop PC operating on the Linux OS.
For the T-TEST, a course was arranged in a T-shape, with
1 cone placed 9.14 m from the start line and 2 additional
cones placed 4.57 m on either side of the first cone. The
participants were asked to sprint forward 9.14 m from the
start line to the first cone and touch the top of it with their
right hand, shuffle 4.57 m left to the second cone and touch
its top with their left hand, shuffle 9.14 m to the right to the
third cone and touch its top with their right hand, and
shuffle 4.57 m back left to the middle cone and touch its top
with their left hand before finally backpedaling to the start
line. The timing began on a sound signal and stopped when
the participant had passed through the timing gate on their
return. The best performance was retained as the final result
for each athlete.
The basketball-specific tests of nonplanned and pre-
planned agilities were all performed in the testing area

2282 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 5. Descriptive statistics and differences between first division and second division Forward players.*

First division Second division

Forwards (n = 11) Forwards (n = 11) Student’s t-test Effect size

Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD t (p) d 95% CI

Body height (cm) 200.09 6 2.80 193.80 6 5.07 3.56 (0.01) 1.54 0.43 to 2.42
Body mass (kg) 92.00 6 3.82 89.50 6 7.92 0.94 (0.36) 0.40 20.46 to 1.23
Body fat (%) 7.61 6 3.54 10.90 6 4.18 21.85 (0.08) 20.81 21.73 to 0.10
T-TEST (s) 8.73 6 0.33 9.00 6 0.31 21.81 (0.08) 20.84 21.68 to 0.06
BBCODSdom (s) 1.64 6 0.14 1.73 6 0.15 21.43 (0.17) 20.62 21.45 to 0.26
BBCODSnond (s) 1.77 6 0.11 1.83 6 0.16 20.97 (0.35) 20.44 21.47 to 0.22
BBAGILdom (s) 1.93 6 0.12 1.96 6 0.22 20.37 (0.71) 20.17 21.00 to 0.67
BBAGILnond (s) 2.07 6 0.13 2.14 6 0.12 21.45 (0.16) 20.56 21.39 to 0.31

*T-TEST = test of preplanned agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course; BBCODSdom = basketball-specific change of
direction test executed on dominant side; BBCODSnond = basketball-specific change of direction test executed on nondominant side;
BBAGILdom = basketball-specific nonplanned agility test executed on dominant side; BBAGILnond = basketball-specific nonplanned
agility test executed on nondominant side.

shown in Figure 1. For the BBAGILdom and BBAGILnond,
the participants commenced from the start line such that
when crossing the infrared (IR) signal the timing began. At
that particular moment, a hardware module (microcontroller
—MC) lit one of the 2 LEDs placed inside 30-cm-high cones
(labeled A and B). A participant had to assess which cone
was lit, shuffle run to that particular cone, rebound the ball
placed at the top of the cone, and return to the start line as
quickly as possible. When a participant crossed the IR signal
on their way back, the timing stopped. To mimic real-game
performance in basketball, the participants faced frontwards
throughout the entire test. A single-test trial for each test
consisted of 5 attempts, and participants had no advanced
knowledge of the testing scenario. Three trials were per-
formed. The rest period between attempts lasted 10–15 sec-
onds. The testing of BBCODSdom and BBCODSnond was
similar to the testing of the BBAGIL performances, but a par-
ticipant had advanced knowledge of which cone would light
up. The dominant side for BBCODS and BBAGIL was es-
tablished for each participant independently by comparing
the average value for all attempts executed on the right side
with the average for attempts executed on the left side. Spe-
cifically, if “average right” was numerically lower than “aver-
age left,” the right side was regarded as the dominant side
(and vice versa). The best achievement on the right side and
best achievement on the left side were retained as final re-
sults for each participant.
Statistical Analyses
After assessing the normality (by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test), the mean values and standard deviations were reported
for all variables. The intrasession reliability was calculated on
a basis of results of all athletes (n = 110). Additionally, a sub-
sample consisting of 24 athletes was tested by testing and
retesting (2 days in a row) to establish the intersession reliabil-
ity of the agility tests. The relative reliability was analyzed
using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the abso-
lute reliability was analyzed using the coefficient of variation
(CV). To calculate ICC and CV for T-TEST performance, the
results of all testing trials were used. For the BBCODS and
BBAGIL, the best attempts of dominant and nondominant
side in each trial were used to calculate reliability parameters.
The calculations were performed using the freely available
Microsoft Excel 2010 software program (8,10). The homosce-
dasticity of all variables was proven by Levene’s test.
The relationships between the applied variables were
established by Pearson’s correlation coefficients (23,36). The
discriminative validity of the applied tests was evaluated with
regard to (a) playing position differences and (b) performance
level differences. For anthropometric and agility variables,
a 2-way univariate ANOVA (performance level 3 playing
position) was calculated, and differences between 3 playing
positions were further evaluated by a Scheffe post hoc test
when appropriate. To define the differences between perfor-
mance levels (first division vs. second division players), within
each playing position, Student’s t-tests for independent
samples were calculated and further analyzed using a magni-
tude-based Cohen’s ES statistic with modified qualitative de-
scriptors. The ES was assessed using the following criteria:
,0.02 = trivial; 0.2–0.6 = small; .0.6–1.2 = moderate; .1.2–
2.0 = large; and .2.0 very large differences (9).
A level of statistical significance of 95% (p # 0.05) was
applied. Statsoft’s Statistica ver. 12.0 (StatSoft, Inc, Tulsa,
OK, USA) was used for all analyses.
RESULTS
With an ICC of 0.85–0.95 and CV of 3–5% for intrasession
reliability and an ICC of 0.81–0.91 and CV of 4–6% for

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2017 | 2283

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Agility Performances in Basketball

TABLE 6. Descriptive statistics and differences between first division and second division Center players.*

First division Second division

Centers (n = 22) Centers (n = 17) Student’s t-test Effect size

Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD t (p) d 95% CI

Body height (cm) 204.07 6 4.13 197.86 6 4.67 4.22 (0.01) 1.42 0.69 to 2.10
Body mass (kg) 101.32 6 11.31 92.60 6 8.23 2.56 (0.02) 0.86 0.19 to 1.51
Body fat (%) 8.46 6 2.39 11.74 6 4.08 23.08 (0.01) 20.96 21.65 to 20.27
T-TEST (s) 9.31 6 0.50 9.46 6 0.52 20.82 (0.42) 20.29 20.92 to 20.35
BBCODSdom (s) 1.71 6 0.14 1.82 6 0.25 21.72 (0.09) 20.56 21.20 to 0.09
BBCODSnond (s) 1.85 6 0.12 1.93 6 0.26 21.15 (0.26) 20.41 21.04 to 0.23
BBAGILdom (s) 1.99 6 0.11 2.12 6 0.21 22.50 (0.02) 20.81 21.45 to 20.13
BBAGILnond (s) 2.11 6 0.14 2.21 6 0.23 21.64 (0.11) 20.54 21.18 to 0.11

*T-TEST = test of preplanned agility (change-of-direction speed) over T course; BBCODSdom = basketball-specific change of
direction test executed on dominant side; BBCODSnond = basketball-specific change of direction test executed on nondominant side;
BBAGILdom = basketball-specific nonplanned agility test executed on dominant side; BBAGILnond = basketball-specific nonplanned
agility test executed on nondominant side.

intersession reliability, the overall reliability of the tests was
high (Table 1).
Correlations among the studied agility performances were
statistically significant (at p # 0.05), but this was because of
the large sample of studied participants (n = 110). With
correlations ranging from 0.40 to 0.54, preplanned and non-
planned agility performances shared less than 30% of the
common variance (Table 2).
Significant main effects were demonstrated for playing
positions and performance levels for most of the observed
variables, with no significant interaction between posi-
tions and performance levels (divisions). Centers were the
tallest, heaviest, and had highest BF%, whereas Forwards
were taller, heavier, and had higher BF% than Guards
(F: 75.30, p = 0.01; 42.05, 0.01; 3.37, 0.03, for body height,
mass, and BF%, respectively). Forwards were most
successful in T-TEST performance (F test: 13.57; p =
0.01). Guards outperformed Centers with respect to
BBCODSdom, BBCODSnond, BBAGIL dom, and BBAGIL-
nond (F test: 5.06, p = 0.01; 6.57, 0.01; 6.26, 0.01; 3.37, 0.04,
respectively). First division players were taller (F: 27.40,
p = 0.01) heavier (F: 14.07, p = 0.01), had lower BF% (F:
19.78, p = 0.01), and outperformed second division play-
ers in BBCODSdom (F: 9.21, p = 0.01), BBAGIL dom (F:
8.89, p = 0.01), and BBAGILnond (F: 10.29, p = 0.01)
(Table 3).
First division Guards were heavier (t: 4.10; p = 0.01; d =
1.22, large differences) and had lower BF% (t: 2.87; p = 0.01;
d = 0.87, moderate differences) than second division Guards.
Furthermore, first division Guards outperformed second divi-
sion Guards in BBCODSdom (t: 2.55; p = 0.02; d = 0.80,
moderate differences), BBAGILdom (t: 3.04; p = 0.01; d =
0.85, moderate differences), and BBAGILnond (t: 3.06; p =
0.01; d = 0.89, moderate differences) (Table 4).
the TM
First division Forwards were taller than second division
Forwards (t: 3.56; p = 0.01; d = 1.54, large differences). No
significant differences were obtained between performance
levels among Forwards with respect to agility, but ES mag-
nitudes were moderate for T-TEST (d = 0.84) and
BBCODSdom (d = 0.62) (Table 5).
Centers who compete in the first division were taller (t: 4.22;
p = 0.01; d = 1.42, large differences), heavier (t: 2.56; p = 0.02;
d = 0.86, moderate differences), had lower BF% (t: 3.08; p =
0.01; d = 0.96, moderate differences), and achieved significantly
better results than second division Centers for BBAGILdom
(t: 2.50; p = 0.02; d = 0.81, moderate differences) (Table 6).
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of
basketball-specific tests to evaluate preplanned and non-
planned agility performances. With respect to the main
study aims, several key findings emerge. First, the newly
developed tests of preplanned and nonplanned agilities are
found to be reliable measuring tools. Next, the tests are
found to be applicable for defining position-specific agility
performance. Finally, the basketball-specific nonplanned
agility tests are found to be more valid for determining
differences between basketball athletes involved at 2 com-
petitive levels than preplanned agility tests.
The reliability of a test is an elementary prerequisite of the
test’s applicability because it directly indicates the error of
measurement (35). Therefore, studies have frequently re-
ported reliability parameters of measurement protocols
aimed at evaluating different conditioning capacities, includ-
ing those tests seeking to evaluate agility performances
(4,29,32). The reliability of the T-TEST is similar to that in
previous reports that have investigated basketball athletes at
an advanced level (31).

2284 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

For the tests of preplanned and nonplanned basketball-
specific agility evaluated herein, we may highlight reliability
coefficients with similar values as those previously reported
for other similar testing protocols in college-level athletes,
various team-sport athletes and handball players (24,29,32).
However, in a study that tested reactive agility in basketball
players, the authors reported a CV of 1–2% for nonplanned
reactive performance (26). Indeed, this is somewhat stronger
within participant reliability than the level we obtained for
nonplanned agility tests. However, it must be stated that the
above-mentioned study demonstrated reliability while
observing 5 participants, whereas we evaluated reliability
for a larger sample of athletes. Furthermore, the test used
in the cited study consists of only one change in direction
performed as part of a “nonstop” movement pattern (26). In
contrast, the protocol presented here includes (a) the
“stop’n’go” template and (b) 2 changes in direction.
What is also important is that the reliability of the agility
tests does not show great differences between the standard
test used herein (i.e., T-TEST) and the newly developed
basketball-specific tests of preplanned and nonplanned
agility. Moreover, somewhat better reliability of the
BBCODS tests compared with the reliability of the BBAGIL
tests is expected and in accord with previous studies
(24,29,32). In short, nonplanned agility performance includes
perceptual and reactive components, which do not occur in
the testing of preplanned agility (24,29). These specific “co-
variates of performance” are naturally sources of mistake,
potential sources of measurement error, and consequently
factors that could directly alter reliability (24).
Correlation of the tests showed that nonplanned and
preplanned agility should be observed as relatively inde-
pendent qualities (less than 30% of the common variance
between tests), as already noted in previous investigations
(29,32). First, regardless of the type of testing protocol (sin-
gle vs. multiple changes of direction) and the movement
pattern that occurs during testing (i.e., nonstop vs. stop’n’go
templates), the perceptual and reactive capacities are chal-
lenged only during nonplanned agility performances
(6,18,26). Moreover, those conditioning capacities that are
proven to be important in preplanned agility (i.e., horizon-
tal displacement abilities such as jumping and sprinting)
are less important determinants of success in nonplanned
agility (24).
Basketball is a sport with well-defined game responsibil-
ities that are differentiated among playing positions (2,22,34),
which is reflected in position-specific body build, and phys-
ical fitness differences among playing positions (20). Studies
have frequently reported that backcourt players (i.e., Guards)
possess quicker linear speed and better aerobic endurance
than frontcourt players (i.e., Centers and Forwards) (2,16,27).
However, despite consistent reports of differences in anthro-
pometric and fitness status, there is an evident lack of agree-
ment on differences in agility between playing positions in
basketball (27).
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
More precisely, in a recent study, authors compared 6
frontcourt (i.e., Guards) and 6 backcourt players (i.e.,
Forwards and Centers) and indicated that the frontcourt
players were superior in preplanned agility (i.e., closed-skill
agility, CODS) (27). In another study that sampled elite Bel-
gian basketball players, the authors reported Guards (i.e.,
backcourt players) as being superior in preplanned agility
performance, and similar results are reported for Tunisian
players (2,3). Meanwhile, Turkish athletes did not differ in
preplanned agility performance when different positions
were compared (16).
Because of the similarity to basketball movement techni-
ques (forward-backward running, lateral shuffling), the T-
TEST is regularly used to demonstrate preplanned agility in
basketball (16,31). In our study, Forwards were the most
successful of all players in T-TEST performance. Almost
certainly, due to the relatively long duration of the T-TEST
(i.e., 9.3 seconds on average), Forwards used their advantage
in terms of body dimensions (i.e., height and consequent step
length) to perform efficiently in this test. Because Forwards
are actually “frontcourt players,” our results may even likely
explain the contradictions indicated in studies previously
overviewed (2,3,27).
Our results indicating that Guards (i.e., frontcourt players)
are more successful in nonplanned agility performance than
Centers are dissimilar to those reported in a previous
Australian study (27). In that study, the authors reported
no difference in nonplanned agility between playing posi-
tions (27). However, there are 2 key differences between
these investigations. First, herein, we grouped athletes into
3 playing groups, whereas the Australian study revealed dif-
ferences when the players were placed into 2 groups (i.e.,
frontcourt players and backcourt players). According to our
results, it seems that the agility performances of Forwards are
not significantly different from those of Guards (see Results;
Guards achieved better results numerically but not signifi-
cantly). Second, the Australian players were actually tested
using a test protocol originally designed for other sports (i.e.,
rugby and Australian football), whereas we evaluated players
with basketball-specific agility tests, which more accurately
describe the existing differences among playing positions.
Over the past few years, a growing body of evidence has
emerged in support of the high applicability of sport-specific
testing protocols for evaluating those capacities that are
challenged during sport competitions (i.e., a game) (32,35).
Therefore, authors are increasingly aware of the need to
develop test procedures that mimic the movement patterns
and psychophysiological conditions that occur in the sport
of interest (4,25). In general, tests and procedures that objec-
tively simulate real-life sport conditions are found to be
more valid in demonstrating sport-specific capacities and
consequently are observed as being more ecologically valid
than general nonspecific testing procedures (35). Accord-
ingly, our results indicating that basketball-specific agility
tests are applicable in defining position-specific agility
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2017 | 2285
 Agility Performances in Basketball
performances are in accordance with previous investiga-
tions of other sports (13,23).
The only valid test is one that distinguishes the groups of
interest (36). Our intention was to demonstrate the validity
of the newly developed tests in defining differences between
playing positions and competitive levels. Therefore, the
appropriate discriminative validity of the agility tests for
defining players’ level of performance is likely the most
important finding of this study. To some extent, our results
proved the discriminative validity of the tests for the total
sample of players; nevertheless, we observed specific
competitive-level differences for playing positions as well.
Basketball-specific nonplanned agility should be consid-
ered an ability that more significantly distinguishes first
division from second division players than preplanned
agility. This finding is in accord with previous studies that
have compared nonplanned agility (i.e., reactive agility)
between groups of athletes and found superior perfor-
mance among those classified as more successful with
regard to characteristic sport achievement (28,32). How-
ever, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to
examine differences in various agility performances
between playing levels of basketball athletes within each
of the 3 playing positions (i.e., separately for Guards, For-
wards, and Centers).
The differences found between the first division and
second division Guards indicate a similar level of importance
of both BBAGIL and BBCODS for this playing position.
Indeed, Guards are most frequently involved in game duties
in which both preplanned and nonplanned agilities are
challenged. For example, advanced preplanned agility (i.e.,
CODS) allows Guards to achieve a fast and efficient
transition from defense to offence. In defensive duties,
advanced nonplanned agility (i.e., reactive agility) allows
defensive Guards to effectively react to an opponent’s
changes in direction, ensure a superior “lock-down” of
a player with the ball, keep opponents away from the basket,
and possibly cause a turnover (17).
We have found no significant difference between first and
second division Centers for preplanned agility (BBCODS-
dom, BBCODSnond and T-TEST). Knowing the position-
specific roles of Centers, these results are expected. Indeed,
Centers are not as frequently involved in duties in which
they have to demonstrate preplanned agility. They are posi-
tioned close to the basket, and almost never have to transfer
the ball from defense to offense. If involved in counterat-
tacks, their duties are almost exclusively related to final scor-
ing without requiring maneuvers that involve CODS (19).
However, Centers are frequently responsible for defensive
duties in which they have to accurately and appropriately
respond to an opponent’s change in direction. Therefore,
their nonplanned agility (reactive-agility) is frequently chal-
lenged, which was likely the cause of the significant domi-
nance of the first division Centers with respect to
BBAGILdom.
the TM
2286 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
The lack of statistically significant differences between
playing levels among Forwards can be described by the
relatively fewer athletes we tested who play that position
(49 Guards, 39 Centers, and 22 Forwards), which altered
possibility to reach appropriate statistical significance of the
differences among performance-levels (11). However, effect
size differences for certain variables between playing levels
among Forwards reached moderate magnitudes (i.e., mod-
erate differences were found between performance levels
for T-TEST and BBCODSdom). Therefore, it is reasonable
to observe preplanned agility as important quality in For-
ward players. The authors of this study are of the opinion
that the cause of such findings (i.e., higher importance of
the preplanned agility) is similar to that previously dis-
cussed for Guards and their offensive duties, where pre-
planned agility is mostly challenged. However, the lack of
differences in nonplanned agility for Forwards might be
explained by different playing duties between 2 types of
Forward players (i.e., Power-forwards and Small-
forwards). In short, while Power-forwards are taller and
heavier and therefore frequently execute some typical Cen-
ter duties (i.e., rebounding), the Small-forwards are shorter,
quicker, and more involved in different agile maneuvers
(17). Unfortunately, the number of players studied herein
did not allow for more profound analysis of differences
between 2 types of Forward players.
There are several limitations of this study. First, non-
planned agility was tested by using a test in which players
responded to a visual stimulus in which the choice of
direction was limited to just 2 (i.e., left or right). Therefore,
future studies should pay attention to this stimulus and
develop testing protocols that include multiple reaction
possibilities and possibly another type of stimulus. Second,
we observed players of senior age (i.e., older than 18 years),
and it is questionable whether the tests used are applicable to
the position orientation of players in their younger age.
However, our primary goal was to develop and evaluate
a test that consists of basketball-specific movement patterns,
and according to the presented results, we succeeded in this
respect to some extent.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The testing protocols developed and evaluated in this study,
which are based on the “help and recover” defensive basket-
ball strategy, are found to be reliable measurement tools for
evaluating agility performances among basketball players.
The results presented can be used as normative data for
other basketball athletes who perform at a similar level.
Preplanned and nonplanned agilities should not be
observed as a unique quality. Therefore, separate testing of
these capacities is required to objectively determine the
conditioning level for each of these abilities. However,
attention is needed when each of these protocols is used
to define position-specific and competition-level-specific
agility performances.

Guards achieved better results than Centers in both the
preplanned and the nonplanned basketball-specific agility
tests. Therefore, both measurement procedures are applica-
ble for defining position-specific differences in agility per-
formance between players involved in these 2 positions in
basketball. At the same time, a standard T-TEST is found
applicable for distinguishing Forwards from the other 2
playing positions.
Both preplanned and nonplanned agilities are important
for differentiating between Guards who perform at 2
competitive levels (performance levels). For these players,
both capacities should be applied to objectively evaluate
their characteristic efficacy in offense (by testing preplanned
agility) and defense (by testing nonplanned agility).
The agility of Center players is chiefly challenged during
defensive duties, when they have to efficiently react to
opponents’ changes in direction. Our results confirm the
importance of testing nonplanned agility when evaluating
the true game agility of Centers. Moreover, preplanned agil-
ity is not identified as a factor that distinguishes Center play-
ers at different competitive levels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors are particularly grateful to all athletes who volun-
tarily participated in the study. The authors declare that they
have no conflict of interests relevant to the content of this
manuscript. The results of this study do not constitute
endorsement of the product by the authors or the National
Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Alejandro, V, Santiago, S, Gerardo, VJ, Carlos, MJ, and Vicente, GT.
Anthropometric characteristics of Spanish professional basketball
players. J Hum Kinet 46: 99–106, 2015.
2. Ben Abdelkrim, N, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K, Chtara, M, and
Castagna, C. Positional role and competitive-level differences in
elite-level men’s basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1346–
1355, 2010.
3. Boone, J and Bourgois, J. Morphological and physiological profile of
elite basketball players in Belgium. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8: 630–
638, 2013.
4. Delextrat, A, Grosgeorge, B, and Bieuzen, F. Determinants of
performance in a new test of planned agility for young elite
basketball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 160–165, 2015.
5. Gabbett, T and Benton, D. Reactive agility of rugby league players.
J Sci Med Sport 12: 212–214, 2009.
6. Gabbett, TJ, Kelly, JN, and Sheppard, JM. Speed, change of direction
speed, and reactive agility of rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 174–181, 2008.
7. Hachana, Y, Chaabene, H, Ben Rajeb, G, Khlifa, R, Aouadi, R,
Chamari, K, and Gabbett, TJ. Validity and reliability of new agility
test among elite and subelite under 14-soccer players. PLoS One 9:
e95773, 2014.
8. Hopkins, W. Reliability from consecutive pairs of trials (excel
spreadsheet). In: A New View of Statistics. sportsci.org: Internet
Society for Sport Science, 2000. Available at: sportsci.org/resource/
stats/xrely.xls. Accessed April 2016.
9. Hopkins, WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and
science. Sports Med 30: 1–15, 2000.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
10. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
11. Huck, SW. Reading Statistics and Research. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, 2008.
12. Iacono, AD, Eliakim, A, and Meckel, Y. Improving fitness of elite
handball players: Small-sided games vs. high-intensity intermittent
training. J Strength Cond Res 29: 835–843, 2015.
13. Idrizovic, K, Uljevic, O, Spasic, M, Sekulic, D, and Kondric, M. Sport
specific fitness status in junior water polo players–playing position
approach. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55: 596–603, 2015.
14. Jeffriess, MD, Schultz, AB, McGann, TS, Callaghan, SJ, and Lockie,
RG. Effects of preventative ankle taping on planned change-of-
direction and reactive agility performance and ankle muscle activity
in basketballers. J Sports Sci Med 14: 864–876, 2015.
15. Jelicic, M, Sekulic, D, and Marinovic, M. Anthropometric
characteristics of high level European junior basketball players. Coll
Antropol (26 Suppl): 69–76, 2002.
16. Koklu, Y, Alemdaroglu, U, Kocak, FU, Erol, AE, and Findikoglu, G.
Comparison of chosen physical fitness characteristics of Turkish
professional basketball players by division and playing position. J
Hum Kinet 30: 99–106, 2011.
17. Krause, J, Meyer, D, and Meyer, J. Basketball Skills and Drills.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
18. Lockie, RG, Jeffriess, MD, McGann, TS, Callaghan, SJ, and
Schultz, AB. Planned and reactive agility performance in
semiprofessional and amateur basketball players. Int J Sport Physiol
Perf 9: 766–771, 2014.
19. McGee, K and Program, ASE. Coaching Basketball Technical and
Tactical Skills. Human Kinetics, 2007.
20. Pojskic, H, Separovic, V, Uzicanin, E, Muratovic, M, and Mackovic,
S. Positional role differences in the aerobic and anaerobic power of
elite basketball players. J Hum Kinet 49: 219–227, 2015.
21. Russell, M and Kingsley, M. Influence of exercise on skill proficiency
in soccer. Sports Med 41: 523–539, 2011.
22. Sampaio, J, Janeira, M, Ibáñez, S, and Lorenzo, A. Discriminant analysis
of game-related statistics between basketball guards, forwards and
centers in three professional leagues. Eur J Sport Sci 6: 173–178, 2006.
23. Sattler, T, Sekulic, D, Hadzic, V, Uljevic, O, and Dervisevic, E.
Vertical jumping tests in volleyball: Reliability, validity, and playing-
position specifics. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1532–1538, 2012.
24. Sattler, T, Sekulic, D, Spasic, M, Osmankac, N, Vicente Joao, P,
Dervisevic, E, and Hadzic, V. Isokinetic knee strength qualities as
predictors of jumping performance in high-level volleyball athletes:
Multiple regression approach. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 56: 60–69, 2016.
25. Sattler, T, Sekulic, D, Spasic, M, Peric, M, Krolo, A, Uljevic, O,
and Kondric, M. Analysis of the association between motor and
anthropometric variables with change of direction speed and
reactive agility performance. J Hum Kinet 47: 137–145, 2015.
26. Scanlan, A, Humphries, B, Tucker, PS, and Dalbo, V. The influence
of physical and cognitive factors on reactive agility performance in
men basketball players. J Sport Sci 32: 367–374, 2014.
27. Scanlan, AT, Tucker, PS, and Dalbo, VJ. A comparison of linear
speed, closed-skill agility, and open-skill agility qualities between
backcourt and frontcourt adult semiprofessional male basketball
players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1319–1327, 2014.
28. Scanlan, AT, Tucker, PS, and Dalbo, VJ. The importance of open-
and closed-skill agility for team selection of adult male basketball
players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55: 390–396, 2015.
29. Sekulic, D, Krolo, A, Spasic, M, Uljevic, O, and Peric, M. The
development of a new stop’n’go reactive-agility test. J Strength Cond
Res 28: 3306–3312, 2014.
30. Sindik, J and Jukic, I. Differences in situation efficacy indicators at
the elite basketball players that play on different positions in the
team. Coll Antropol 35: 1095–1104, 2011.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2017 | 2287
 Agility Performances in Basketball
31. Sisic, N, Jelicic, M, Pehar, M, Spasic, M, and Sekulic, D. Agility
performance in high-level junior basketball players; the predictive value
of anthropometrics and power qualities. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 66:
884–893, 2016.
32. Spasic, M, Krolo, A, Zenic, N, Delextrat, A, and Sekulic, D. Reactive
agility performance in handball; development and evaluation of a sport-
specific measurement protocol. J Sports Sci Med 14: 501–506, 2015.
33. Spiteri, T, Newton, RU, and Nimphius, S. Neuromuscular strategies
contributing to faster multidirectional agility performance. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 25: 629–636, 2015.
34. te Wierike, SC, Elferink-Gemser, MT, Tromp, EJ, Vaeyens, R, and
Visscher, C. Role of maturity timing in selection procedures and in
the specialisation of playing positions in youth basketball. J Sport Sci
33: 337–345, 2015.
the TM
2288 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
35. Uljevic, O, Esco, MR, and Sekulic, D. Reliability, validity, and
applicability of isolated and combined sport-specific tests of
conditioning capacities in top-level junior water polo athletes. J
Strength Cond Res 28: 1595–1605, 2014.
36. Uljevic, O, Spasic, M, and Sekulic, D. Sport-specific motor fitness
tests in water polo: Reliability, validity and playing position
differences. J Sports Sci Med 12: 646–654, 2013.
37. Young, WB, Miller, IR, and Talpey, SW. Physical qualities
predict change-of-direction speed but not defensive agility
in Australian rules football. J Strength Cond Res 29: 206–212,
2015.
38. Zemkova, E and Hamar, D. The effect of 6-week combined agility-
balance training on neuromuscular performance in basketball
players. J Sport Med Phys Fitness 50: 262–267, 2010.