BETWEEN-SESSION RELIABILITY OF FOUR HOP TESTS
AND THE AGILITY T-TEST
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
ALLAN G. MUNRO AND LEE C. HERRINGTON
Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, The University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023
ABSTRACT
Munro, AG and Herrington, LC. Between-session reliability of
four hop tests and the agility T-test. J Strength Cond Res 25(5):
1470–1477, 2011—The purposes of this study were firstly to
investigate whether learning affects were present in the
administration of 4 hop tests and the Agility T-test and secondly
to assess the between-session reliability of these tests. Twenty-
two recreational athletes (11 women: age 22.3 6 3.7 years,
height 167.7 6 6.2 cm, weight 59.2 6 6.9 kg and 11 men: age
22.8 6 3.1 years, height 179.8 6 4 cm, weight 79.6 6 10 kg)
took part in the study. The subjects performed 6 repetitions of
each hop test and 4 repetitions of the Agility T-test once a week
over a period of 3 weeks. Distances were normalized to leg
length and presented as a percentage value for the single, triple
and crossover hop. Results showed that there were significant
differences in scores between genders and that learning affects
were present in all tests. Intraclass correlation coefficients
ranged from 0.76 to 0.92 for the hop tests and 0.82 to 0.96 for
the Agility T-test. The results indicated that the hop and Agility
T-tests are reliable tests for use with subjects in a clinical or
team sport environment. The error measurement statistics
presented could be of help to practitioners to determine
whether changes in individuals’ scores in the hop and Agility
T-tests are because of a true change in performance or
measurement error. Of most importance was the fact that all
subjects achieved at least 90% limb symmetry index on all
4 hop tests. Therefore, we recommend that a minimum limb
symmetry value of 90%, rather than previously recommended
85%, should be adopted during rehabilitation and conditioning.
KEY WORDS functional performance tests, ACL, outcome
measure
Address correspondence to Allan Munro, A.G.Munro@pgr.salford.ac.uk.
25(5)/1470–1477
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1470 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.
INTRODUCTION
O
utcome measurement is an important tool in
sports exercise science and medicine. It can be
used to assess, evaluate, and justify training
methods, treatment, and rehabilitation interven-
tions through the identification of an athlete’s ability to cope
with the physical demands placed upon them (6). During
rehabilitation, the use of outcome measurement allows
practitioners to evaluate an athlete’s progress to minimize
the risk of reinjury on return to training and competition.
Outcome measures commonly used to assess knee joint
function and subsequently inform when an athlete is ready to
return to participation have included clinical measures such as
knee joint laxity, range of motion, thigh circumference, and
quadriceps strength (14,16). Recently, however, the relation-
ship between such clinical measures and readiness for return
to sport has been refuted (3,9,14). Barber et al. (3) realized
that for functional limitations of the knee joint to be
evaluated, testing that provided an objective measurement
while simulating sporting activity was required. A number of
tests that mimic sporting performance have been devised
and investigated in recent years; these have been termed
functional performance tests (FPTs). Functional performance
tests, such as the hop tests and Agility T-test (3,6,24), are
closed chain in nature and therefore assimilate the joint
loading forces and kinematics that occur functionally (14).
A number of studies have shown that the hop tests can
detect differences between limbs in injured subjects
(3,10,17,20,22), and therefore, they are most commonly used
with injured subjects to determine patient function. Hop tests
can also be used in healthy populations to evaluate limb
symmetry and predict muscular strength and power (11).
Limb symmetry index (LSI) is the most commonly used
method to assess this by giving a percentage value of 1 limb
vs. the other (3,12,20). An LSI of $85% indicates that
ÔnormalÕ limb symmetry exists and with regards to injured
populations that function of the injured limb is being restored
(3). The reliability of hop tests in both injured and uninjured
subjects has been investigated and shown to be high
(1,2,4,5,12,18,22,23); however, methodologies employed
have varied throughout. Firstly, only 2 of the studies to date
(1,23) gave information on participants’ activity levels; this is
important because findings from an athletic population
cannot be applied to a sedentary population and vice versa.

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023
Figure 1. Hop test setup.
Furthermore, studies have often used an unequal mix of men
and women (1,4,5,12,22), despite the fact that one study has
shown significant differences in hop scores between genders
(3), which may skew subsequent data analysis and reliability
scores. Interestingly, authors have also reported that learning
affects were present in some studies (1,4,5,12,22), which may
make the reliability values of these studies invalid. Despite
reports of learning affects only 1 study has adequately
examined differences between trials (4), they found that 3
practice trials were adequate for the triple, crossover, and
timed hops, whereas 4 trials may be needed for the single hop.
The authors of this study concluded that further investigation
of learning affects associated with the hop tests was required.
The Agility T-test has been shown to be sensitive to
changes in training patterns and differences in athlete skill
levels (8,15). With this in mind, the agility T-test may be
a useful tool to assess athlete function and changes in
performance during training and rehabilitation programs.
Pauole et al. (19) found that within-day reliability for the
Agility T-test was excellent and indicated that only 1 trial
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.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
was needed to achieve a true score. However, participants
in this study were given practice trials until they felt
comfortable with the test, so it is unclear how many would
be needed before performance stability is reached.
Furthermore, the studies mentioned (8,15,19) have all
employed differing numbers of practice and measured trials
but have not presented data of the changes between these
trials.
Although the reliability of the hop and Agility T-tests has
been investigated previously, learning affects and reliability
have not been adequately assessed. Furthermore, no study to
date has taken into account the differences between genders
reported previously (3) and clearly delineated between the 2
groups. Therefore, the aims of this study were firstly to
investigate the learning affects associated with the 4 hop tests
and Agility T-test. Secondly, once learning affects were
established, a standardized protocol could be determined and
the reliability of this protocol investigated to ascertain
measurement error values that enable practitioners to
evaluate changes in an individual’s performance.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2011 | 1471
 Hop Tests and Agility T-Test
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023
Figure 2. T-test setup.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The purpose of this study was threefold: (a) to establish
whether gender differences are apparent for each test; (b) to
assess learning affects using a single-group repeated-measures
design; and (c) to establish a standardized protocol and assess
the reliability and associated measurement error of the
protocol for the single hop for distance, triple hop for
distance, crossover hop for distance, 6-m timed hop, and the
Agility T-test.
A sample of recreational athletes was used to determine the
learning affects and reliability of the tests. Recreational
athletes were used for the results to be applicable to active
populations encountered by most practitioners. Gender
differences were assessed using a t-test. To assess learning
effects, all trials of each test were measured and analyzed
through a repeated-measures 1-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Reliability and measurement error were analyzed
by repeating the testing over 3 sessions each separated by
1 week and analyzing scores using intraclass correlation
coefficients, SEMs, smallest detectable differences, and 95%
confidence intervals.
Subjects
Twenty-two participants (11 women: age 22.3 6 3.7 years,
height 167.7 6 6.2 cm, weight 59.2 6 6.9 kg and 11 men: age
22.8 6 3.1 years, height 179.8 6 4 cm, weight 79.6 6 10 kg) all
of whom were university students volunteered for the study.
Subjects were required to confirm that they had been free
from lower extremity injury, defined as any complaint that
stopped the participant from undertaking their normal
the TM
1472 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.
exercise routine, for at least 6 months before testing, and
have no history of lower extremity surgery. To qualify as
recreationally active, subjects were required to participate in
a minimum of 30 minutes of physical activity 3 times a week
on a regular basis over the past 6 months, which included
recreational and competitive sports. All participants gave
written informed consent to participate, and the research was
approved by the University of Salford Research and Ethics
Committee.
Procedures
Participants were tested at the same time of day on 3 separate
occasions, separated by 1 week. All participants were asked
not to participate in strenuous exercise in the 24 hours before
testing and not to eat in the hour prior to testing. Participants
were also asked to wear the same training shoes on each
occasion so as to negate the effect of different designs of shoe
and support they provide on individual performance.
Dominant legs were noted as the leg with which the subject
would preferentially kick a ball. Each participant’s leg lengths
were measured on the first test occasion and were measured
from the anterior superior iliac spine to the distal tip of
the medial malleolus using a standard tape measure while
subjects lay supine. Leg length was used to normalize
excursion distances by dividing the distance reached by leg
length then multiplying by 100 and presented as a percentage
value. Limb symmetry index was calculated by dividing the
dominant limb by the nondominant limb and multiplying by
100 and presented as a percentage value.
Hop Tests. The single hop for distance, triple hop for distance,
6-m timed hop and crossover hop for distance tests were
originally described by Noyes et al. (17). A 6-m long,
15-cm-wide line was marked on the floor, along the middle of
which was a standard tape measure, perpendicular to the
starting line. To record time for the 6-m timed hop 2 sets of
electronic timing gates (Fitness Technology Inc., Australia)
were placed on tripods at a height of 0.75 m, 3 m apart, at the
start and finish line of the 6-m course. The setup for each hop
test is shown in Figure 1.
Subjects performed 6 trials of each hop test, with all trials
being measured. Both limbs were tested, and no restrictions
were given to subjects regarding the use of arm movement. A
rest period of 30 seconds was given between trials and 2 minutes
between each of the 4 hop tests (22). Each hop test began with
the great toe of the testing leg on the marked start line and the
distance hopped was measured to the rear of the foot upon final
landing. Subjects were required to maintain the final landing in
the single, triple and crossover hop tests for a minimum of 2
seconds. Unsuccessful hops were classified as a loss of balance,
an extra hop on landing or touching down of either the
contralateral lower extremity or the upper extremity (18).
For the single hop, subjects were required to hop forwards as
far as possible along the line of the tape measure and land on the
same limb. The triple hop involved participants performing 3
 CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

TABLE 1. Week 1 mean 6 SD values for all trials of the 4 hop tests and Agility T-test for male and female subjects (% of leg length* 100, except for timed hop and
Agility T-test).

Trial number

Test 1 2 3 4 5 6

Women (n = 11)
Single hop 139.89 6 18.08 143.28 6 21.65 148.81 6 17.98* 149.30 6 19.38* 151.72 6 22.02* 153.15 6 18.97*†
Triple hop 460.57 6 51.75 473.57 6 48.74 470.03 6 44.82 486.29 6 40.14* 490.19 6 44.92* 496.63 6 42.60*†
Crossover hop 436.54 6 54.30 442.13 6 60.59 444.83 6 62.79 450.38 6 52.24 463.20 6 51.10* 468.34 6 53.94*†§
Timed hop (s) 2.139 6 0.156 2.141 6 0.201 2.175 6 0.256 2.124 6 0.181 2.059 6 0.168† 2.069 6 0.183
T-test 13.363 6 0.925 12.924 6 0.758* 13.058 6 0.882 12.945 6 0.826* ‡ ‡
Men (n = 11)

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
Single hop 161.98 6 27.58 171.50 6 27.21* 176.64 6 23.86* 179.11 6 24.40* 181.86 6 21.47*† 185.30 6 18.98*†
Triple hop 569.53 6 68.66 573.80 6 64.25 583.90 6 68.91 577.62 6 69.60 582.78 6 68.44 580.79 6 61.94
Crossover hop 491.65 6 78.76 520.20 6 77.86* 510.70 6 68.16 516.55 6 67.17 531.41 6 64.48* 543.82 6 59.61*§
Timed hop (s) 1.838 6 0.209 1.788 6 0.175 1.746 6 0.108 1.784 6 0.140 1.798 6 0.151 1.781 6 0.128
T-test 11.285 6 0.748 11.010 6 0.367 10.895 6 0.582* 10.926 6 0.434 ‡ ‡
*Significant difference from trial 1 (p , 0.05).
†Significant difference from trial 2 (p , 0.05).
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2011 |

‡Significant difference from trial 3 (p , 0.05).

§Significant difference from trial 4 (p , 0.05).

TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
1473

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.
 Hop Tests and Agility T-Test

TABLE 2. Mean, SD, 95% CIs, SEM, SDD, and ICC values for the 4 hop tests and T-test (after practice trials).*†

Test Mean SD 95% CI SEM SDD ICC

Women
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Single hop 157.15 17.74 154.66 159.64 7.93 21.98 0.80

Triple hop 505.28 51.83 498.02 512.55 23.18 64.25 0.80
Crossover hop 479.93 54.71 470.51 489.35 19.73 54.69 0.87
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023

Timed hop (s) 2.059 0.190 2.027 2.092 0.076 0.211 0.84
Agility T-test (s) 13.018 0.871 12.844 13.192 0.174 0.482 0.96
Men
Single hop 188.93 17.60 186.47 191.40 7.87 21.81 0.80
Triple hop 584.76 60.71 576.25 593.26 17.17 47.59 0.92
Crossover hop 554.50 56.54 544.77 564.24 21.16 58.65 0.86
Timed hop (s) 1.762 0.133 1.743 1.780 0.084 0.233 0.60
Agility T-test (s) 10.736 0.496 10.637 10.835 0.210 0.582 0.82
*ICC = intracorrelation coefficient; SDD = smallest detectable difference; CI = confidence interval.
†All values presented as % of leg length* 100 except timed hop and Agility T-test.

consecutive maximal hops along the line of the tape measure,
whereas in the crossover hop subjects maximally hopped
forward 3 times, alternately crossing the 15-cm-wide line.
Distance was measured from the start line to the rear of the foot
upon final landing. In the 6-m timed hop, participants hopped
forward as quickly as possible from the start line through the
timing gates at the end of the 6-m course. Time was measured
from when the subject passed through the first timing gate and
stopped when they passed through the second.
Agility T-Test. The Agility T-test was administered as
originally set out by Semenick (24). Four cones were
arranged in a T shape, with a cone placed 9.14 m from the
starting cone and 2 further cones placed 4.57 m on either
side of the second cone. All times were recorded using an
electronic timing gate (Fitness Technology Inc.), a height of
0.75 and 3 m wide in line with the marked starting point. The
test setup is shown in Figure 2.
Subjects were asked to sprint forwards 9.14 m from the start
line to the first cone and touch the tip with their right hand,
shuffle 4.57 m left to the second cone and touch with their left
hand, then shuffle 9.14 m to the right to the third cone and
touch with their right, shuffle 4.57 m back left to the middle
cone and touch with their left hand before finally back
pedaling to the start line. Time began upon subjects passing
through the timing gates and stopped upon them passing
through on return.
Trials were deemed unsuccessful if participants failed to
touch a designated cone, crossed their legs while shuffling or
failed to face forwards at all times. Subjects performed 4 trials, all
of which were measured for learning affects to be evaluated.
One minute’s recovery was given between each trial.
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS for
Windows version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

TABLE 4. Results of limb symmetry index values for

TABLE 3. Limb symmetry index mean and SD values each hop test and all 4 combined.*†
for all subjects.
LSI $85 $90 $95
Women Men
Single hop 100 100 73
Hop test Mean SD Mean SD Triple hop 100 100 68
Crossover hop 100 100 64
Single 100.35 7.70 99.95 8.63 Timed hop 100 100 86
Triple 98.87 6.87 99.32 5.82 All tests 100 100 40
Crossover 101.61 6.60 98.38 6.12
Timed 99.46 6.51 99.16 8.97 *LSI = limb symmetry index.
†Values are given in %.

the TM

1474 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.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 5. Comparison of SEM scores between studies.

Single hop Triple hop Crossover hop Timed hop

Study Subjects (cm) (cm) (cm) (s)
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Current Male recreational (n = 11) 7.5 16.4 21.0 0.084

study
Female recreational (n = 11) 7.1 20.8 17.1 0.076
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023

Booher et al. (5) Male (n = 4) and female (n = 14) 3.50 0.19

Bolgla and Keskula (4) Male (n = 5) and female (n = 15) 4.56 15.44 15.95 0.13
*Scores for men and women were collated for Booher et al.’s and Bolgla and Keskula’s studies.

Independent t-tests were carried out to assess differences that was 0.47. Statistical power was therefore low for the
between men and women. Separate 1-way repeated-measures timed hop (0.28) and high for all other tests (0.79–1) (25).
ANOVAs were then carried out on week 1 scores to assess Learning Affects
learning affects, with Bonferroni correction applied in instances The results showed that learning affects were present in all tests
where significant differences were found. Alpha levels were set in both men and women, where scores improved across trials.
at 0.05 for all tests. Effect sizes were determined using the Table 1 shows the means and SDs for all tests and indicates
Cohen d method (25), which defines 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 as small, where significant differences between trials were found. For the
medium, and large respectively. Intraclass correlation coef- single and triple hop for distance, tests scores stabilized after 3
ficients (ICCs) (3,1) (21) assessed between-session reliability, trials in all subjects, whereas crossover hop scores stabilized
from which 95% confidence intervals (CIs), SEM, and smallest after 4 trials for all subjects. The timed hop stabilized after 4
detectable difference (SDD) were calculated to establish trials in women and 3 in men. Only 1 trial was needed before
random error scores. Intracorrelation coefficient values were scores stabilized for all subjects in the Agility T-test.
interpreted according to the following criteria (7): Poor =
,0.40; Fair = 0.40–0.70; Good = 0.70–0.90; and Excellent = Between-Session Reliability
.0.90 SEM pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
was calculated using the formula: After establishing how many trials were needed for the scores
ffi to stabilize, subsequent trials were used for reliability analysis.
(SDðpooled Þ  ð ð1  ICCÞÞ(25),pwhereas
ffiffiffi SDD was calcu-
lated from the formula: ð1:96  ð 2ÞÞ  SEM Þ (13). Therefore, trials 4–6 for the single and triple hop for all subjects
and timed hop in men, trials 5–6 for the crossover hop in all
subjects and timed hop for women and trials 2–4 for all subjects
RESULTS in the Agility T-test were used to calculate ICC, 95% CI, SEM,
Firstly, the results showed that men performed significantly and SDD values. These values are presented in Table 2.
better than women in all tests (p . 0.05); therefore, genders
were separated for all further analysis. Effect sizes were high Limb Symmetry Index
for all tests ranging from 1.08 to 2.99, except the timed hop The mean and SD LSI scores for both men and women are
shown in Table 3 and ranged from 98.38 to 101.61%. Table 4
also shows that all subjects achieved an LSI score of at least
90% in all hop tests, whereas 40% of subjects achieved at least
TABLE 6. Mean and SD raw scores for all hop tests 95% LSI on all hop tests.
for men and women.
DISCUSSION
Test Mean SD
The use of FPTs has become increasingly popular as a mode
Women of assessment during rehabilitation and training programs.
Single hop (cm) 137.9 15.53 However, it is important that these tests are reliable and that
Triple hop (cm) 442.0 42.54 the results of the tests can be interpreted appropriately.
Crossover hop (cm) 419.2 45.68
Therefore, information regarding whether practice trials are
Timed hop (s) 2.059 0.190
Men needed because of learning effects and the development of
Single hop (cm) 175.4 15.34 a reliable, standardized protocol that takes this into account is
Triple hop (cm) 543.5 47.32 highly important for practitioners.
Crossover hop (cm) 516.0 46.87 The results of the current study indicate that learning effects
Timed hop (s) 1.762 0.133
are present in the administration of the hop for distance tests
and Agility T-test. Bolgla and Keskula (4) previously described
learning affects being present during hop test administration,

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2011 | 1475

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.
 Hop Tests and Agility T-Test
where they indicated that 3 practice trials should be included
for all hop tests, but may not be adequate. In the current study,
we found that 3 practice trials were enough in the single and
triple hop tests, whereas 4 trials were needed during the
crossover hop, probably because of the increased complexity
of the task at hand. Learning effects were different between
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
genders for the timed hop, with men needing less familiar-
ization than women did. Learning effects in the agility T-test
have not previously been investigated, with studies simply
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023
stating that participants were allowed to familiarize themselves
with the test or no practice trials were given at all (8,19). We
found that only 1 practice trial was needed in both genders for
familiarization purposes.
For the results of these tests to be reliable when used with
subjects, it is important for the correct number of practice
trials to be included to allow subjects the chance to familiarize.
In turn, this will give more consistent and reliable results that
reflect an individual’s performance.
Reliability is an important aspect of performance testing; if
a test is not reliable, we are unable to gain anything from the
results it produces. Test–retest reliability of all the hop tests in
the current study except the timed hop for men had good or
excellent reliability scores (7). Previous studies have reported
ICC values of between 0.66 and 0.99 (1,2,4,5,18,22,23), which
reflect the findings of the current study. Interestingly, the
lowest score of 0.66 was for the timed hop (4), which mirrors
our finding for the male timed hop. When the values for the
timed hop are removed, ICC scores, including those from
the current study, range from 0.80 to 0.99, which indicates
that the hop for distance tests are reliable (8). The low
reliability scores for the timed hop are reflected in the small
effect size and power values this test produced; this calls into
question whether this particular test should be included in
injury and rehabilitation screening.
Only 2 studies that we are aware of have calculated SEM
values for raw (nonnormalized) hop test scores (4,5). Booher
et al. (5) only looked at the single and timed hop tests, whereas
Bolgla and Keskula (4) conducted all 4 tests. In each of these
studies, the number of men and women was unequal, and
participant activity levels were not disclosed making direct
comparison difficult. A comparison of SEM values for raw scores
can be seen in Table 5. SEM values for the single hop in both of
these studies were lower than in the current study, whereas
timed hop values were higher. Values compared well for men in
the triple hop and in the crossover hop for women. Differences
in SEM values were more than likely caused by the differences
between SD scores across the studies, where SDs were much
higher in the 2 comparison studies (4,5) than the current one.
The SDs have a marked effect on the SEM values produced; this
suggests that the SEM values for the current study are likely to be
more accurate because SD scores were much lower. The SD
values in the comparison studies were probably higher because
of a higher range of scores as a result of pooling men and women
despite the significant differences in performance, which has
been shown previously (3) and in the current study.
the TM
1476 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.
The mean raw scores for the 4 hop tests in the current study,
shown in Table 6, also compare well with those found on
healthy subjects in previous data (1,4,5), although direct
comparison is again difficult. The results of the current study
compare favorably to those conducted on patients with
previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury (3,10,12,22).
In these cases, we compared our results to those of the
uninjured limb, although once again direct comparison can
only be made with 1 of these studies. The higher scores found
in the recreational athletes in the current study compared
to those of the uninjured limb of individuals in previous studies
may suggest that these particular individuals possess functional
deficiencies, which caused them to be at a greater risk of ACL
injury. However, the decreased performance could also be
a bilateral deficit that is a result of the injury itself.
The 4 hop tests have been shown to detect differences
between injured and uninjured limbs (3,10,17,20,22). Measures
of symmetry and statistical differences between limbs have
been used previously to demonstrate the differences between
limbs. Limb symmetry index is a measure commonly used to
assess these differences by giving a percentage value of 1 limb
vs. the other. In the case of a patient going through
rehabilitation, this would compare the injured against the
uninjured limb, whereas in healthy subjects, it may compare
the dominant and nondominant limbs. An LSI of $85%
indicating that ÔnormalÕ limb symmetry exists and function of
the injured limb is being restored (3). Further to the previous
idea that lower mean hop scores in the uninjured limb of ACL
patients may show a functional deficiency which predisposed
the individuals to injury, it may also be possible to screen
healthy individuals for limb symmetry to see whether there is
any relationship with future injury occurrence. Mean scores for
LSI for subjects of the current study were between 98 and
102%. Upon further analysis, all subjects had an overall LSI
value of .85% (615%) in all hop tests. Perhaps of more
importance is that we also found all subjects to have an LSI
value of .90% (610%) for all hop tests, whereas only 1 subject
had an LSI of ,95% (65%) in all 4 tests. Furthermore 40% of
subjects had an LSI of $ 95% in all tests and at least 64% of
subjects had an LSI of $ 95% for one hop test. These findings
suggest that despite previous recommendations that LSI
scores of $85% indicate that ÔnormalÕ limb symmetry exists
(3), this value should in fact be increased to 90%.
The Agility T-test is commonly used to assess the ability of
team sport athletes to change direction, including accelera-
tion, deceleration, and lateral movement during preseason
testing protocols. The times achieved by the participants of
the current study compare well with those of subjects in other
studies (8,15,19), one of which included recreational athletes
(19). To our knowledge no previous study has investigated the
learning affects or the between-session reliability of the Agility
T-test. There was evidence of a learning affect taking place in
administration of the Agility T-test; therefore, we recommend
a standardized protocol that includes the use of 1 practice trial
followed by 3 measured trials. The ICC, SEM, and SDD

values presented in this paper will give both coaches and
practitioners reference data from which they can gain greater
information regarding an individual’s performance.
During the administration of the triple hop for distance, we
found that some male subjects were consistently achieving
scores in excess of 6 m; therefore, we would recommend
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
extending the course to 7 m in future.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/31/2023
The most important finding of the current study is the fact
that all subjects achieved an LSI score of at least 90%, despite
previous suggestions that 85% LSI is adequate (3). Therefore,
we recommend practitioners adopt 90% LSI as a measure of
adequate symmetry between limbs during rehabilitation and
conditioning. Hop tests are frequently used during re-
habilitation from injury, the idea of using the hop tests for
the prediction of future risk of injury warrants further
investigation and was beyond the scope of this study.
Assessment of learning affects during administration of these
particular tests suggests that practice trials should be allowed
for a more reliable outcome to be achieved. We suggest that 3
practice trials should be allowed for the single and triple hop for
distance and 4 trials for the crossover hop, whereas the timed
hop requires 3 practice trials for men and 4 for women. One
practice trial is adequate for the agility T-test.
Good to excellent ICC scores allow practitioners to use the
hop tests and agility T-test confidently with both male and
female athletes to assess lower limb function during re-
habilitation and conditioning. The SEM and SDD values
presented give practitioners measures that allow them to make
more informed decisions about changes in an individual’s hop
and Agility T-test performance. The SEM values show the range
in which an individual’s true score is likely to lie (25), whereas
SDD values allow practitioners to decide whether a change in
an individual’s performance is significant (13). This means that
a woman’s true score for the single-hop test would lie within
7.93 (as a % of leg length) of the observed score, whereas a true
improvement in performance could only be considered if their
score improved by 21.98 (as a % of leg length).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No financial support was received, and the authors had no
conflicts of interest while undertaking this study.
REFERENCES
1. Ageberg, E, Zätterström, R, and Moritz, U. Stabilometry and one-leg
hop test have high test–retest reliability. Scan J Med Sci Sports 8:
198–202, 1998.
2. Bandy, WD, Rusche, KR, and Tekulve, FY. Reliability and limb
symmetry for five unilateral functional tests of the lower extremities.
Isokinet Exerc Sci 4: 108–111, 1994.
3. Barber, SD, Noyes, FR, Mangine, RE, McCloskey, JW, and
Hartman, W. Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in
normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop
Relat Res 255: 204–214, 1990.
4. Bolgla, LA and Keskula, DR. Reliability of lower extremity functional
performance tests. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 26: 138–142, 1997.
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.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
5. Booher, LD, Hench, KM, Worrell, TW, and Stikeleather, J. Reliability
of three single-leg hop tests. J Sport Rehab 2: 165–170, 1993.
6. Clark, NC. Functional performance testing following knee ligament
injury. Phys Ther Sport 2: 91–105, 2001.
7. Coppieters, M, Stappaerts, K, Janssens, K, and Jull, G. Reliability of
detecting Ôonset of painÕ and Ôsubmaximal painÕ during neural
provocation testing of the upper quadrant. Physiother Res Int
7: 146–156, 2002.
8. Delextrat, A and Cohen, D. Physiological testing of basketball
players: Toward a standard evaluation of anaerobic fitness. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 1066–1072, 2008.
9. Eastlack, M, Axe, M, and Snyder-Mackler, L. Laxity, instability, and
functional outcome after ACL injury: Copers versus non-copers.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 210–215, 1999.
10. Goh, S and Boyle, J. Self evaluation and functional testing two to four
years post ACL reconstruction. Aus J Physiother 43: 255–262, 1997.
11. Hamilton, RT, Shultz, SJ, Schmitz, RJ, and Perrin, DH. Triple-hop
distance as a valid predictor of lower limb strength and power.
J Athl Train 43: 144–151, 2008.
12. Hopper, DM, Goh, SC, Wentworth, LA, Chan, DYK, Chau, JHW,
Wootton, GJ, Strauss, GR, and Boyle, JJW. Test–retest reliability of
knee rating scales and functional hop tests one year following anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther Sport 3: 10–18, 2002.
13. Kropmans, TJB, Dijkstra, PU, Stegenga, B, Stewart, R, and
de Bont, LGM. Smallest detectable difference in outcome
variables related to painful restriction of the temperomandibular
joint. J Dent Res 78: 784–789, 1999.
14. Lephart, S, Perrin, D, Fu, F, Gieck, J, McCue, F, and Irrgang, J.
Relationship between selected physical characteristics and func-
tional capacity in the anterior cruciate ligament insufficient athlete.
J Orthop Sport Phys Therapy 16: 174–181, 1992.
15. Miller, MG, Herniman, JJ, Ricard, MD, Cheatham, CC, and
Michael, TJ. The effects of a 6-week plyometric training program
on agility. J Sports Sci Med 5: 459–465, 2006.
16. Neeb, T, Aufdemkampe, G, Wagener, J, and Mastenbroek, L.
Assessing anterior cruciate ligament injuries: The association and
differential value of questionnaires, clinical tests, and functional tests.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 26: 324–331, 1997.
17. Noyes, FR, Barber, SD, and Mangine, RE. Abnormal lower limb
symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate
ligament rupture. Am J Sports Med 19: 513–518, 1991.
18. Paterno, MV and Greenberger, HB. The test–retest reliability of
a one legged hop for distance in young adults with and without ACL
reconstruction. Isokinet Exerc Sci 6: 1–6, 1996.
19. Pauole, K, Madole, K, Garhammer, J, Lacourse, M, and Rozenek, R.
Reliability and validity of the T-test as a measure of agility, leg power,
and leg speed in college-aged men and women. J Strength Cond Res
14: 443–450, 2000.
20. Petschnig, R, Baron, R, and Albrecht, M. The relationship between
isokinetic quadriceps strength test and hop tests for distance and
one-legged vertical jump test following anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28: 23–31, 1998.
21. Rankin, G and Stokes, M. Reliability of assessment tools in
rehabilitation: An illustration of appropriate statistical analyses.
Clin Rehab 12: 187–199, 1998.
22. Reid, A, Birmingham, TB, Stratford, PW, Alcock, GK, and Giffin, JR.
Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during
rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Phys Ther 87: 337–349, 2007.
23. Ross, MD, Langford, B, and Whelan, PJ. Test–retest reliability of
4 single-leg horizontal hop tests. J Strength Cond Res 16: 617–622, 2002.
24. Semenick, D. Tests and measurements: The T-test. Strength Cond J
12: 36–37, 1990.
25. Thomas, JR, Nelson, JK, and Silverman, SJ. Research Methods in
Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2011 | 1477