BACKGROUND: Comparisons between reactive agility tests incorporating generic and sport-specific stimuli have been performed only in field-based team sports. The aim of this study was to compare generic (light-based) and sport-specific (live opponent) reactive agility tests in court-based team sport athletes. METHODS: Twelve semi-professional male basketball players (age: 25.9±6.7 yr; stature: 188.9±7.9 cm; body mass: 97.4±16.1 kg; predicted maximal oxygen uptake: 49.5±5.3 mL/kg 7 min) completed multiple trials of a Reactive Agility Test containing light-based (RAT-Light) and opponent-based stimuli (RAT-Opponent). Multiple outcome measures were collected during the RAT-Light (agility time and total time) and RAT-Opponent (decision time and total time). RESULTS: Mean performance times during the RAT-Light (2.233±0.224 s) were significantly (P<0.001) slower than during the RAT-Opponent (1.726±0.178 s). Further, a small relationship was observed between RAT-Light agility time and RAT-Opponent decision time (r10=0.20), while a trivial relationship was apparent between total performance times across tests (r10=0.02). Low commonality was observed between comparable measures across tests (R2=0-4%). CONCLUSIONS: Reactive agility tests containing light-based and live opponent stimuli appear to measure different qualities in court-based team sport athletes. Court-based team sport coaches and conditioning professionals should not use generic and sport-specific reactive agility tests interchangeably during athlete assessments.
BACKGROUND: Comparisons between reactive agility tests incorporating generic and sport-specific stimuli have been performed only in field-based team sports. The aim of this study was to compare generic (light-based) and sport-specific (live opponent) reactive agility tests in court-based team sport athletes. METHODS: Twelve semi-professional male basketball players (age: 25.9±6.7 yr; stature: 188.9±7.9 cm; body mass: 97.4±16.1 kg; predicted maximal oxygen uptake: 49.5±5.3 mL/kg 7 min) completed multiple trials of a Reactive Agility Test containing light-based (RAT-Light) and opponent-based stimuli (RAT-Opponent). Multiple outcome measures were collected during the RAT-Light (agility time and total time) and RAT-Opponent (decision time and total time). RESULTS: Mean performance times during the RAT-Light (2.233±0.224 s) were significantly (P<0.001) slower than during the RAT-Opponent (1.726±0.178 s). Further, a small relationship was observed between RAT-Light agility time and RAT-Opponent decision time (r10=0.20), while a trivial relationship was apparent between total performance times across tests (r10=0.02). Low commonality was observed between comparable measures across tests (R2=0-4%). CONCLUSIONS: Reactive agility tests containing light-based and live opponent stimuli appear to measure different qualities in court-based team sport athletes. Court-based team sport coaches and conditioning professionals should not use generic and sport-specific reactive agility tests interchangeably during athlete assessments.