Skip to main content

Table 1 Description of the included performance tests

From: Performance Effects with Injury Prevention Exercise Programmes in Male Youth Football Players: A Randomised Trial Comparing Two Interventions

Performance test Test description Disqualified test Equipment No of practice trials No of test trialsb
Agility t test: For change of direction agility The player ran 10 m forwards towards a cone, side shuffled 5 m to the left, touched a cone with the left hand, side shuffled 10 m to the right and touched a cone with the right hand and then side shuffled 5 m to the left and touched the middle cone with the left hand before sprinting 10 m backwards to the starting position. Testing started on command. The test had excellent test-retest reliability, ICC 0.98, in youth male football players [18]. The test was repeated if the player crossed his legs during side shuffling. Timing gatesa ≥ 2 2
Single-leg hop for distance: For maximal horizontal hop performance The player started standing on one leg and hopped as far as possible and landed on the same leg. Free leg-swing was allowed and a balanced landing, where the player could stand still for 2–3 s, was sought. Hands were kept on the back during the entire test. The test had good test–retest reliability, ICC 0.80, in male and female recreational athletes [19] The test was repeated if a player lost balance or failed to remain standing on one leg upon landing. Tape measure ≥3 per leg 3 per leg
505 agility test: For acceleration and speed during a 180° turn The test was performed as described by Draper and Lancaster [20]: the player sprinted 15 m forwards, through timing gates positioned after 10 m, made a 180° turn at the 15-m line and sprinted 5 m back through the same timing gates again. The test had excellent test-retest reliability, ICC 0.95, in female netball players [21]. The test was repeated if none of the feet crossed the 15-m line. Timing gatesa ≥ 2 2
Side-hop test: For hop endurance The player stood on one leg with the hands on the back and hopped as many times as possible for 30 s between two tape markings 40 cm apart.
The number of approved hops was counted afterwards using films. The test had good test–retest reliability, ICC 0.72, in healthy males [22].
Hops were not counted if the player’s foot touched the marking or landed between the markings, or if he lost balance and put the other foot on the floor. Tests were filmed using two GoPro Hero5 cameras Free practice 1 per leg
10- and 20-m sprint: For sprint performance The player ran through timing gates positioned at the start, at 10 m and at 20 m. Testing started on command. The test had excellent test–retest reliability, ICC 0.96 for 10 m sprints and ICC 0.95 for 20-m sprints, in youth male football and handball players [18]. The test was repeated when needed. Timing gatesa 1 2
Countermovement jump: For vertical jump performance The test was performed with the hands on the hips and without an overhead target. The player started the test by making a squat immediately followed by a vertical jump and landing with straight legs. The test had excellent test–retest reliability, ICC 0.94, in youth male football and handball players [18]. The test was repeated if the player did not jump and land as described. Infrared contact mata ≥2 3
  1. ICC intraclass correlation coefficient
  2. aMuscleLab 4010, Ergotest Technology a.s., Norway
  3. bThe best test result was used in the analyses
\