Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 1192–1196

䉷 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association

RELATIONSHIP OF JUMPING AND AGILITY

PERFORMANCE IN FEMALE VOLLEYBALL ATHLETES
JACQUE L. BARNES, BRIAN K. SCHILLING, MICHAEL J. FALVO, LAWRENCE W. WEISS,
ANDREA K. CREASY, AND ANDREW C. FRY
Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Exercise Neuromechanics Laboratory, Memphis, TN 38152.

ABSTRACT. Barnes, J.L., B.K. Schilling, M.J. Falvo, L.W. Weiss, a model (Figure 1) that separated agility into components
A.K. Creasy, and A.C. Fry. Relationship of jumping and agility of perceptual and decision-making factors and perfor-
performance in female volleyball athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. mance factors (change-of-direction speed). Yet, due to the
21(4):1192–1196. 2007.—Court sports often require more fre-
larger number of potential performance factors in Young’s
quent changes of direction (COD) than field sports. Most court
sports require 180⬚ turns over a small distance, so COD in such model (34), it appears that these performance factors may
sports might be best evaluated with an agility test involving play more of a role in defining agility than the perceptual
short sprints and sharp turns. The purposes of this study were and decision-making factors. Therefore, identification of
to (a) quantify vertical and horizontal force during a COD task, the performance variables undergirding change of direc-
(b) identify possible predictors of court-sport–specific agility per- tion (COD) may enable us to better explain agility.
formance, and (c) examine performance difference between Na- Because the limiting factor in sprinting is the vertical
tional Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, and III ath- force due to the acceleration of gravity and because high
letes. Twenty-nine collegiate female volleyball players completed horizontal force production is demanded (24), agility
a novel agility test, countermovement (CM) and drop jump tests,
and an isometric leg extensor test. The number of athletes by
movements likely involve these same components. In ad-
division was as follows: I (n ⫽ 9), II (n ⫽ 11), and III (n ⫽ 9). dition, it appears that a significant inverse relationship
The agility test consisted of 4 5-meter sprints with 3 180⬚ turns, exists between ground contact time and maximum sprint
including 1 on a multiaxial force platform so that the kinetic velocity (31), suggesting that the requisite force needs to
properties of the COD could be identified. One-way analysis of be reached in a short period during sprinting. This can
variance revealed that Division I athletes had significantly also be related to quick contact phases during COD. As
greater countermovement jump heights than Division III, and for predictors of sprinting performance, Costill and col-
the effect size comparisons (Cohen’s d) showed large-magnitude leagues (5) found a significant correlation between sprint
differences between Division I and both Divisions II and III for
jump height. No other differences in performance variables were
and vertical jump tests, suggesting that vertical force pro-
noted between divisions, although effect sizes reached moderate duction may be crucial to sprinting. Wisloff and others
values for some comparisons. Regression analysis revealed that (30) also demonstrated that both sprinting performance
CM displacement was a significant predictor of agility perfor- and vertical jump height significantly correlate with dy-
mance, explaining approximately 34% of the variance. Vertical namic maximum strength. Mero and others (18) found a
force was found to account for much of the total force exerted correlation between jumping performance and maximal
during the contact phase of the COD task, suggesting that per- running velocity, as well as a strong correlation of high
formance in the vertical domain may limit the COD task used fast twitch muscle fiber content and maximal running ve-
herein. This study indicates that individuals with greater CM
performance also have quicker agility times and suggests that
locity. Findings concerning these relationships have been
training predominantly in the vertical domain may also yield somewhat equivocal; a recent study (14) analyzed maxi-
improvements in certain types of agility performance. This may mum speed, agility, and acceleration and found these 3
hold true even if such agility performance requires a horizontal qualities to be relatively unrelated.
component. Other investigations have correlated agility type tests
KEY WORDS. change of direction, vertical jump, isometric leg ex- with either speed or jumping tests. One agility-related
tensor action investigation (23) found that T-test performance could be
predicted from leg power, leg speed, and agility, again
suggesting a relationship between sprinting characteris-
INTRODUCTION tics and agility. Another study (34) compared a drop jump
gility has been defined many ways, including (DJ) test with 8 different COD tests consisting of varying

A ‘‘the whole body quick/accurate movement in

response to a stimulus’’ (1) and ‘‘the ability to
change direction, as well as to start and stop
quickly’’ (3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 19, 33). However, it
may be more reasonable to define agility as the ability to
distances, turns, and straight sprints and suggested that
the DJ test was significantly correlated with both straight
sprinting speed and COD speed due to a similarity in the
pushing-off actions. These studies suggest that a relation-
ship exists, but there is a relative paucity of data con-
change direction with a minimal loss of control and/or av- cerned directly with agility performance.
erage speed. Agility training is commonly implemented The lack of data in the area of testing and training
in strength and conditioning programs; however, limited agility for court sports suggests a need for more research.
scientific literature is available providing specific detail Furthermore, given that these sports frequently use only
on how best to train for agility. Most research on agility short sprints (approximately 5 m) and many sharp turns,
performance has been concerned with injury mechanisms the utilization of an agility test mimicking these charac-
(4, 16, 20, 25) and not on mechanics of these types of teristics would likely be ideal. It appears that no test of
movements in regard to optimizing performance. To bet- the like has been used in scientific research with sensitive
ter explain agility, Young and colleagues (34) suggested measures of ground reaction forces. Therefore, the pur-

1192
 COD AND JUMPING IN FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS 1193

FIGURE 1. Theoretical model indicating the main factors in

determining agility.

pose of this investigation was to describe jumping and

agility performance in female collegiate volleyball play- FIGURE 2. Force platform setup. The force platform is ad-
ers, distinguish between the vertical and horizontal forces hered to the floor, and the platform is built around it.
during a COD movement, and correlate agility perfor-
mance with force-time variables from vertical jump and
test. The best trial for each performance test during the
isometric leg extensor performance. We hypothesized that
session was used for analysis, and test-retest reliability
the majority of the total force during a COD movement
was established between the second and third testing ses-
would be vertical and that vertical jumps and isometric
sion. Test order was counterbalanced for all subjects, and
leg extensor actions would be highly related to agility per-
a minimum of 3 days separated each session. Subjects
formance.
were instructed to wear the same footwear for all testing
METHODS sessions.
Experimental Approach to the Problem Procedures
This investigation involved a comparison of National Col- Agility Test. The agility test was completed on a 6-m ⫻
legiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, and III 1-m custom-designed testing platform (Figure 2) with a
female volleyball athletes, as well as a correlational study built-in AMTI multidimensional force platform
of the relationship between a specific test of agility and (BP600900; Watertown, MA). The force platform was in-
several performance variables in the vertical domain. Ki- terfaced to a PC via a 12-bit analog-digital converter
netic properties of foot contact during COD were also ex- (PCI-DAS 1200; Measurement Computing, Middleboro,
amined. A test–retest design was incorporated to assess MA) in order to collect force-time data. Data were sam-
the reliability and precision of the various performance pled at 1,000 Hz, and the force signal was smoothed using
variables so that only appropriate ones would be consid- a fourth-order recursive low-pass Butterworth filter with
ered in the overall investigation. The agility test was de- a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz. The 5-meter agility test start/
signed to reflect the short distance and very sharp turns finish was marked directly over the center of the force
typically involved in court sports. platform. The subjects began the test with the right foot
on the force platform. Upon a verbal signal, the subject
Subjects
pivoted on the left foot and sprinted 5 meters, planted the
A group of 29 female collegiate volleyball players volun- left foot, then turned 180⬚ to the right, changing to the
teered for this study before preseason training. Athletes opposite direction, and sprinted back to the force platform
from Division I (n ⫽ 9), II (n ⫽ 11), and III (n ⫽ 9) teams (Figure 3). The subject next planted the right foot on the
participated. Descriptive data for each group are shown force platform, turned 180⬚ to the left, and changed di-
in Table 1. Subjects had similar training programs in- rections to the contralateral side, using the left foot as
volving both COD drills and free-weight and machine the first step in the new direction. The subject then
training. Health history and physical activity question- sprinted back, with another 180⬚ right turn, changing to
naires were completed by all subjects prior to testing to the opposite direction. Last, the subject finished the test
determine eligibility. All procedures were approved by the by sprinting 5 meters back to the start by running over
University Institutional Review Board for Human Sub- the force platform with one foot, thereby stopping the
jects Research. Subjects were required to attend 3 ses- test. Two trials were performed, and the trial with the
sions involving testing of vertical jump, agility, and iso- best time from toe-off to heel-down of the last foot contact
metric leg extensor action performance. During the initial
visit, subjects were allowed to practice all procedures after
providing written informed consent. The next 2 sessions
were identical, consisting of 2 trials of each performance

TABLE 1. Comparison of National Collegiate Athletic Asso-

ciation divisions (mean ⫾ SD).
Division I Division II Division III
Variable (n ⫽ 9) (n ⫽ 11) (n ⫽ 9)
Age 20.3 ⫾ 1.5 19.6 ⫾ 1.4 20.0 ⫾ 1.3
Height (cm) 177.9 ⫾ 6.3 174.3 ⫾ 7.7 171.0 ⫾ 8.0
Weight (kg) 73.3 ⫾ 7.7 71.5 ⫾ 9.8 69.8 ⫾ 6.9
FIGURE 3. Custom agility test.
1194 BARNES, SCHILLING, FALVO ET AL.

TABLE 2. Performance variables by division.*

Variable Division I (n ⫽ 9) Division II (n ⫽ 11) Division III (n ⫽ 9)
TIME (s) 5.93 ⫾ 0.2 6.00 ⫾ 0.2 6.1 ⫾ 0.2
VFORCE (N) 1,487.3 ⫾ 237.0 1,495.4 ⫾ 339.3 1,335.3 ⫾ 196.7
HFORCE (N) 666.7 ⫾ 86.7 620.0 ⫾ 93.4 614.9 ⫾ 98.6
CMHT (cm) 36.4 ⫾ 2.5† 31.8 ⫾ 4.6 30.2 ⫾ 7.2
DJCT (s) 0.42 ⫾ 0.9 0.42 ⫾ 0.6 0.44 ⫾ 0.5
DJHT (cm) 36.0 ⫾ 1.3 32.1 ⫾ 4.9 32.6 ⫾ 5.1
DJRSI (cm·s⫺1 ) 87.2 ⫾ 18.5 78.1 ⫾ 15.9 72.7 ⫾ 14.5
PF (N) 1,374.6 ⫾ 196.6 1,260.7 ⫾ 393.0 1,523.9 ⫾ 350.3
* TIME ⫽ total agility test time; VFORCE ⫽ vertical force during change of direction; HFORCE ⫽ horizontal force during change
of direction; CMHT ⫽ countermovement jump height; DJCT ⫽ drop jump ground contact time; DJHT ⫽ drop jump height; DJRSI
⫽ drop jump reactive strength index; PF ⫽ isometric leg extensor action peak force.
† p ⬍ 0.05 between Divisions I and III.

was analyzed with Datapac 2K2 (v3.12; Mission Viejo, hibited extension from the squatting position by placing
CA). Variables of interest included time of test from toe- their shoulders under a fixed bar, positioned so the knee
off to heel-down (TIME), contact time during COD (CT), angle was 120⬚. The force platform was channeled
and force in the vertical (VFORCE) and horizontal through a signal conditioner/amplifier (TMO-2; Trans-
(HFORCE) direction. ducer Techniques, Temecula, CA) that was interfaced to
Vertical Jumps. Two types of vertical jumps, counter- a PC via a 12-bit analog-digital converter. Two trials were
movement (CM) jump and DJ, were performed with a performed, and the trial with the best peak force was an-
Vertec device placed adjacent to the force platform to ob- alyzed with Datapac 2K2. Data were sampled at 1,000
tain actual jump-and-reach height. Two trials of each Hz, and 5 seconds of passive demeaning was used to ob-
jump were measured with a 0.5- to 1.0-minute rest period viate force for the effect of body mass. The force signal
between trials. The best trial defined by jump height was was smoothed using a fourth-order recursive low-pass
recorded, calculated as height measured by the Vertec de- Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency set at 30 Hz.
vice subtracting out one hand reach height in a plantar The subjects were instructed to push as hard and fast as
flexed position. Drop jump box height was constant for possible for 2.5 to 4 seconds against the fixed bar, and
each subject (30 cm) based on the methods of Newton et force was measured via the force platform below. A rest
al. (22). The reactive strength index (RSI) was used for period of 30 to 60 seconds followed each trial. Two trials
measurement of reactive strength (17). It was determined were completed, and the best performance in peak force
by dividing DJ height by the ground contact time prior to was used for statistical analysis.
takeoff. Contact time was acquired on a force platform (2,
15) interfaced to a PC via a 12-bit analog-digital convert- Statistical Analyses
er. Datapac 2K2 sampled data at 1,000 Hz, and the force The better of 2 trials was used for analysis for each test.
signal was smoothed using a fourth-order recursive low- The criterion for statistical significance was set at p ⱕ
pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz 0.05. Intraclass correlations (ICC3,1; 28) were performed
to better locate ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ time points. Variables of for the independent variables to determine test-retest re-
interest were CM height (CMHT), DJ height (DJHT), DJ liability, and the coefficient of variation (CV%) was used
contact time (DJCT), and DJ RSI (DJRSI). as a measure of precision (10). One-way analysis of var-
Isometric Leg Extensor Action. The testing procedures iance was used to compare performance variables be-
for the isometric leg extensor action followed the methods tween athletes in the different NCAA divisions, with Tu-
of Young and colleagues (34). The subject was positioned key posthoc analysis used to determine pairwise differ-
on a vertical-only force platform (Roughdeck; Rice Lake ences. Relationships between agility, jump, and isometric
Weighing Systems, Rice Lake, WI) in a position that pro- leg extensor action measurements were then determined
by Pearson correlations. Prediction of TIME was per-
formed via regression analysis based on the lack of po-
TABLE 3. Mean, SD, intraclass correlation (ICC), and coef-
ficient of variation (CV) for subject population.*
tential multicollinearity in leg extensor action and jump
data (those variables that were correlated with values be-
Variable Mean SD ICC CV% tween ⫺0.7 and 0.7). An alpha level of 0.05 was used for
CT (s) 0.41 0.05 0.39 10.7 all analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS
TIME (s)† 5.99 0.21 0.69 1.9 (14.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).
VFORCE (N)† 1,443.2 271.4 0.80 8.6
HFORCE (N)† 632.9 92.6 0.71 9.1 RESULTS
CMHT (cm)† 32.7 5.5 0.89 7.2
Performance results by NCAA division are shown in Ta-
DJCT (s)† 0.43 0.07 0.72 8.7
DJHT (cm)† 33.5 4.4 0.78 7.6 ble 2. Athletes in NCAA Division I had significantly high-
DJRSI (cm·s⫺1 )† 80.0 15.4 0.75 13.5 er CMHT than those in Division III, but no significant
PF (N)† 1,386.4 330.5 0.87 11.9 differences were noted between NCAA division for any
other variable (Table 2). A large effect size (Cohen’s d ⫽
* CT ⫽ contact time; TIME ⫽ total agility test time; VFORCE
1.4) was noted between Divisions I and II for CMHT. The
⫽ vertical force during change of direction; HFORCE ⫽ horizon-
tal force during change of direction; CMHT ⫽ countermovement grouped means, SD, CV%, and ICC for all of the variables
jump height; DJCT ⫽ drop jump ground contact time; DJHT ⫽ are given in Table 3. Countermovement height (ICC ⫽
drop jump height; DJRSI ⫽ drop jump reactive strength index; 0.89, CV ⫽ 7.2%), DJ contact time (ICC ⫽ 0.72, CV ⫽
PF ⫽ isometric leg extensor action peak force. 8.7%), DJ height (ICC ⫽ 0.78, CV ⫽ 7.6%), reactive
† Variables considered both reliable and precise. strength index (ICC ⫽ 0.75, CV ⫽ 13.5%), isometric leg
 COD AND JUMPING IN FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS 1195

TABLE 4. Bivariate correlations for select variables.* TABLE 5. Results of regression for agility test time.
Variable 2 3 4 5 6 Independent Variables R2 B ␤ t
TIME ⫺0.580‡ 0.049 ⫺0.320 ⫺0.223 ⫺0.373 Model 1
CMHT ⫺0.328 0.528‡ 0.545‡ 0.421† Countermovement jump height 0.34 6.702 ⫺0.580 0.009*
DJCT ⫺0.250 ⫺0.775‡ ⫺0.053
* p ⬍ 0.01.
DJHT 0.753‡ 0.435†
RSI 0.401
PF
* TIME ⫽ total agility test time; CMHT ⫽ countermovement
to change direction with a minimal loss of speed and/or
jump height; DJCT ⫽ drop jump ground contact time; DJHT ⫽ control) and Young’s (34) agility model, the results of
drop jump height; RSI ⫽ reactive strength index; PF ⫽ isometric studies incorporating both sprinting and jumping can re-
leg extensor action peak force. late to the results herein due to similarities among per-
† p ⬍ 0.05. formance variables. The relationship between agility per-
‡ p ⬍ 0.01. formance and CM as found in this study is similar to re-
sults from other studies investigating sprinting rather
than agility (9, 18, 21, 31), indicating that vertical domain
extensor action peak force (ICC ⫽ 0.87, CV ⫽ 11.9%), is an important predictor for both sprint and agility per-
agility test total time (ICC ⫽ 0.69, CV ⫽ 1.9%), VFORCE formance. It was stated by Kukolj and colleagues (13) that
(ICC ⫽ 0.80, CV ⫽ 8.6), and HFORCE (ICC ⫽ 0.71, CV% ‘‘both maximal jumping and sprinting are generally con-
⫽ 9.1) were considered reliable and precise (CV% ⬍15%; sidered as dynamic movements requiring high muscle
26) for use in correlation and regression procedures. Oth- power and, therefore should be closely related’’ and be-
er measures likely require more practice to be reliable or cause agility performance is also a dynamic movement
may be inherently unusable for performance evaluation. requiring high muscle power, it is reasonable to assume
The magnitude of VFORCE was approximately twice the jumping and agility performances would be closely relat-
magnitude of HFORCE during COD. ed.
Bivariate correlations for the variables considered re- The relationship between agility and jumping perfor-
liable and precise are presented in Table 4. A significant mance found in this study is also in agreement with other
negative correlation existed between TIME and CMHT (r studies that examine sprinting performance. Mero and
⫽ ⫺0.580; p ⬍ 0.01), and CMHT was highly correlated colleagues (18) saw a significant correlation between
with DJHT, RSI, and PF (r ⫽ 0.528, 0.545, 0.421, respec- sprinting performance and jumping tests. They explained
tively). that this relationship strongly related to the mechanical
Stepwise multiple regression identified that CMHT characteristics of fast twitch muscle fibers and notably
accounted for a total of 34% of the variance in TIME. that a higher fast twitch muscle fiber distribution was
Preliminary examination of the results indicated that found in the sprinters tested. This is also supported by
there was no extreme multicollinearity in the data, with Jaric and others (11), who found that measurable mus-
tolerance ranges from 0.7 to 1.0, and variance inflation culoskeletal parameters can be used to predict kinematic
factors ranges from 1.0 to 1.4. Countermovement jump variables. Nesser and colleagues (21) also suggested that
height (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.580, t ⫽ 0.018) was a significant contrib- elastic muscle characteristics emphasized during sprint-
utor to the explanation of agility performance and was ing and jumping performances account for a relationship
significant at the 0.05 alpha level (Table 5). No other var- among these high-velocity activities. Because a large com-
iable explained an additional significant portion of the ponent of the agility task in our investigation requires
variance in TIME. sprint speed, the similar results to Mero (18) and Nesser
(21) are not surprising. Hennessy and Kilty (9) also found
DISCUSSION that CM, DJ, and bounding jump tests relate to sprinting
The primary purposes of this investigation were to deter- performance. Both the CM and DJ test were found to ex-
mine if vertical jump and isometric leg extensor action plain 63% of sprinting performance; however, the DJ test
variables could predict agility performance and to deter- explained 55% of the relationship. This is contrary to the
mine the magnitude of vertical and horizontal forces in- current study, in which CM variables alone, rather than
volved during change of direction. In support of our hy- DJ variables, explained 34% of the variance in agility per-
pothesis, the major finding in this study was that CMHT formance.
can be used to predict agility test time and explain about Our investigation also showed that CMHT was highly
34% of the variance in agility test time. Also, it was ob- correlated with DJHT, RSI, and PF, and thus some re-
served that the majority of the total force during the COD dundancy exists in these measures. These other variables
task was vertical, suggesting that performance in the ver- may also be considered as possible predictors of agility
tical domain is a limiting factor in the COD task herein. performance. It was also found in this study that CMHT
Because jumping ability is an obvious potential per- and DJHT were highly correlated.
formance predictor for volleyball, it is not surprising that Several variables of DJ performance were found to be
the Division I athletes had significantly greater jump reliable; however, they were not significantly correlated
heights than Division III athletes. Performances on other with agility test time. This result was surprising, because
variables were similar, which indicates that these perfor- the reactive strength index incorporated with DJ involves
mance tests may not be good predictors of competitive a short ground contact time, very similar to the agility
performance level for collegiate volleyball. Because little test contact times (0.30–0.50 s). Although the agility test
is known about this subject population, it may be that contact times had a low ICC (0.39), this may be due to
there is little difference in physical performance between the low between-subject variability (28), because the pre-
these levels and that other characteristics separate ath- cision was good according to Stokes (26). The lack of cor-
letes into NCAA divisions. relation between agility time and DJ may possibly be due
Considering agility as defined in this study (the ability to the lack of the DJ action in sport. It is perhaps more
1196 BARNES, SCHILLING, FALVO ET AL.

common to practice the CM jump, because it is most often 7. ELLIS, L., P. GASTIN, S. LAWRENCE, B. SAVAGE, A. SHEALES, A. STAPFF,
D. TUMILTY, A. QUINN, S. WOOLFORD, AND W. YOUNG. Testing protocols
performed in sports. for team sport players. In: Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. C.J. Gore,
Isometric leg extensor action peak force was found to ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp. 128–144.
be reliable, but no significant relationship was found be- 8. HAFF, G., M. STONE, H. O’BRYANT, E. HARMAN, C. DINAN, R. JOHNSON,
tween isometric peak force and agility time. This lack of AND K. HAN. Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and iso-
metric muscle actions. J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:269–272. 1997.
significance could be explained by the fact that this test 9. HENNESSY, L., AND J. KILTY. Relationship of the stretch-shortening cycle
does not involve a dynamic movement like the agility and to sprint performance in trained female athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res.
vertical jump tests do. Haff and others (8) found similar- 15:326–331. 2001.
ities among force variables of isometric and dynamic per- 10. HOPKINS, W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.
Sports Med. 30:375–381. 2000.
formance. However, Wilson (29) and Young (32) found 11. JARIC, S., D. RISTANOVIC, AND D. CORCOS. The relationship between mus-
that isometric performance tests did not correlate with a cle kinetic parameters and kinematic variables in a complex movement.
dynamic sprint and jump tests and suggested that iso- Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 59:370–376. 1989.
12. JOHNSON, B.L. AND J.K. NELSON. Practical Measurements for Evaluation
metric measures are invalid in comparison with dynamic in Physical Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company,
measures. In addition, Wisloff (30) supported that dy- 1986.
namic strength tests could be used in comparison with 13. KUKOLJ, M., R. ROPRET, D. UGARKOVIC, AND S. JARIC. Anthropometric,
agility, sprinting, and jumping performance. It may be strength, and power predictors of sprinting performance. J. Sports Med.
Phys. Fitness 39:120–122. 1999.
possible that if the current study used a dynamic strength 14. LITTLE, T., AND A. WILLIAMS. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed,
test, a significant relationship may have been seen with and agility in professional soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:76–
agility test performance. 78. 2005.
Because of the original agility test used in this inves- 15. MAJOR, J., W. SANDS, J. MCNEAL, D. PAINE, AND R. KIPP. Design, con-
struction, and validation of a portable one-dimensional force platform. J.
tigation, certain factors should be noted. It can be debated Strength Cond. Res. 12:37–41. 1998.
whether using 3 COD within the agility task was appro- 16. MCLEAN, S., R. NEAL, P. MYERS, AND M. WALTERS. Knee joint kinematics
priate or if just 1 COD would be more specific. The ver- during the sidestep cutting maneuver: Potential for injury in women.
tical jump tests are much shorter in time, so the results Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:959–968. 1999.
17. MCCLYMONT, D., AND A. HORE. Use of the reactive strength index as an
may have been stronger if only 1 COD movement was indicator of Plyometric training conditions. J. Sport Sci. 22:495–496.
used in the agility test. The bilateral differences in the 2004.
ability to change direction are also of interest (27). Last, 18. MERO, A., P. LUHTANEN, J. VIITASALO, AND P. KOMI. Relationships be-
tween the maximal running velocity, muscle fiber characteristics, force
the subjects’ stride variations were unaccounted for. How- production and force relaxation of sprinters. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 3:16–
ever, the measurements of playable surface in sport 22. 1981.
courts are limited and the same for all players, regardless 19. MILLER, J., S. HILBERT, AND L. BROWN. Speed, quickness, and agility
of stride length; therefore, the restrictive parameter of 5 training for senior tennis players. Strength Cond. J. 23:62–66. 2001.
20. NEPTUNE, R., I. WRIGHT, AND A. VAN DEN BOGERT. Muscle coordination
m used in this agility test should not have as great of an and function during cutting movements. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:294–
influence. 302. 1999.
Overall, this study suggests that CMHT could be used 21. NESSER, T., R. LATIN, K. BERG, AND E. PRENTICE. Physiological deter-
in the prediction of performances involving COD move- minants of 40-meter sprint performance in young male athletes. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 10:263–267. 1996.
ments. This suggests that training in the vertical domain 22. NEWTON, R., W. KRAEMER, AND K. HAKKINEN. Effects of ballistic training
may increase COD performance. With this established, on preseason preparation of elite volleyball players. Med. Sci. Sports Ex-
future research could examine training vertical force erc. 31:323–330. 1999.
properties to improve agility and include more court- 23. PAUOLE, K., K. MADOLE, J. GARHAMMER, M. LACOURSE, AND R. ROZENEK.
Reliability and validity of agility, leg power, and leg speed in college-
sport–specific tests of agility performance. aged men and women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14:443–450. 2000.
24. SCHLEIHAUF, R. Biomechanics of Human Movement. Bloomington, IN:
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Authorhouse, 2004. pp. 156–180.
25. SELF, B.P. Ankle biomechanics during four landing techniques. Med. Sci.
This study suggests that athletes with greater CMHT Sports Exerc. 33:1338–1344. 2001.
most likely have better agility performance. This is due 26. STOKES, M.J. Reliability and repeatability of methods for measuring
muscle in physiotherapy. Physiother Pract. 1:71–76. 1985.
to the omnipresent effects of gravity; however, much of 27. VAN SOEST, A., M. ROEBROECK, M. BOBBERT, P. HUIJING, AND G. VAN
the variance (⬃76%) is unaccounted for by vertical jump INGEN SCHENAU. A comparison of one-legged and two-legged counter-
height. Also, it is possible that increases in vertical per- movement jumps. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 17:635–639. 1985.
28. WEIR, J.P. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass corre-
formance measures may improve agility performance, but lation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:213–240. 2005.
this relationship needs to be determined in longitudinal 29. WILSON, G., A. LYTTLE, K. OSTROWSKI, AND A. MURPHY. Assessing dy-
training investigations. namic performance: A comparison of rate of force development tests. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 9:176–181. 1995.
30. WISLOFF, U., C. CASTAGNA, J. HELGERUD, R. JONES, AND J. HOFF. Strong
REFERENCES correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and ver-
tical jump height in elite soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 38:285–288.
1. CHELLADURAI, P. Manifestations of agility. CAHPER J. 42:36–41. 1976.
2004.
2. CHIU, L.Z.F., B.K. SCHILLING, A.C. FRY, AND L.W. WEISS. Measurement
31. YOUNG, W., B. MCLEAN, AND J. ARDAGNA. Relationship between strength
of resistance exercise force expression. J. Appl. Biomech. 20:204–212.
qualities and sprinting performance. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 35:13–
2004.
19. 1995.
3. CLARKE, H.H. Application of Measurement to Health and Physical Edu- 32. YOUNG, W., G. WILSON, AND C. BYRNE. Relationship between strength
cation (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. pp. 202– qualities and performance in standing and run-up vertical jumps. J.
205. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 39:285–293. 1999.
4. COLBY, S., A. FRANCISCO, B. YU, D. KIRKENDALL, M. FINCH, AND W. GAR- 33. YOUNG, W., M. MCDOWELL, AND B. SCARLETT. Specificity of sprint and
RETT. Electromyographic and kinematic analysis of cutting maneuvers. agility training methods. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:315–319. 2001.
Am. J. Sports Med. 28:234–240. 2000. 34. YOUNG, W., R. JAMES, AND I. MONTGOMERY. Is muscle power related to
5. COSTILL, D., S. MILLER, W. MYERS, F. KEHOE, AND W. HOFFMAN. Rela- running speed with changes of direction? J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness
tionship among selected tests of explosive leg strength and power. Res. 42:282–288. 2002.
Q. 39:785–787. 1968.
6. DRAPER, J.A., AND M.G. LANCASTER. The 505 Test: A test for agility in Address correspondence to Brian Schilling, bschllng@
the horizontal plane. Aust. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 17:15–18. 1985. [Link].