Validity of a motor–cognitive dual-task agility test in elite youth football players

David Friebe, Johanna Sieland, Hendrik Both, Florian Giesche, Christian Haser, Thorben Hülsdünker, Florian Pfab, Lutz Vogt, Winfried Banzer
{"title":"Validity of a motor–cognitive dual-task agility test in elite youth football players","authors":"David Friebe,&nbsp;Johanna Sieland,&nbsp;Hendrik Both,&nbsp;Florian Giesche,&nbsp;Christian Haser,&nbsp;Thorben Hülsdünker,&nbsp;Florian Pfab,&nbsp;Lutz Vogt,&nbsp;Winfried Banzer","doi":"10.1002/ejsc.12153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Agility, as the ability to react rapidly to unforeseen events, is an essential component of football performance. However, existing agility diagnostics often do not reflect the complex motor–cognitive interaction required on the field. Therefore, this study evaluates the criterion and ecological validity of a newly developed motor–cognitive dual-task agility approach in elite youth football players and compare it to a traditional reactive agility test. Twenty-one male youth elite football players (age:17.4 ±0 .6; BMI:23.2 ± 1.8) performed two agility tests (reactive agility, reactive agility with integrated multiple-object-tracking (Dual-Task Agility)) on the SKILLCOURT system. Performance was correlated to motor (sprint, jump), cognitive (executive functions, attention, reaction speed) and football specific tests (Loughborough soccer passing test (LSPT)) as well as indirect game metrics (coaches' rating, playing time). Reactive agility performance showed moderate correlations to attention and choice reaction times (<i>r</i> = 0.48−0.63), as well as to the LSPT (<i>r</i> = 0.51). The dual-task agility test revealed moderate relationships with attention and reaction speed (<i>r</i> = 0.47−0.58), executive functions (<i>r</i> = 0.45−0.63), as well as the game metrics (<i>r</i> = 0.51−0.61). Finally, the dual-task agility test significantly differentiated players based on their coaches' rating and playing time using a median split (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05; <i>d</i> = 0.8–1.28). Motor–cognitive agility performance in elite youth football players seems to be primarily determined by cognitive functions. The integration of multiple object tracking into reactive agility testing seems to be an ecologically valid approach for performance diagnostics in youth football.</p>","PeriodicalId":93999,"journal":{"name":"European journal of sport science","volume":"24 8","pages":"1056-1066"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of sport science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Agility, as the ability to react rapidly to unforeseen events, is an essential component of football performance. However, existing agility diagnostics often do not reflect the complex motor–cognitive interaction required on the field. Therefore, this study evaluates the criterion and ecological validity of a newly developed motor–cognitive dual-task agility approach in elite youth football players and compare it to a traditional reactive agility test. Twenty-one male youth elite football players (age:17.4 ±0 .6; BMI:23.2 ± 1.8) performed two agility tests (reactive agility, reactive agility with integrated multiple-object-tracking (Dual-Task Agility)) on the SKILLCOURT system. Performance was correlated to motor (sprint, jump), cognitive (executive functions, attention, reaction speed) and football specific tests (Loughborough soccer passing test (LSPT)) as well as indirect game metrics (coaches' rating, playing time). Reactive agility performance showed moderate correlations to attention and choice reaction times (r = 0.48−0.63), as well as to the LSPT (r = 0.51). The dual-task agility test revealed moderate relationships with attention and reaction speed (r = 0.47−0.58), executive functions (r = 0.45−0.63), as well as the game metrics (r = 0.51−0.61). Finally, the dual-task agility test significantly differentiated players based on their coaches' rating and playing time using a median split (p < 0.05; d = 0.8–1.28). Motor–cognitive agility performance in elite youth football players seems to be primarily determined by cognitive functions. The integration of multiple object tracking into reactive agility testing seems to be an ecologically valid approach for performance diagnostics in youth football.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
青少年精英足球运动员运动认知双任务敏捷性测试的有效性。
敏捷性是对意外事件做出快速反应的能力,是足球运动成绩的重要组成部分。然而,现有的敏捷性诊断方法往往不能反映赛场上所需的复杂运动认知互动。因此,本研究评估了新开发的运动认知双任务敏捷性方法在青少年精英足球运动员中的标准有效性和生态有效性,并将其与传统的反应性敏捷性测试进行比较。21 名男性青少年精英足球运动员(年龄:17.4 ±0 .6;体重指数:23.2 ± 1.8)在 SKILLCOURT 系统上进行了两项敏捷性测试(反应性敏捷性、综合多目标跟踪反应性敏捷性(双任务敏捷性))。测试成绩与运动(短跑、跳跃)、认知(执行功能、注意力、反应速度)和足球专项测试(拉夫堡足球及格测试(LSPT))以及间接比赛指标(教练评分、上场时间)相关。反应敏捷性表现与注意力和选择反应时间(r = 0.48-0.63)以及 LSPT(r = 0.51)呈中度相关。双任务敏捷性测试显示出与注意力和反应速度(r = 0.47-0.58)、执行功能(r = 0.45-0.63)以及游戏指标(r = 0.51-0.61)的中等相关性。最后,双任务敏捷性测试根据教练的评分和上场时间,采用中位数分割法对球员进行了显著区分(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Association Between Early Sport Specialization and Injury and Career Outcomes Among National Football League Athletes. Acute Hypoxia Decreases Maximum Fat Oxidation Rate During Step Incremental Exercise Normalized to Respiratory Compensation Point Issue Information Associations of Domain-Specific Physical Activity With Mental Health Symptoms Among Finnish Employed Adults: A Population-Based Study Coach-Perpetrated Interpersonal Violence: Witnessing, Perceived Harmfulness and the Role of Coaching Motivational Climate
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1