Thorben Hülsdünker , David Friebe , Florian Giesche , Lutz Vogt , Florian Pfab , Christian Haser , Winfried Banzer
{"title":"Validity of the SKILLCOURT® technology for agility and cognitive performance assessment in healthy active adults","authors":"Thorben Hülsdünker , David Friebe , Florian Giesche , Lutz Vogt , Florian Pfab , Christian Haser , Winfried Banzer","doi":"10.1016/j.jesf.2023.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background/Objectives</h3><p>Agility and cognitive abilities are typically assessed separately by different motor and cognitive tests. While many agility tests lack a reactive decision-making component, cognitive assessments are still mainly based on computer-based or paper-pencil tests with low ecological validity. This study is the first to validate the novel SKILLCOURT technology as an integrated assessment tool for agility and cognitive-motor performance.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty-two healthy adults performed agility (Star Run), reactive agility (Random Star Run) and cognitive-motor (executive function test, 1-back decision making) performance assessments on the SKILLCOURT. Cognitive-motor tests included lower limb responses in a standing position to increase the ecological validity when compared to computer-based tests. Test results were compared to established motor and agility tests (countermovement jump, 10 m linear sprint, T-agility tests) as well as computer-based cognitive assessments (choice-reaction, Go-NoGo, task switching, memory span). Correlation and multiple regression analyses quantified the relation between SKILLCOURT performance and motor and cognitive outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Star Run and Random Star Run tests were best predicted by linear sprint (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and T-agility performance (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), respectively. The executive function test performance was well explained by computer-based assessments on choice reaction speed and cognitive flexibility (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). The 1-back test on the SKILLCOURT revealed moderate but significant correlations with the computer-based assessments (r = 0.47, p = 0.007).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The results support the validity of the SKILLCOURT technology for agility and cognitive assessments in more ecologically valid cognitive-motor tasks. This technology provides a promising alternative to existing performance assessment tools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness","volume":"21 3","pages":"Pages 260-267"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/78/22/main.PMC10366450.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1728869X2300028X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/Objectives
Agility and cognitive abilities are typically assessed separately by different motor and cognitive tests. While many agility tests lack a reactive decision-making component, cognitive assessments are still mainly based on computer-based or paper-pencil tests with low ecological validity. This study is the first to validate the novel SKILLCOURT technology as an integrated assessment tool for agility and cognitive-motor performance.
Methods
Thirty-two healthy adults performed agility (Star Run), reactive agility (Random Star Run) and cognitive-motor (executive function test, 1-back decision making) performance assessments on the SKILLCOURT. Cognitive-motor tests included lower limb responses in a standing position to increase the ecological validity when compared to computer-based tests. Test results were compared to established motor and agility tests (countermovement jump, 10 m linear sprint, T-agility tests) as well as computer-based cognitive assessments (choice-reaction, Go-NoGo, task switching, memory span). Correlation and multiple regression analyses quantified the relation between SKILLCOURT performance and motor and cognitive outcomes.
Results
Star Run and Random Star Run tests were best predicted by linear sprint (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and T-agility performance (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), respectively. The executive function test performance was well explained by computer-based assessments on choice reaction speed and cognitive flexibility (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). The 1-back test on the SKILLCOURT revealed moderate but significant correlations with the computer-based assessments (r = 0.47, p = 0.007).
Conclusion
The results support the validity of the SKILLCOURT technology for agility and cognitive assessments in more ecologically valid cognitive-motor tasks. This technology provides a promising alternative to existing performance assessment tools.
背景/目的敏捷性和认知能力通常通过不同的运动和认知测试分开评估。虽然许多敏捷性测试缺乏反应性决策成分,但认知评估仍然主要基于基于计算机或纸笔的测试,生态效度较低。这项研究首次验证了新的SKILLCOURT技术作为敏捷性和认知运动表现的综合评估工具。方法32名健康成人在SKILLCOURT上进行敏捷性(Star Run)、反应性敏捷性(Random Star Run)和认知运动(执行功能测试,1-back决策)绩效评估。与基于计算机的测试相比,认知运动测试包括站立位置的下肢反应,以增加生态效度。测试结果与既定的运动和敏捷性测试(反动作跳跃、10米直线冲刺、t敏捷性测试)以及基于计算机的认知评估(选择-反应、Go-NoGo、任务切换、记忆广度)进行了比较。相关和多元回归分析量化了SKILLCOURT表现与运动和认知结果之间的关系。结果线性冲刺对Star Run和Random Star Run试验的预测效果最好(r = 0.68, p <0.001)和t敏捷性(r = 0.77, p <分别为0.001)。选择反应速度和认知灵活性的计算机评估很好地解释了执行功能测试的表现(r = 0.64, p <0.001)。SKILLCOURT的1-back测试显示与基于计算机的评估有中度但显著的相关性(r = 0.47, p = 0.007)。结论该结果支持了SKILLCOURT技术在更生态有效的认知运动任务中的敏捷性和认知评估的有效性。该技术为现有的性能评估工具提供了一个有希望的替代方案。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness is the official peer-reviewed journal of The Society of Chinese Scholars on Exercise Physiology and Fitness (SCSEPF), the Physical Fitness Association of Hong Kong, China (HKPFA), and the Hong Kong Association of Sports Medicine and Sports Science (HKASMSS). It is published twice a year, in June and December, by Elsevier.
The Journal accepts original investigations, comprehensive reviews, case studies and short communications on current topics in exercise science, physical fitness and physical education.