1. Name of Test: Agility T-Test 2. Specific Purpose: The T-Test is a test of agility for athletes, and includes forward, lateral, and backward running. The T-Test is an effective way for coaches to assess their players ability to change direction at speed. 3. Validity, Reliability, Objectivity Factors: Validity: The objective of the T-test is to measure agility. It portrays validity in that the individual has to stop and go, cut, and move quickly, which are all characteristics of validity. It is the same movements each time the test is run, so as a person improves agility, time should go down. The type of validity is criterion-related validity. It is also concurrent because the criterion is measure at the same time as the alternative measure. The time is measured to test the speed and agility at which the individual completes the test. Reliability: The T-test produces very reliable results. It obtains the same score or near the same score every time. This test is also easy to set up and displays specific measurements, which are hard to deviate from in any manner. One can replicate the test to retest an individual. One way to make the test even more reliable would be to use sensors that use motion detection to time the individual. This would time them exactly when they leave the start and as soon as they cross the line. It is also vital to use the same type of surface to ensure reliability. In one research article, Reliability and Validity of the T-Test as a Measure of Agility, Leg Power, and Leg Speed in College-Aged Men and Women, found in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning, the reliability of the T-test was 0.98 across three trials. This proves that it is a highly reliable test. It was shown to measure agility, power, speed, and strength. Objectivity: Objectivity may occur in the timing. Depending on the stopwatch used and the person timing, results may vary. This is why utilizing motion sensors to time would be beneficial. 4. Fundamental motor skills needed to perform this test: This test requires locomotor fundamental motor skills. The individual is asked to run, shuffle, bend, and backpedal. There is no object manipulation or stationary movements required. 5. Sports that heavily utilize this type of motor skill-related fitness component: The types of sports that heavily use agility are football, soccer, and basketball. These athletes need to have the ability to change directions and positions quickly on a horizontal plane. This gives them an advantage over opponents and puts them in positions that are able to enhance performance and techniques.
6. Equipment and Materials: The equipment needed for the T-test was 4 cones, a timer, and a tape measure to measure the distances between each cone. 7. Techniques/Skills that need to be learned prior: There are several techniques/skills that need to be learned in order to participate in this test. First the person must know how to run in a forward and backwards direction. The first part of the T- test requires forward running and the last section of the test requires backwards running. A second skill the participant needs to know is how to shuffle from side to side. The middle part of this test requires that the participant shuffle to the left and right in order to touch the outside cones. 8. Instructions/Procedures: For the person administering the test, four cones should be set up in the shape of a T. Cone A and B should be set up 10 yards (9.14 m) apart from each other. Cones B and C should be set up 5 yards (4.57m) apart from each other. Cones B and D should be set up 5 yards (4.57 m) from each other as well. The subject starts at cone A. On the command of the timer, the subject sprints to cone B and touches the base of the cone with their right hand. They then move left and shuffle sideways to cone C, and also touches its base, this time with their left hand. Then shuffling sideways to the right to cone D and touching the base with the right hand. They then shuffle back to cone B touching with the left hand, and run backwards to cone A. The stopwatch is stopped as they pass cone A. 9. Scoring Procedures: Scoring Procedures are based on time. The individual completes the test and receives a score in seconds. From this score we were able to rank the individual as poor, average, good, and excellent. The trial didn t count if the subject failed to touch the base of the cone or crossed one foot in front of the other while shuffling. 10. Standards: Males (Seconds) Females (seconds) Excellent <9.5 <10.5 Good 9.5-10.5 10.5-11.5 Average 10.5-11.5 11.5-12.5 Poor >11.5 >12.5
11. Procedural Notes: Organizational Tips: When testing the individual having multiple people watch is helpful. This allows one to focus on the stop watch as they are set up right on the start line, and one to ensure the individuals are touching the base of the cone and not crossing feet when shuffling. Factors Influencing Selection: This test does not require a whole lot of room and is a great measurement for agility. The T-test is a great way to track athlete s improvements with speed and agility to see progress. Factors Influencing selection and administration: Compared to some agility tests, the T-test does not take up that much space. This can even be conducted outside, as long as it is conducted on the same surface to keep the parameters the same from test to test. Progress may be skewed if you use a different surface each time the test is administered. Agility and speed are measured very well with the T-test. It incorporates many types of locomotor skills. If you are solely looking for a test that uses agility and running, the Illinois agility test would be the better option. However, if you are interested in getting all around agility this would be a good test. One group that would greatly benefit from these results are basketball players because this sport heavily incorporates sprinting, shuffling, and back pedaling. It is evident that the standards are set for athletes as we tested trained athletes and didn t see the highest results. This might influence who would like to administer it. The T-test might not be something untrained individuals would be interested in seeing. Administrative strengths and weaknesses: This test does require more that one person to administer properly. One individual will need to set up at the start of the test to ensure the individual is not crossing the line to early and is finishing fully at the end, and another individual needs to post up by the cones to ensure participants are touching the base of the cone. This can be either a strength or a weakness depending on how many are available to administer the test. One weakness is that it is very hard to control how participants complete the test. As individuals strived to complete the test, many of them lost form or tripped during the test. This will skew results. Due to the constant changing of locomotor skills, the test is quite tiring. If doing multiple trials, it may be hard to get accurate results as the number of trials increases. This test is a great test of agility and is easy to set up. Coaches can definitely rely on being able to track progress of athletes with this test. The overall set up is very simple and requires few materials to administer. It is also a fairly quick test, therefore, coaches can get results fast without cutting too much into practice or conditioning time. Overall self-reflection: There isn t much we could do to improve the administration of this test. We had a day of practice runs prior to actually conducting the test, which was extremely beneficial. One way to improve the test would be to use motion sensors to time the individual. This will result in a much more accurate result from when the individual leaves the start line to as soon as they cross the line. We were surprised there were more standards based on age. We felt that the standards were very unrealistic for the average person. We noticed this in our results as numerous conditioned athletes received poor rankings. Our overall administration of the test was good. We accurately measured the distance with as precise measurements as possible. One thing that could have made it even more precise is marking where the center of the cones is to receive even more precise measurements. Our interpretation of this test is that it is something
that should definitely be utilized by coaches. It is a great measurement of agility and so easy to administer. As coaches it is something we would use ourselves to test players. As for the general population, it isn t necessarily something that it could be used to test progress of a patient recovering from an accident. However, the current standards of scoring would not be able to be used in this type of setting. 12. Participant Data: Group Participant # Seconds Rank Category T-Score: Percentile (%ile) 4 9.7 1 Good 64.2 92.2 10 10 2 Good 62.4 89.3 3 10.3 3.5 Good 60.6 85.5 5 10.3 3.5 Good 60.6 85.5 6 10.7 5 Average 64.2 92.2 14 11.2 6 Average 55.2 69.9 12 11.4 7 Good 54 65.5 1 11.9 8.5 Poor 51 54 11 11.9 8.5 Poor 51 54 9 12.1 10 Poor 49.8 49.2 7 12.2 11.5 Average 49.2 46.8 15 12.2 11.5 Average 49.2 46.8 16 12.3 13 Average 48.6 44.4 8 12.6 14 Poor 46.8 37.5 2 12.9 15 Poor 45 30.9 13 14.7 16 Poor 34.3 5.8 17 15.3 17 Poor 30.7 2.7 18 15.6 18 Poor 28.9 1.74 Mean: 12.07 Standard Deviation: 1.67 Females Participant # Seconds Rank Category T-Score: Percentile (%ile) 12 11.4 1 Good 61.5 87.5 7 12.2 2.5 Average 53.6 64.1 15 12.2 2.5 Average 53.6 64.1 16 12.3 4 Average 52.6 60.3 8 12.6 5 Poor 49.7 48.8 13 14.7 6 Poor 29.1 1.83 Mean: 12.57 Standard Deviation: 1.02
Males Participant # Seconds Rank Category T-Score: Percentile (%ile) 4 9.7 1 Good 61.2 86.9 10 10 2 Good 59.4 82.6 3 10.3 3.5 Good 57.5 77.3 5 10.3 3.5 Good 57.5 77.3 6 10.7 5 Average 55 69.2 14 11.2 6 Average 51.9 57.5 1 11.9 7.5 Poor 47.6 40.5 11 11.9 7.5 Poor 47.6 40.5 9 12.1 9 Poor 46.3 35.6 2 12.9 10 Poor 41.4 19.5 18 15.6 11 Poor 24.6 0.6 Mean: 11.51 Standard Deviation: 1.61 Discuss results: No one in the class reached the excellent category. 56% of the class was categorized as good or average. 44% of the class was categorized as poor. 50% of the class as a whole had a percentile above the fiftieth percentile. 67% of the females were categorized as good or average. Only 33% of the females were categorized as poor. 67% of the females had a percentile above the fiftieth percentile. The mean score for the females is 12.57 and is rated as poor. 55% of the males were categorized as good or average. 45% of the males were categorized as poor. 55% of the males had a percentile above the fiftieth percentile. The mean score for the males is 11.51 and is rated as average. 13. Other potential tests: Other tests that measure agility are: Hexagon Agility Test- assesses jumping agility Quick Feet Test- assesses foot agility Lateral Change of Direction Test- measures the ability to change directions laterally (Agility Tests, n.d.) 14. Application of findings and recommendations: The next step would be to work on everyone s speed and agility. No one attained the excellent ranking. The majority of the results need improvement. We could start by training with agility drills to help improve coordination, speed, and power. The use of plyometric exercises and resistance training to improve power and strength would also benefit the subjects.
15. References: Agility Tests. (n.d.). fitness2unetau RSS. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://fitness2u.net.au/fitness-tests/body-fitness-tests/agility-tests/ PAUOLE, K., MADOLE, K., GARHAMMER, J., LACOURSE, M., & ROZENEK, R. (November, 2000). Reliability and validity of the T-Test as a measure of agility, leg power, and leg speed in college-aged men and women [Abstract]. Journal of Strength & Conditioning, 14(4). Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/nscajscr/abstract/2000/11000/reliability_and_validity_of_the_t_test_as_a.12.aspx.