Determinants of Y-Shaped Agility Test in Basketball Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presented for review is interesting and has the ambition to complete the knowledge in the studied area. From the point of view of the set aim, the research is interesting. However, it has a number of errors, the elimination of which could significantly increase the value of the work.

1. the choice of the group of subjects is the primary cause of all subsequent deficiencies or inaccuracies in the manuscript.
2. It is difficult to define the sport level of the subjects. The age and number of daily trainings indicate an amateur team with little sport experience.
3. The low sporting level does not warrant the generalizations used in the inference
4. There is no literature documentation that decision and movement corresponding to the decisions in the Y-test occur frequently in the match.
5. Observation of the game indicate that the most common form of movement with a change of direction is a left-right, right-left movement, which allows you to break free from the opponent or bypass the opponent
6. The “Lockie, R. G., Jeffriess, M. D., McGann, T. S., Callaghan, S. J., and Schultz, A. B. (2014). Planned and reactive agility performance in semiprofessional and amateur basketball players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 9, 766–771. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0324” paper stated "Reactive agility discriminated between the semiprofessional and amateur groups linear speed and planned agility did not." The paper is found in references. The authors fail to note this very important conclusion from earlier studies.

The conclusions in the manuscript resulting from the study indicate an overinterpretation of the results obtained in the statistical analysis. It is not possible to infer the entire population of athletes in a sport in the case of:

- small number of subjects

- the variation in the level of sport was not taken into account

- taking into account variations in team game positions

- gender differences are not taken into account.

An interesting approach in this study is to combine motor skills with Y-test scores.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of group differentiation it is difficult to determine the level of motor preparation, the increase of which does not affect the Y-test results. Perhaps the result is strongly determined by motor fitness. Reaction time affects the Y-test score only up to a certain level. Motor preparation determines further.  These are questions that are not answered in this paper. The title of the paper indicates that the problem will be solved comprehensively.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. I will try to specify some issues which you mentioned:

1.-3: The players play the two highest leagues in Slovakia. They train usually at least 5 times a week, some of them train twice a day. However, due to COVID-19 restriction, their training was limited to a smaller number of players who can train together. Therefore, it resulted in a smaller number of training units per week. This study had to be completed at that difficult time due to the deadline of our project. Moreover, they have 9 years of experience in basketball, therefore is not possible to say that they have little sports experience. 

4: I think there is literature documentation that response to visual stimuli is important in basketball "Invasion sports involve several changes of direction and most of them include responses to stimuli, either movement of an opponent, teammate, or ball [4]. These types of sports also include basketball, in which reactive agility is one of the most important factors of performance [9,11]. " The Y-shaped agility test is a general test which measures reactive agility. We admit that the arrow as a stimulus is not the most specific for them, but it does not mean that this test does not reflect the ability to change direction in response to visual stimulus - reactive agility and that it is not suitable for them. 

5. Yes, we agree with that. And the arrow in Y-shaped agility test determines this change of direction to the right or left at a 45° angle. 

 6. We do not understand what have you meant by that. Your sentence is not correct. They found that "Reactive agility discriminated between the semi-professional and amateur basketballers; planned agility did not." You mentioned "linear speed", but it is not the correct interpretation of their conclusion. The reactive form of the Y-shaped agility test differentiate between semi-professional and amateur basketball players, planned form does not. This means that using reactive conditions is more useful. We do not deny it anywhere. Therefore it is not possible to comment on this.

We have added this information to the limitations of this study at the end of the discussion: "The research with higher variation in players´ level of sports performance, without taking into account variations in team game positions and the low sample size can be considered as the main limitation of this study. Therefore, it is not possible to infer the entire population of male basketball players."

 In abstract, we admit the effect of their training on our results: "The adaptation of basketball players to training aimed at increasing speed and strength may also play a role." It means that result could be perhaps determined by motor fitness. 

We have tried to change most of your comments. However, some issue is not possible to change retrospectively, unfortunately. We have made a considerable effort to improve the quality of this manuscript as possible. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a simple but interesting article about agility test in basketball players. It is well written and results are very practical.

I have only some minor suggestions

• why are some words highlited in yellow?
• line 13: double commas
• line 30: delete "in a case"
• line 50: I suggest the following reference about on-field fitness tests (https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/6/3/59) (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11332-020-00713-8)
• line 57: I suggest the followig reference about reaction time tests (https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/5/4/89) 
• line 72: it could be interest to know..
• line 77-80 could be implemented earlier in the introduction section
• methods - partecipants: please re-write clearer these sentences about inclusion criteria
• method section: try to be more coincise when speaking about tests; I suggest to add more references to strengthen your research. Have a look at method section of http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/96049
• pay attention to describe acronyms in your figures!
• line 279-290 should be included in the discussion section, not in the conclusions!
• I think you could also a couple of sentences about the practical impact of your findings in everyday basketball life - i.e. injury prevention (https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/6/3/75) 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Most of them have been incorporated into the manuscript, so I will comment only on some of them.

Line 50: We added a citation that you suggested and also one more citation. 

Line 57: I think this is a misunderstanding, my sentence "that ability to react to an external stimulus is an effective method of differentiating the skill level of athletes" means, that the agility test with reactive conditions is more suitable, not reaction time tests. Moreover, that article does not support this information, because it does not differentiate the skill level of athletes. 

Methods - participants: I have tried to re-write that sentence to be more clear. 

Method section: I have added the references in jump tests and also the protocol we followed in reaction time tests. 

Acronyms in figures were additionally added.

Line 279-190: A similar paragraph can be found in the discussion. We have to repeat it here to get to the main conclusion of this study. 

The conclusion has to be supported by the results. Practical impact includes contribution in diagnostics and measurements, suitability of the test used in the diagnostic of the sports performance. I am not sure that I could connect it appropriately with i.e. injury prevention. However, we have added practical impact in terms of developing a new reactive agility test which could differentiate more sensitively athletes of different sports and their demands on sensory and motor components of reactive agility. 

Thank you. 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Please:

 

Abstract

Abstract: Y-shaped agility test is a reactive agility test that includes both sensory and motor components. However, there is a lack of information about the contribution of these components to reactive agility in basketball players. Therefore, this study investigates: i) the relationship between Y-shaped agility performance, sprint speed, change of direction speed) and ii) determinants of this reactive agility test.

(....)

 

Please, insert a clear conclusion, study limitations and future research

 

Keywords: change of direction speed (to long).

 

“Regarding the structure of the Y-shaped agility test (velocity-oriented with two choice reaction to visual stimuli), higher contribution of the motor component to the performance in this test can be assumed.”

Please, justify your choice with studies .

 

Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Eleven competitive male basketball players volunteered to participate in this study (20.0 83 ± 2.0, 186.0 ± 4.1 cm, 79.4 ± 8.9 kg):

 

11 players (small sample size).

Big limitation of study and concern for me.

Please, justify.

(...)

 

The procedures presented were in accordance with the ethical standards on human experimentation as stated in the Helsinki Declaration.

(...)

And:

Please, insert the Oviedo Convention.

 

2.2. Experimental procedure

 

Please, justify with studies.

 

 

2.3. Statistical Analyses

 

cf. Pallant (2011).

 

Pallant, J. (2011) SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program. 4th Edition, Allen & Unwin, Berkshire.

 

2.3. Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were computed in the statistical program SPSS for Windows (version 22.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)

 

Please, insert:

(...)

IBM SPSS for Windows (version 22.0, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)

 

4. Discussion

Please, insert two studies of 2020 and  two studies of 2021

 

Thanks!

Kind Regards

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. This manuscript has been proof-reading by the expert. However, it was not a native speaker, therefore we admit some minor language shortcomings. 

1. The purpose of this study was rewritten in accordance with your recommendation. A clearer conclusion with the recommendation for future research was added. The keyword was shortened.
2. I have justified that in line 78. 
3. Small sample size - it is already justified in this section. "The smaller number of training units per week was due to COVID-19 restrictions, which were valid in a given period of time." This was a part of my project which had a deadline and therefore it was not possible to wait for changes in restrictions. It is also mentioned as a big limitation of this study at the end of the discussion. We are aware of this limitation, however, it is not possible to change that retrospectively. 
4. Experimental procedure: We have added some studies with OptoGait system in jump tests and the protocol followed in reaction time tests. 
5. Statistical analyses: We have followed another manual available on: https://www.westga.edu/academics/research/vrc/assets/docs/spss_basics.pdf
6. Statistical analyses: The sentence was rewritten as you recommended.
7. We have added new citations from the years 2020 and 2021.

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for your answers. I appreciate the efforts of the authors. However, some issues remain unresolved. I do not find the authors' arguments convincing.

If the motor component (running speed) is so significant in the test result then the variation in training load over the test period may have a significant effect on the result. This was not explained.

As the authors themselves admit, the number of players is small. Is it therefore appropriate to publish such research.  The small number is a limitation which in this case disqualifies the study. The authors do not state what percentage of players participate in games at this level in Slovakia. I infer from the text of the manuscript that the respondents were from one sports club. This is also a major limitation. This is because training methodology can affect the results of the study. The adopted size would be justified in the case of research at the national team level.

COVID19 restrictions cannot be used to justify shortcomings in research methodology. It is clear from the authors' responses that a new quality of criteria for evaluating papers is emerging. If a study cannot be carried out on an informative group of subjects it should be refrained from. The need to account for the grant to publications, which is evident from the response.  This does not justify the publication of partial studies of little scientific or practical value in a reputable journal. I understand that the authors are unable to complete the research. Perhaps the work should be published in a local journal

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion. 

We have tried to do what was possible.

It was added the explanation of the training load of participants into the discussion and explained the possible significant effect on the results (see discussion). 

They were members of several clubs (not from only one club). All of them participated in the two highest leagues in Slovakia (percentage representation was approximately 50:50). We have asked their trainers for their training diary from that period. We found that their training load in terms of motor component did not differ significantly among these clubs. It means that their training load variation was low and this fact could have a significant effect on the results. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Great job that has been done!

Kind Regards

Author Response

Thank you!

Kind Regards.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The object of study is relevant and adequately justified in the introduction. However, in my opinion, there are important methodological issues that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
2. The sample does not seem of interest. What level of performance do they have? Three training sessions per week is what amateur teams do.
3. Pág 2. Line 85. The goalkeepers…….?
4. Pag 2. Line 90. Please specify the study design carried out. I assume correlational...
5. Pag 3 line 114. How was the 90^o knee flexion controlled? It is very important to guarantee the reproducibility of the article.
6. How expert was the evaluator for data collection?
7. have you calculate the intraclass correlation index and the coefficient of variation? Otherwise, how can you verify that your data is reliable, and your results go in that direction.
8. A correlation analysis is insufficient for the aim of the study. Perhaps you would have to perform a linear regression.
9. In table 1, please specify the units of measurement.
10. Your conclusions cannot be sustained by your results. The R² are very small and there is no deep analysis of the data.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of manuscript “Determinants of Y-shaped agility test in basketball players”

In general, the question of agility determinants in basketball players is a topic of interest to coaches, sport scientists and researchers. The use of statistics was simple, although appropriate, and the results were well presented. However, a major limitation of the study was the use of a flashing arrow stimulus in the Y shaped agility test. This type of stimulus does not represent the perceptual and decision-making demands of basketball or any other invasion sport. The reason is that high performance athletes need to search for relevant kinematic cues from their opponents actions to inform their response. Athletes use these cues to anticipate the direction their opponent will move, which allows the athlete to react faster. For example, see the research of Scanlan, who has used a Y shaped agility test with a human stimulus in basketball. Further, research consistently shows that higher standard athletes in a range of invasion sports can be distinguished from lower standard athletes based on agility tests involving reacting to a human stimulus (opponent), and not to a generic stimulus such as a flashing light or arrow. For this reason, the agility test used in this study lacks validity.

Specific comments

Line 27: change “considers” to “considered”

32: “…suggesting that they are measuring…”

49: Start the sentence with “Invasion sports…”

69: “…investigated the relationship…”

84: Goal keepers are not used in basketball. This doesn’t make sense.

103: “…had to decide and respond as fast…”

How was height measured in the squat jump and CMJ tests?

Were the hands kept on the hips for the CMJ test?

How was jump height and contact time measured in the drop jump test?

What is the rationale for selecting these 3 jump tests? Need to mention the strength qualities they assess.

Was the sprint test conducted indoors? What was the floor surface?

What order were all the tests conducted in? All these details are necessary.

What is the rationale for using the 505 COD test? Eg. what evidence is there for its relevance to basketball?

The limitation of the small sample size was acknowledged, which is good. Please keep in mind that with N=11, one or two data points can change the correlation coefficient significantly.

Figure 1 was a nice way to represent the results.

236: change “slightly” to “slight differences”

The results of this Y shaped test can not be compared to previous studies that have used a human stimulus. Unfortunately, the discussion lacked depth and insight, and could not really be related to basketball due to the different cognitive demands mentioned earlier.