Validity of the SKILLCOURT® technology for agility and cognitive performance assessment in healthy active adults.

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.

Reliability and Usefulness of the SKILLCOURT as a Computerized Agility and Motor-Cognitive Testing Tool.

INTRODUCTION: Agility and cognitive skills are essential in sports. However, standardized agility assessment tools often lack a reactive component, and cognitive assessments are performed using computer-based or paper-pencil tests. The SKILLCOURT is a newly developed testing and training device allowing agility and cognitive assessments in a more ecologically valid setting. This study evaluated the reliability and sensitivity to changes in performance (usefulness) of the SKILLCOURT technology. METHODS: In a test-retest (7 d, 3 months) design, 27 healthy adults (♀ = 12; age, 24.9 ± 3.3 yr) performed three trials of agility (Star Run, Random Star Run) and motor-cognitive tests (1-back, 2-back, executive function). Absolute and relative intersession and intrasession reliability was determined using the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). A repeated-measures ANOVA was applied to identify potential learning effects between trials and test sessions. The smallest worthwhile change and typical error (TE) were calculated to investigate the intrasession and intersession usefulness of the tests. RESULTS: Agility tests revealed good relative and absolute intersession (ICC, 83-0.89; CV, 2.7%-4.1%) and intrasession (ICC, 7-0.84; CV, 2.4%-5.5%) reliability accompanied by adequate usefulness from test day 3 onward. Motor-cognitive tests showed good relative intersession reliability (ICC, 0.7-0.77) with marginal CV values (4.8%-8.6%). Adequate intrasession reliability and usefulness can be assumed from test day 2 (1-back test, executive function test) and day 3 (2-back test) onward. For all tests, learning effects were observed within and compared with test day 1. CONCLUSIONS: The SKILLCOURT is a reliable diagnostic tool for assessing reactive agility and motor-cognitive performance. Because of learning effects, sufficient familiarization with the tests is required when used for diagnostic purposes.

Acute effects of an injury preventive warmup programme on unanticipated jump-landing-task performance in adult football players: A crossover trial.

HIGHLIGHTS: Adapting movements rapidly to unanticipated external stimuli (e.g. unexpected landings) is crutial to prevent injuries in footballIt is unclear wether popular neuromuscular injury preventive warmup programmes (e.g. Prevent injury and Enhance Performance (PEP)) adaquatly prepare athletes for these situationsOur study shows that the PEP warm up programme has acute effects on anticipated landing stability, but no influence on unanticipated landings or decision making qualityClassic neuromuscular warm up programmes may not be the optimal choice to prepare athletes properly for the upcoming motor-cognitive demands in a football match.

Effects of Open Skill Visuomotor Choice Reaction Time Training on Unanticipated Jump-Landing Stability and Quality: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Adapting movements rapidly to unanticipated external stimuli is paramount for athletic performance and to prevent injuries. We investigated the effects of a 4-week open-skill choice-reaction training intervention on unanticipated jump-landings. Physically active adults (n = 37; mean age 27, standard deviation 2.7 years, 16 females, 21 males) were randomly allocated to one of two interventions or a control group (CG). Participants in the two intervention groups performed a 4-week visuomotor open skill choice reaction training, one for the upper and one for the lower extremities. Before and after the intervention, two different types of countermovement jumps with landings in split stance position were performed. In the (1) pre-planned condition, we informed the participants regarding the landing position (left or right foot in front position) before the jump. In the (2) unanticipated condition, this information was displayed after take-off (350-600 ms reaction time before landing). Outcomes were landing stability [peak vertical ground reaction force (pGRF) and time to stabilization (TTS)], and landing-related decision-making quality (measured by the number of landing errors). To measure extremity-specific effects, we documented the number of correct hits during the trained drills. A two-factorial (four repeated measures: two conditions, two time factors; three groups) ANCOVA was carried out; conditions = unanticipated versus pre-planned condition, time factors = pre versus post measurement, grouping variable = intervention allocation, co-variates = jumping time and self-report arousal. The training improved performance over the intervention period (upper extremity group: mean of correct choice reaction hits during 5 s drill: +3.0 hits, 95% confidence interval: 2.2-3.9 hits; lower extremity group: +1.6 hits, 0.6-2.6 hits). For pGRF (F = 8.4, p < 0.001) and landing errors (F = 17.1, p < 0.001) repeated measures effect occurred. Significantly more landing errors occurred within the unanticipated condition for all groups and measurement days. The effect in pGRF is mostly impacted by between-condition differences in the CG. No between-group or interaction effect was seen for these outcomes: pGRF (F = 0.4, p = 0.9; F = 2.3, p = 0.1) landing errors (F = 0.5, p = 0.6; F = 2.3, p = 0.1). TTS displayed a repeated measures (F = 4.9, p < 0.001, worse values under the unanticipated condition, improvement over time) and an interaction effect (F = 2.4, p = 0.03). Healthy adults can improve their choice reaction task performance by training. As almost no transfer to unanticipated landing successfulness or movement quality occurred, the effect seems to be task-specific. Lower-extremity reactions to unanticipated stimuli may be improved by more specific training regimens.

Lower Extremity Open Skill Training Effects on Perception of Visual Stimuli, Cognitive Processing, and Performance.

This study investigates if lower extremity open-skill training impacts perception and cognitive processing abilities or just influences task related motor abilities. Twenty-two participants (24.7 ± 2.4years; 11 males, 11 females) were randomly allocated either into the group that trained on a computerized device or to the control group. Prior to and following the 4-week study period, motor performance was assessed using drop jump, hexagon test, postural control and lower extremity choice reaction. Perception, cognitive processing and task inhibition were captured using validated neurocognitive tests. Repeated measurements analyses of co-variances (ANCOVAs) were performed. They revealed a time (before and after intervention) × group (training vs. control) effect on lower extremity choice reaction and hexagon (p < .05). No effects on group differences or between groups in cognitive performance were found. A detrimental effect of training on accuracy of task inhibition (lower percentage of correct inhibitions) was detected. Computerized open skill training affects specific movement patterns without increasing task-relevant cognitive or perceptual abilities. Indicated by the lower percentage of correct inhibitions, the training might further detrimentally influence the risk-taking behavior during choice reaction tasks.

Intra- and inter-rater reliability of joint range of motion tests using tape measure, digital inclinometer and inertial motion capturing.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice range of motion (RoM) is usually assessed with low-cost devices such as a tape measure (TM) or a digital inclinometer (DI). However, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of typical RoM tests differ, which impairs the evaluation of therapy progress. More objective and reliable kinematic data can be obtained with the inertial motion capture system (IMC) by Xsens. The aim of this study was to obtain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TM, DI and IMC methods in five RoM tests: modified Thomas test (DI), shoulder test modified after Janda (DI), retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (DI), lateral inclination (TM) and fingertip-to-floor test (TM). METHODS: Two raters executed the RoM tests (TM or DI) in a randomized order on 22 healthy individuals while, simultaneously, the IMC data (Xsens MVN) was collected. After 15 warm-up repetitions, each rater recorded five measurements. FINDINGS: Intra-rater reliabilities were (almost) perfect for tests in all three devices (ICCs 0.886-0.996). Inter-rater reliability was substantial to (almost) perfect in the DI (ICCs 0.71-0.87) and the IMC methods (ICCs 0.61-0.993) and (almost) perfect in the TM methods (ICCs 0.923-0.961). The measurement error (ME) for the tests measured in degree (°) was 0.9-3.3° for the DI methods and 0.5-1.2° for the IMC approaches. In the tests measured in centimeters the ME was 0.5-1.3cm for the TM methods and 0.6-2.7cm for the IMC methods. Pearson correlations between the results of the DI or the TM respectively with the IMC results were significant in all tests except for the shoulder test on the right body side (r = 0.41-0.81). INTERPRETATION: Measurement repetitions of either one or multiple trained raters can be considered reliable in all three devices.