Ava L Schwartz, Kylie A McGlone, Grant E Norte, Randi M Richardson, Moein Koohestani, Gaston Dudley, Matt S Stock, Meredith Chaput
{"title":"回归运动的两种视觉-认知双任务敏捷性评估的发展与可靠性。","authors":"Ava L Schwartz, Kylie A McGlone, Grant E Norte, Randi M Richardson, Moein Koohestani, Gaston Dudley, Matt S Stock, Meredith Chaput","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Return to sport assessments after lower-extremity injury/surgery focus on anticipated movement. However, sport requires unanticipated movements with intense visual-cognitive processing. Thus, our purpose was to test the reliability of 2 agility tests augmented with visual-cognitive dual tasks that simulate the attentional demands of sport to improve the ecological validity of return to sport assessments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six individuals (17 females, 23.1 [1.8] y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.1 [0.7]) participated in 2 study visits, 14 days apart. Each visit, participants completed a (1) Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle, (2) Reactive 5-10-5 Shuttle (RS), (3) Traditional Agility T-test (AT), and (4) Visual-Cognitive Reactive Agility T test (VCR-AT) in randomized order. Outcomes for the 5-10-5 Shuttles, included fastest reaction time (RS only), split time, and total time. Fastest total time was quantified for the Agility T-tests. Test-retest reliability was established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) using 2-way mixed effects models and 95% confidence intervals. Paired-samples t-tests assessed performance differences between traditional and visual-cognitive conditions (alpha = .05). Dual-task effect (DTE) was expressed by the percent change in performance when a cognitive challenge was added.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle split (ICC3,1 = .97 [.94 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .99 [.96 to .99]) demonstrated excellent reliability. RS split (ICC3,1 = .96 [.86 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .96 [.88 to .98]) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability. RS reaction time (ICC3,1 = .75 [.45 to .89]) demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability. The RS resulted in slower split (DTE = -24.24%, P < .001) and total time (DTE = -13.31%, P < .001) than the Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle. AT and VCR-AT total time both demonstrated excellent reliability (AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.92 to .99]; VCR-AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.95 to .99]). The VCR-AT resulted in a slower total time (DTE = -1.51%, P = .119) than the AT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Augmented agility assessments demonstrated good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for all outcomes except RS reaction time. A visual-cognitive dual-task significantly impaired physical performance for the 5-10-5 shuttle but not the Agility T-test. Augmenting agility assessments with visual-cognitive dual tasks is reliable and may improve the ecological lens of return to sport assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Reliability of 2 Visual-Cognitive Dual-Task Agility Assessments for Return to Sport.\",\"authors\":\"Ava L Schwartz, Kylie A McGlone, Grant E Norte, Randi M Richardson, Moein Koohestani, Gaston Dudley, Matt S Stock, Meredith Chaput\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/jsr.2024-0440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Return to sport assessments after lower-extremity injury/surgery focus on anticipated movement. However, sport requires unanticipated movements with intense visual-cognitive processing. Thus, our purpose was to test the reliability of 2 agility tests augmented with visual-cognitive dual tasks that simulate the attentional demands of sport to improve the ecological validity of return to sport assessments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six individuals (17 females, 23.1 [1.8] y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.1 [0.7]) participated in 2 study visits, 14 days apart. Each visit, participants completed a (1) Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle, (2) Reactive 5-10-5 Shuttle (RS), (3) Traditional Agility T-test (AT), and (4) Visual-Cognitive Reactive Agility T test (VCR-AT) in randomized order. Outcomes for the 5-10-5 Shuttles, included fastest reaction time (RS only), split time, and total time. Fastest total time was quantified for the Agility T-tests. Test-retest reliability was established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) using 2-way mixed effects models and 95% confidence intervals. Paired-samples t-tests assessed performance differences between traditional and visual-cognitive conditions (alpha = .05). Dual-task effect (DTE) was expressed by the percent change in performance when a cognitive challenge was added.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle split (ICC3,1 = .97 [.94 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .99 [.96 to .99]) demonstrated excellent reliability. RS split (ICC3,1 = .96 [.86 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .96 [.88 to .98]) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability. RS reaction time (ICC3,1 = .75 [.45 to .89]) demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability. The RS resulted in slower split (DTE = -24.24%, P < .001) and total time (DTE = -13.31%, P < .001) than the Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle. AT and VCR-AT total time both demonstrated excellent reliability (AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.92 to .99]; VCR-AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.95 to .99]). The VCR-AT resulted in a slower total time (DTE = -1.51%, P = .119) than the AT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Augmented agility assessments demonstrated good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for all outcomes except RS reaction time. A visual-cognitive dual-task significantly impaired physical performance for the 5-10-5 shuttle but not the Agility T-test. Augmenting agility assessments with visual-cognitive dual tasks is reliable and may improve the ecological lens of return to sport assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0440\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0440","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development and Reliability of 2 Visual-Cognitive Dual-Task Agility Assessments for Return to Sport.
Context: Return to sport assessments after lower-extremity injury/surgery focus on anticipated movement. However, sport requires unanticipated movements with intense visual-cognitive processing. Thus, our purpose was to test the reliability of 2 agility tests augmented with visual-cognitive dual tasks that simulate the attentional demands of sport to improve the ecological validity of return to sport assessments.
Design: Test-retest reliability.
Methods: Twenty-six individuals (17 females, 23.1 [1.8] y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.1 [0.7]) participated in 2 study visits, 14 days apart. Each visit, participants completed a (1) Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle, (2) Reactive 5-10-5 Shuttle (RS), (3) Traditional Agility T-test (AT), and (4) Visual-Cognitive Reactive Agility T test (VCR-AT) in randomized order. Outcomes for the 5-10-5 Shuttles, included fastest reaction time (RS only), split time, and total time. Fastest total time was quantified for the Agility T-tests. Test-retest reliability was established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) using 2-way mixed effects models and 95% confidence intervals. Paired-samples t-tests assessed performance differences between traditional and visual-cognitive conditions (alpha = .05). Dual-task effect (DTE) was expressed by the percent change in performance when a cognitive challenge was added.
Results: Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle split (ICC3,1 = .97 [.94 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .99 [.96 to .99]) demonstrated excellent reliability. RS split (ICC3,1 = .96 [.86 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .96 [.88 to .98]) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability. RS reaction time (ICC3,1 = .75 [.45 to .89]) demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability. The RS resulted in slower split (DTE = -24.24%, P < .001) and total time (DTE = -13.31%, P < .001) than the Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle. AT and VCR-AT total time both demonstrated excellent reliability (AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.92 to .99]; VCR-AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.95 to .99]). The VCR-AT resulted in a slower total time (DTE = -1.51%, P = .119) than the AT.
Conclusions: Augmented agility assessments demonstrated good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for all outcomes except RS reaction time. A visual-cognitive dual-task significantly impaired physical performance for the 5-10-5 shuttle but not the Agility T-test. Augmenting agility assessments with visual-cognitive dual tasks is reliable and may improve the ecological lens of return to sport assessments.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant.
JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.