Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 1192-1196

O 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association

RELATIONSHIP OF JUMPING AND AGILITY

PERFORMANCE IN FEMALE VOLLEYBALL ATHLETES
JACQUE L . BAR?JES, BRIAN K. SCHILLING, MICHAEL J. FALVO, LAWRENCE W. WEISS,
ANDREA K. CREASY, AND ANDREW C . FRY

Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Exercise Neuromechanics Laboratory, Memphis, TN 38152.
Barnes, J.L.. B.K. Schilling, M.J. Falvo, L.W. Weiss,
A.K. Creasy, and A.C. Fry. Relationship of jumping and agility
performance in female volleyball athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res.
21(4):1192-1196. 2007.Court sports often require more frequent changes of direction (COD) than field sports. Most court
sports require 180" turns over a small distance, so COD in such
sports might he hest evaluated with an agility test involving
short sprints and sharp turns. The purposes ofthis study were
to (al quantify vertical and horizontal force during a COD task,
(hi identify possible predictors of court-sport-specific agility performance, and (c) examine performance difference hetween National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, and III athletes. Twenty-nine collegiate female volleyball players completed
a novel agility test, countermovement (CMl and drop jump tests,
and an isometric leg extensor test. The number of athletes hy
division was as follows: I (n = 9), II Ui ^ 11), and III (a = 9).
The agility test consisted of 4 5-meter sprints with 3 180" turns,
including 1 on a multiaxial force platform so that the kinetic
properties of the COD could be identified. One-way analysis of
variance revealed that Division I athletes had significantly
greater countermovement jump heights than Division III, and
the effect size comparisons (Cohen's d) showed large-magnitude
differences between Division I and both Divisions II and III for
jump height. No other differences in performance variahles were
noted between divisions, although effect sizes reached moderate
values for some comparisons. Regression analysis revealed that
CM displacement was a significant predictor of agility performance, explaining approximately 34% of the variance. Vertical
force was found to account for much of the total force exerted
during the contact phase of the COD task, suggesting that performance in the vertical domain may limit the COD task used
herein. This study indicates that individuals with greater CM
performance also have quicker agility times and suggests that
training predominantly in the vertical domain may also yield
improvements in certain types of agility performance. This may
bold true even if such agility performance requires a horizontal
component.
ABSTRACT.

KEY WORDK.

change of direction, vertical jump, isometric leg ex-

tensor action
INTRODUCTION
gility has been defined many ways, including
"the whole body quick/accurate movement in
response to a stimulus" (1) and "the abiUty to
change direction, as well as to start and stop
quickly" (3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 19, 33), However, it
may be more reasonable to define agility as the ability to
change direction with a minimal loss of control and/or average speed. Agility training is commonly implemented
in strength and conditioning programs; however, limited
scientific literature is available providing specific detail
on how best to train for agility. Most research on agility
performance has been concerned with injury mechanisms
(4, 16, 20, 25) and not on mechanics of these types of
movements in regard to optimizing performance. To better explain agility. Young and colleagues (34) suggested

a model (Figure 1) that separated agility into components

of perceptual and decision-making factors and performance factors (cbange-of-direction speed). Yet, due to the
larger number of potential performance factors in Young's
model (34), it appears that these performance factors may
play more of a role in defining agility than the perceptual
and decision-making factors, Tberefore, identification of
tbe performance variables undergirding change of direction (COD) may enable us to better explain agility.
Because tbe limiting factor in sprinting is the vertical
force due to the acceleration of gravity and because bigh
horizontal force production is demanded (24), agility
movements likely involve tbese same components. In addition, it appears tbat a significant inverse relationsbip
exists between ground contact time and maximum sprint
velocity (31), suggesting that tbe requisite force needs to
be reached in a short peiiod during sprinting. Tbis can
also be related to quick contact phases during COD. As
for predictors of sprinting performance, Costill and colleagues (5) found a significant correlation between sprint
and vertical jump tests, suggesting that vertical force production may be crucial to sprinting. Wisloff and others
(30) also demonstrated that both sprinting performance
and vertical jump beigbt significantly correlate witb dynamic maximum strength, Mero and others (18) found a
correlation between jumping performance and maximal
running velocity, as well as a strong correlation of bigh
fast twitcb muscle fiber content and maximal running velocity. Findings concerning these relationships have been
somewbat equivocal; a recent study (14) analyzed maximum speed, agility, and acceleration and found these 3
qualities to be relatively unrelated.
Otber investigations bave correlated agility type tests
witb eitber speed or jumping tests. One agility-related
investigation (23) found that T-test performance could be
predicted from leg power, leg speed, and agility, again
suggesting a relationship between sprinting cbaracteristics and agility. Another study (34) compared a drop jump
(DJ) test witb 8 difTerent COD tests consisting of varying
distances, turns, and straigbt sprints and suggested tbat
tbe DJ test was significantly correlated witb both straight
sprinting speed and COD speed due to a similarity in the
pusbing-off actions. These studies suggest that a relationship exists, but tbere is a relative paucity of data concerned directly witb agility performance,
Tbe lack of data in tbe area of testing and training
agility for court sports suggests a need for more research.
Furthermore, given tbat tbese sports frequently use only
short sprints (approximately 5 m) and many sbarp turns,
the utilization of an agility test mimicking tbese characteristics would likely be ideal. It appears tbat no test of
the like has been used in scientific researcb witb sensitive
measures of ground reaction forces. Tberefore, the pur-

1192

COD AND JUMPING IN FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYKRS

1193

L
Poiepluol D
malang Ktms
/
,

Unix
Kanng

AnlidpMion

Pawm
01 Uuiucins

FODl
ptacemem

1. Theoretical model indicating the main factorH in

determining agility.
FIGURE

pose of this investigation was to describe jumping and

a^nlity performance in female collegiate volleyball players, distinguisb between the vertical and horizontal forces
during a COD movement, and correlate agility performance witb force-time variables from vertical jump and
isometric leg extensor performance. We hypothesized that
tbe majority of the total force during a COD movement
would be vertical and that vertical jumps and isometric
leg extensor actions would be highly related to agility performance.
METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

This investigation involved a comparison of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I. II. and III
female volleyball athletes, as well as a correlational study
of the relationship between a specific test of agility and
several performance variables in the vertical domain. Kinetic properties of foot contact during COD were also examined. A test-retest design was incorporated to assess
the reliahility and precision of the various performance
variahles so that only appropriate ones would be considered in the overall investigation. The agility test was designed to reflect the short distance and very sbarp turns
typically involved in court sports.
Subjects
A group of 29 female collegiate volleyball players volunteered for this study before preseason training. Athletes
from Division I in = 9), II In = 11), and III in = 9) teams
participated. Descriptive data for each group are sbown
in Table 1. Subjects bad similar training programs involving botb COD drills and free-weight and machine
training. Health history and physical activity questionnaires were completed by all subjects prior to testing to
determine eligibility. All procedures were approved by the
University Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research. Subjects were required to attend 3 sessions involving testing of vertical jump, agility, and isometric leg extensor action performance. During the initial
visit, subjects were allowed to practice all procedures after
providing written informed consent. The next 2 sessions
were identical, consisting of 2 trials of each performance
TABLE 1. Comparison of National Collegiate
ciation divisions (mean SD).
Division 11
Division I
in - 11)
Variable
in = 9)
20.3 1.5
Age
19.6 1.4
177.9 6.3
Height (cm)
174.3 7.7
Weight (kg)
73.3 7.7
71.5 9.8

2. Force platform setup. The force platform is adhered to thefloor,and the platform is built around it.

FIGURE

test. The best trial for each performance test during the
session was used for analysis, and test-retest reliability
was establisbed hetween the second and tbird testing session. Test order was counterbalanced for all subjects, and
a minimum of 3 days separated eacb session. Subjects
were instructed to wear the same footwear for all testing
sessions.
Procedures
Agility Test. The agility test was completed on a 6-m x
1-m custom-designed testing platform (Figure 2) with a
built-in AMTI multidimensional force platform
(,BP60090(); Watertown, MA). Tbe force platform was interfaced to a PC via a 12-bit analog-digital converter
(PCI-DAS 1200; Measurement Computing, Middleboro,
MA) in order to collect force-time data. Data were sampled at 1.000 Hz, and the force signal was smoothed using
a fourth-order recursive low-pass Butterworth filter with
a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz. Tbe 5-meter agility test start/
flnish was marked directly over tbe center of tbe force
platform. The .suhjects began the test with the right foot
on the force platform. Upon a verbal signal, the subject
pivoted on tbe left foot and sprinted 5 meters, planted the
left foot, then turned 180'' to the right, changing to the
opposite direction, and sprinted back to the force platform
(Figure 3). The subject next planted tbe right foot on the
force platform, turned 180" to the left, and changed directions to the contralateral side, using the left foot as
the first step in the new direction. The subject then
sprinted back, with another 180' rigbt turn, changing to
the opposite direction. Last, tbe subject finished the test
by sprinting 5 meters back to the start by running over
the force platform with one foot, thereby stopping the
test. Two trials were performed, and the trial with the
best time from toe-off to beel-down of tbe last foot contact

Athletic AssoDivision III

in = 9)
20.0 1.3
171.0 8.0
69.8 6.9

Sm
-4

-r

H
FIGURE

3. Custom agility test.

Start

1194

BARNES, SCHILLING, FALVO ET AL.

TABLE 2. Performance variables by division.*

Variable
TIME (s)
VFORCE(N)
HFORCE(N)
CMHT (cm)
DJCT (s)
DJHT (cm)
DJRSI ( e m s '
PF(N)

Division I {n - 9)
Division ll (n = 11)
Division III in - 9)
5,93 0.2
6.00 0.2
6.1 0.2
1,487.3 237.0
1,495.4 339.3
1,335.3 196.7
666.7 86.7
620.0 93.4
614.9 98.6
36.4 2.5t
31.8 4.6
30.2 7.2
0.42 0.9
0.42 0.6
0.44 0.5
36.0 1.3
32.1 4.9
32.6 5.1
87.2 18.5
78.1 15.9
72.7 14.5
1,374.6 196.6
1,260.7 393.0
1,523.9 350.3
^^ TIME - total agility test time; VFORCE - vertical force during change of direction; HFORCE - horizontal force during change
of direction; CMHT = countennovement jump height; DJCT = drop jump ground contact time; DJHT = drop jump height; DJRSI
=^ drop jump reactive strength index; PF ^ isometric leg extensor action peak force.
t p < 0.05 hetween Divisions I and III.
was analyzed with Datapac 2K2 (v3.12; Mission Viejo,
CA). Variables of interest included time of test from toeoff to heel-down (TIME), contact time during COD (CT),
and force in the vertical (VFORCE) and horizontal
(HFORCE) direction.
Vertical Jumps. Two types of vertical jumps, countermovement (CM) jump and DJ, were performed with a
Vertec device placed adjacent to the force piatform to obtain actual jump-and-reach height. Two trials of each
jump were measured with a 0.5- to 1.0-minute rest period
between trials. The hest trial defined hy jump height was
recorded, calculated as height measured hy the Vertec device subtracting out one hand reach height in a plantar
flexed position. Drop jump box height was constant for
each subject (30 cm) based on the methods of Newton et
al. (22). The reactive strength index (RSI) was used for
measurement of reactive strength (17). It was determined
by dividing DJ height by the ground contact time prior to
takeoff. Contact time was acquired on a force platform (2,
15) interfaced to a PC via a 12-bit analog-digital converter. Datapac 2K2 sampled data at 1,000 Hz, and the force
signal was smoothed using a fourth-order recursive lowpass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz
to hetter locate "on" and "off' time points. Variables of
interest were CM height (CMHT), DJ height (DJHT), DJ
contact time (DJCT), and DJ RSI (DJRSI).
Isometric Leg Extensor Action. The testing procedures
for the isometric leg extensor action followed the methods
of Young and colleagues (34). The .subject was positioned
on a vertical-only force platform (Roughdeck; Rice Lake
Weighing Systems, Rice Lake, Wl) in a position that proTABLE 3. Mean, SD, intraclass correlation (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CV) for subject population.*
Variable
CT(s)
TIME (s)t
VFORCE (N)t
HFORCE (N)t
CMHT(cm)t
DJCT (s)t
DJHT (cm)t
DJRSI (cm-sOt
PF (N)t

Mean
0.41
5.99
1,443.2
632.9
32.7
0.43
33.5
80.0
1,386.4

SD

ICC

0.05
0.21
271.4
92.6
5.5
0.07
4.4
15.4
330.5

0.39
0.69
0.80
0.71
0.89
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.87

cv%

10.7
1.9
8.6
9.1
7.2
8.7
7.6
13.5
11.9
* CT - contact time; TIME = total agihty test time; VFORCE
= vertical force during change of direction; HFORCE = horizontal force during change of direction; CMHT = countermovement
jump height; DJCT = drop jump ground contact time; DJHT =
drop jump height; DJRSI = drop jump reactive strength index;
PF = isometric leg extensor action peak force.
t Variahles considered both reliahle and precise.

hibited extension from the squatting position by placing

their shoulders under a fixed bar, positioned so the knee
angle was 120. The force platform was channeled
through a signal conditioner/amplifier (TMO-2; Transducer Techniques, Temecula, CA) that was interfaced to
a PC via a 12-bit analog-digital converter. Two trials were
performed, and the trial with the best peak force was analyzed with Datapac 2K2. Data were sampled at 1,000
Hz, and 5 seconds of passive demeaning was used to obviate force for the effect of body mass. The force signal
was smoothed using a fourth-order recursive low-pass
Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency set at 30 Hz.
The subjects were instructed to push as hard and fast as
possible for 2.5 to 4 seconds against the fixed bar, and
force was measured via the force platform below. A rest
period of 30 to 60 seconds followed each trial. Two trials
were completed, and the best performance in peak force
was used for statistical analysis.
Statistical Analyses
The better of 2 trials was used for analysis for each test.
The criterion for statistical significance was set at p s
0.05. Intraclass correlations (ICC;,,; 28) were performed
for the independent variables to determine test-retest reliability, and the coefficient of variation (CV^) was used
as a measure of precision (10). One-way analysis of variance was used to compare performance variables between athletes in the difTerent NCAA divisions, with Tukey posthoc analysis used to determine pairwise differences. Relationships between agility, jump, and isometric
leg extensor action measurements were then determined
by Pearson correlations. Prediction of TIME was performed via regression analysis based on the lack of potentiai multicollinearity in leg extensor action and jump
data (those variables that were correlated with values between -0.7 and 0.7). An alpha levei of 0.05 was used for
ali analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS
(14.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).
RESULTS
Performance results by NCAA division are sbown in Table 2. Athletes in NCAA Division I had significantly higher CMHT than those in Division III, but no significant
differences were noted between NCAA division for any
other variable (Table 2). A large effect size (Cohen's d ^
1.4) was noted between Divisions I and II for CMHT. The
grouped means, SD, Cy%, and ICC for all ofthe variables
are given in Table 3. Countermovement height (ICC =
0.89, CV - 7.2%), DJ contact time (ICC - 0.72, CV =
8.7%), DJ height (ICC - 0.78, CV - 7.6%), reactive
strength index (ICC - 0.75, CV - 13.5%), isometric leg

COD AND JUMPING IN FEMALE VOLLEYBAII PI.AYCRS

TABLE

TABLE 4. Bivariate correlations for select variables.*

Variable
TIME
CMHT
DJCT
DJHT

-0.580t

0.049
-0.328

-0.320
0.5281
-0.250

-0.223
0.545$
-0.775$
0.753$

RSI
PF

-0.373
0.421t
-0.053
0.435t
0.401

* TIME = total agility test time; CMHT = countermovement

jump height; DJCT ^ drop jump ground contact time; DJHT ^
drop jump beight; RSI = reactive strength index; PF = isometric
leg extensor action peak force.
t p < 0.05.

ip < 0.01.
extensor action peak force (ICC - 0.87, CV = 11.9%),
agility test total time fICC = 0.69, CV - 1.99f), VFORCE
(ICC = 0.80, CV = 8.6), and HFORCE (ICC - 0.71, CV%
= 9.1) were considered reliable and precise (CV% <15%;
26) for use in correlation and regression procedures. Other measures likely require more practice to be reliable or
may be inherently unusable for performance evaluation.
The magnitude of VFORCE was approximately twice the
magnitude of HFORCE during COD.
Bivariate correlations for the variables considered reliahle and precise are presented in Tahle 4. A significant
negative correlation existed hetween TIME and CMHT (r
= -0.580; p < 0.01). and CMHT was highly correlated
with DJHT, RSI, and PF (r = 0.528, 0.545, 0.421, respectively).
Stepwise multiple regression identified that CMHT
accounted for a total of 34% of tbe variance in TIME.
Preliminary examination of the results indicated that
there was no extreme multicollinearity in tbe data, witb
tolerance ranges from 0.7 to 1.0, and variance inflation
factors ranges from 1.0 to 1.4. Countermovement jump
beigbl (^ = -0.580, t = 0.018) was a significant contributor to tbe explanation of agility performance and was
significant at the 0.05 alpha level {Table 5). No otber variable explained an additional significant portion of the
variance in TIME.
DISCUSSION

The primary purposes ofthis investigation were to determine if vertical jump and isometric leg extensor action
variables could predict agility performance and to determine the magnitude of vertical and borizontal forces involved during cbange of direction. In support of our hypotbesis, tbe major finding in tbis study was that CMHT
can be used to predict agility test time and explain about
34% of the variance in agility test time. Also, it was observed that the majority ofthe total force during the COD
task was vertical, suggesting that performance in tbe vertical domain is a limiting factor in tbe COD task berein.
Because jumping ability is an obvious potential performance predictor for volleyball, it is not surprising that
the Division I athletes had significantly greater jump
heights tban Division III athletes. Performances on other
variables were similar, wbich indicates that these performance tests may not he good predictors of competitive
performance level for collegiate volleyball. Because little
is known about this subject population, it may be tbat
tbere is little difference in physical performance between
these levels and that other characteristics separate athletes into NCAA divisions.
Considering agility as defined in this study (the ahility

1195

5. Results of regression for agility test time.

Independent Variables

Model 1
Countermovement jump height 0.34 6.702 -0.580 0.009*
*p < 0.01.

to change direction with a minimal loss of speed and/or

control} and Young's (34) agility model, tbe results of
studies incorporating both sprinting and jumping can relate to the results heroin due to similarities among performance variables. Tbe relationship between agility performance and CM as found in this study is similar to results from other studies investigating sprinting rather
tban agility (9, 18, 21, 31), indicating that vertical domain
is an important predictor for hotb sprint and agility performance. It was stated by Kukolj and colleagues (13) tbat
"both maximal jumping and sprinting are generally considered as dynamic movements requiring high muscle
power and, therefore should be closely related" and because agility performance is also a dynamic movement
requiring bigb muscle power, it is reasonable to assume
jumping and agility performances would be closely related.
The relationship between agility and jumping performance found in this study is also in agreement with other
studies tbat examine sprinting performance. Mero and
colleagues (18) saw a significant correlation between
sprinting performance and jumping tests. They explained
that tbis relationship strongly related to the mechanical
characteristics of fast twitch muscle fihers and notably
tbat a bigher fast twitcb muscle fiber distribution was
found in the sprinters tested. Tbis is also supported by
Jaric and otbers (11), who found that measurable musculoskeletal parameters can be used to predict kinematic
variables. Nesser and colleagues (21) also suggested that
elastic muscle cbaracteristics emphasized during sprinting and jumping performances account for a relationsbip
among these bigb-velocity activities. Because a large component of the agility task in our investigation requires
sprint speed, the similar results to Mero (18) and Nesser
(21) are not surprising. Hennessy and Kilty (9) also found
that CM, DJ, and bounding jump tests relate to sprinting
performance. Botb the CM and DJ test were found to explain 63% of sprinting performance; however, tbe DJ test
explained 55%' ofthe relationship. Tbis is contrary to tbe
current study, in whicb CM variables alone, rather than
DJ variables, explained 34%' ofthe variance in agility performance.
Our investigation also sbowed that CMHT was bighly
correlated with DJHT, RSI, and PF, and tbus some redundancy exists in these measures. These other variables
may also be considered as possible predictors of agility
performance. It was also found in tbis study that CMHT
and DJHT were highly correlated.
Several variables of DJ performance were found to be
reliable; however, they were not significantly correlated
with agility test time. This result was surprising, because
tbe reactive strength index incorporated witb DJ involves
a short ground contact time, very similar to the agility
test contact times (0.30-0.50 s). Although tbe agility test
contact times had a low ICC (0.39), tbis may be due to
the low between-subject variability (28), because tbe precision was good according to Stokes (26). The lack of correlation hetween agility time and DJ may possibly be due
to tbe lack of the DJ action in spori.. It is perhaps more

1196 BARNES, SCHILLING, FALVO ET AL.

common to practice the CM jump, hecause it is most often

performed in sports.
Isometric leg extensor action peak force was found to
he reliable, but no significant relationsbip was found between isometric peak force and agility time. This lack of
significance could be explained by the fact that this test
does not involve a dynamic movement like the agility and
vertical jump tests do. HafF and others (8) found similarities among force variables of isometric and dynamic performance. However, Wilson (29) and Young (32) found
that isometric performance tests did not correlate witb a
dynamic sprint and jump tests and suggested tbat isometric measures are invalid in comparison with dynamic
measures. In addition, Wisloff (30) supported that dynamic strength tests could be used in comparison with
agility, sprinting, and jumping performance. It may be
possible that if the current study used a dynamic strength
test, a significant relationsbip may have been seen with
agility test performance.
Because of the original agility test used in this investigation, certain factors sbould be noted. It can be debated
whether using 3 COD within tbe agility task was appropriate or if just 1 COD would be more specific. Tbe vertical jump tests are much shorter in time, so the results
may have been stronger if only 1 COD movement was
used in the agility test. Tbe bilateral differences in the
ability to change direction are also of interest (27). Last,
the suhjects' stride variations were unaccounted for. However, the measurements of playable surface in sport
courts are limited and tbe same for all players, regardless
of stride length; tberefore, the restrictive parameter of 5
m used in this agility test should not have as great of an
influence.
Overall, this study suggests that CMHT could be used
in the prediction of performances involving COD movements. Tbis suggests that training in tbe vertical domain
may increase COD performance. With this establisbed,
future research could examine training vertical force
properties to improve agility and include more courtsport-specific tests of agility performance.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This study suggests that athletes witb greater CMHT

most likely have better agility performance. This is due
to the omnipresent effects of gravity; bowever, much of
the variance (-76%) is unaccounted for by vertical jump
beigbt. Also, it is possible that increases in vertical performance measures may improve agility performance, but
tbis relationship needs to be determined in longitudinal
training investigations.
REFERENCES

7.

D. Tl'MiLTY, A. QUINN, S. WOOLFORD, AND W. YOUNG. Testing protocols

for team sport players. In: Phynialc^ical Tests for Elite Mhletea. C.J. Gore,
ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp. 128-144.
8.

CHIU, L.Z.F.. B.K. SCHILLING, A.C. FRY, AND L.W. WEISS. Measurement

of resistance exercise force expression. J. Appl. Biomech. 20:204-212.

2004.
3. CljVRKE, H.H. Application of Measurement to Health and Phynical Education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1967. pp. 202205.
4.

COLBY, S.. A. FRANCiaro, B. Yn, D. KiRKENnAi.i., M. FINCH, AND W. GAR-

RETT. Electromyographic and kinematic analysis of cutting maneuvers.

Am. J. Sports Med. 28:234-240. 2000.
5. CosTiL[., D.. S- MiLLEii, W. MYERS. F. KEHOE, AND W. HoFrM,\N. Relationship among selected tests of explosive leg strength and power. Res.
Q. 39:785-7S7, 19686. DRAPt;ii, J.A.. AND M.G. LANCA-STER. The 505 Test: A test for agility in
the horizontal plane. Aust. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 17:15-18. 1985.

HAKK, G., M. STONE, H . O'BRVANT, E . HAKMAN, C. DINAN, R. JOHNSON.

ANii K. HAN. Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric musck- actions. J. Strength Cond. Rea. 11:269-272. 1997.
9. HENNEHSV, L., AND J . KILTY. Relationship ofthe stretch-shorten ing cycle
to sprint performance in trained female athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res.
15:326-331. 2001.
10. Hoi'KiNS, W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.
Sports Med. 30:375-381, 2000.
11-

JARIC, S., D. RISTANOVIC. AND D. CORCO.S. The relationship between mus-

cle kinetic parameters and kinematic variables in a complex movement.

Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 59:370-376. 1989.
12. JOHNSON, B.L. AND J.K. NELSON. Practical Meastirernents for Evaluation
in Physical Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company,
1986.
13. KuKOL.1, M., R. RoriiET, D. U<:AHKOVIC, AND S. JARIC. Anthnipometric,
strength, and power predictors of sprinting performance. J. Sports Med.
Phys. Fitness 39:120-122. 1999.
14. LITTLE, T., AND A, WILLIAMS. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed,
and agility in professional soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:7678. 2005.
15.

MAJOR, J., W. SANDS, J. MCNEAL, D- PAINK, AND R. KIPP. Design, con-

struction, and validation of a portable one-dimensional tbrcc platform. J.

Strength Co7id. Res. 12:37-41. 1998.
16. MCLEAN, S., R. NKAL, P. MYEKH, AND M. WA1.TER.S. Knee joint kinematicB
during the sidestep cutting maneuver: Potential for injury in women.
Med. Sci. Sports Exere. 31:959-968. 1999.
17. Mt:(;i,YMONT, D., AND A. HORE. Use of the reactive strength index as an
indicator of Plyoroetric training conditions. J. Sport Sci. 22:495-496.
2004.
18.

MERO, A.. P. LUHTANEN, J. VIITASALO, AND P. KOMI, Relationsbipa be-

tween the max;imal running velocity, muscle fiber characteristics, force

production and force relaxation of sprinters. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 3:1622. 1981.
19.

MILLER, J., S. HILBEHT. AND L. BROWN. Speed, quickness, and agility

training for senior tennis players. Strength Cond.. J. 23:62-66. 2001.

20.

NEPTUNE, R., I. WRIGHT, AND A. VAN DEN BOCKRT. Muscle coordination

and function during cutting movements. Med. Sd. Sports Exere. 31:294302. 1999.
21.

NESHER, T., R. LATIN, K. BERG, AND E . PRENTICE. Physiological deter-

minants of 40-meter sprint performance in young male athletes. J.

Strength Cond. Res. 10:263-267. 1996.
22. Nfc:vvTON, R., W. KKAEMER, AND K, HAKKINEN. Effects of ballistic training
on preseason preparation of elite volleyball players. Med. Sci. Sports Exere. 31:323-330. 1999.
23.

PAUOLE, K . K. MADOLK, J. GARHAMMER, M. LACOUHSE, AND R. ROZENEK.

Reliability and validity of agility, leg power, and leg speed in collegeaged men and women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14:443-450. 2000.
24. ScHLElHAUf, R. Bi.oniechani.es of Human Movement. Bloomington, IN:
Authorhouae, 2004. pp. 156-180.
25. SEL^', B.P. Ankle biomechanics during four landing techniques. Med. Sci.
Sports Exere. 33:1338-1344. 2001.
26. STOKES, M.J. Reliability and repeatability of methods for measuring
muscle in physiotherapy. Physiolhr Prai-t. 1:71-76. 1985.
27.

VAN SOEST, A., M. ROEBROECK, M- BOBBERT, P. HUUING, AND G. VAN

INGEN SCHKNAU. A comparison of one-legged and two-legged countermovement jumps. Med. Sci. Sports Exere. 17:635-639. 1985.
28. WE[R, J.P. Quantifying te.st-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:213-240.2005.
29.

WILSON, G., A. LVTTLE, K. O.STROWSKI, AND A. MURI'HV. Assessing dy-

namic performance: A comparison of rate of force development tests. J.

Strength Cond. Res. 9:176-181. 1995.
30.

WrwLOFE, U.. C, CASTACNA. J. HEI^-ERL'D, R. JONES, AND J. HOKF. Strong

correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 38:285-288.
2004.

1. CHELLAUL'RAI, P. Manifestations of agility. CAHPER J. 42:36^1. 197fi.

2.

Ei.i.LS, L., P. GASTIN, S. LAWRENCE, B . SAVAGE, A. SHEALEK, A. STAPFK,

31.

YOUNG. W., B. MCLEAN, AND J. ARDAGNA. Relationship between strength

qualities and sprinting performance. J. Sports Med. Phvs. Fitness 35:1319. 1995.
32.

YOUNG, W., G, WILSON, AND C. BYRNE. Relationship between strength

qualities and performance in standing and run-up vertical jumps. J.

Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 39:285-293. 1999.
33. Yoi!N(;, W., M- MCDOWELL, AND B. SCARLETT. Specificity of sprint and
agility training methods. J. Strength Cond. Re.f. 15:315--319. 2001,
34. Yoimt;, W., R, JAMES, AND I. MONTGOMERY. IS muscle power related to
running speed with changes of direction? J. Sports Med. Phy.t. Fitness
42:282-288. 2002.

Address correspondence to Brian ScbiUing, bschllng

memphis.edu.