This study investigates the concurrent validity of the Sportreact single-beam timing system with a standard dual-beam system for the evaluation of linear and change of direction speed. Forty-two youth soccer players (age = 12.9 ± 1.1 years) performed linear sprints (10 and 30 m splits) and 505 Agility Test. The times were measured by both systems simultaneously. The single-beam timing system was set at a height of 64 cm from the ground, while the dual-beam system was set at 67 and 90 cm for the lower and upper beam, respectively. The results showed very high intraclass correlation coefficients for the 10 m sprint (ICC (95% CI); 0.95 (0.93–0.98)), 30 m sprint (0.99 (0.98–0.99)), and 505 Agility Test (0.98 (0.98–0.99)), with a low typical error of estimates (TEEs (%) = 2.16%, 1.12%, and 1.05%, respectively). However, TEE of 0.046 s in the 10 m sprint test overlapped the smallest worthwhile change (≈0.030 s). Bland-Altman analyses showed 95% LoA ranging from −0.086 to 0.093 s for the 10 m sprint, −0.115 to 0.106 s for the 30 m sprint, and −0.055 to 0.049 for 505 agility tests. The Sportreact single-beam timing system provides a useful tool for linear sprint (≥30 m) and change of direction speed tests only when considering heterogeneous groups but not individual athletes. However, this system should not be used interchangeably with a dual-beam systems for the assessment of linear and change of direction sprint tests in youth team sport players.
NegraYChaabeneHHammamiM, et al. Agility in young athletes: is it a different ability from speed and power?J Strength Cond Res2017; 31: 727–735.
2.
Nygaard FalchHGuldteig RædergårdHvan den TillaarR. Effect of different physical training forms on change of direction ability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sport Med - Open2019; 5: 53.
3.
YoungWBDawsonBHenryGJ.Agility and change-of-direction speed are independent skills: implications for training for agility in invasion sports. Int J Sport Sci Coach2015; 10: 159–169.
4.
RobertsonSWoodsCGastinP.Predicting higher selection in elite junior Australian Rules football: the influence of physical performance and anthropometric attributes. J Sci Med Sport2015; 18: 601–606.
5.
Quílez-MaimónASiquier-CollJNadalCA, et al. Relationship between talent identification and change of direction in young basketball players. Phys Educ Theory Methodol2023; 23: 133–142.
6.
RyanCUthoffAMcKenzieC, et al. Traditional and modified 5-0-5 change of direction test: normative and reliability analysis. Strength Cond J2022; 44: 22–37.
7.
MoranJPaxtonKJonesB, et al. Variable long-term developmental trajectories of short sprint speed and jumping height in English Premier League academy soccer players: an applied case study. J Sports Sci2020; 38: 2525–2531.
8.
Bidaurrazaga-LetonaICarvalhoHMLekueJA, et al. Aplicabilidade de um teste de agilidade em jovens futebolistas em campo. Rev Bras Med do Esporte2015; 21: 133–138.
9.
EdwardsTWeakleyJBanyardHG, et al. Influence of age and maturation status on sprint acceleration characteristics in junior Australian football. J Sports Sci2021; 39: 1585–1593.
10.
SanderAKeinerMWirthK, et al. Influence of a 2-year strength training programme on power performance in elite youth soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci2013; 13: 445–451.
HaugenTATønnessenESeilerSK.The difference is in the start: impact of timing and start procedure on sprint running performance. J Strength Cond Res2012; 26: 473–479.
13.
AltmannSSpielmannMEngelFA, et al. Validity of single-beam timing lights at different heights. J Strength Cond Res2017; 31: 1994–1999.
14.
AltmannSHoffmannMKurzG, et al. Different starting distances affect 5-m sprint times. J Strength Cond Res2015; 29: 2361–2366.
15.
HaugenTATønnessenESvendsenIS, et al. Sprint time differences between single- and dual-beam timing systems. J Strength Cond Res2014; 28: 2376–2379.
16.
HealyRNorrisMKennyIC, et al. A novel protocol to measure short sprint performance. Procedia Eng2016; 147: 706–711.
17.
AltmannSRinghofSBeckerB, et al. Error-correction processing in timing lights for measuring sprint performance: does it work?Int J Sports Physiol Perform2018; 13: 1400–1402.
18.
ParpaKMichaelidesM.Age-related differences in the anthropometric and physical fitness characteristics of young soccer players: a cross-sectional study. Children2022; 9: 650.
19.
MalinaRMRogolADCummingSP, et al. Biological maturation of youth athletes: assessment and implications. Br J Sports Med2015; 49: 852–859.
20.
PaulDJNassisGP.Physical fitness testing in youth soccer: issues and considerations regarding reliability, validity and sensitivity. Pediatr Exerc Sci2015; 27: 301–313.
21.
MulthuaptffWFernández-PeñaEMoreno-VillanuevaA, et al. Concurrent-validity and reliability of photocells in sport: a systematic review. J Hum Kinet2023; 92: 53–71.
22.
StewartPFTurnerANMillerSC.Reliability, factorial validity, and interrelationships of five commonly used change of direction speed tests. Scand J Med Sci Sport2014; 24: 500–506.
23.
Dos’SantosTMcBurnieAThomasC, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cutting techniques: a review and practical applications. Strength Cond J2019; 41: 40–54.
24.
YoungWRaynerRTalpeyS.It’s time to change direction on agility research: a call to action. Sport Med - Open2021; 7: 12.
25.
HornikovaHSkalaFZemkovaE.Sport-specific differences in key performance factors among handball, basketball and table tennis players. Int J Comput Sci Sport2023; 22: 31–41.
26.
BüchelDGokelerAHeuvelmansP, et al. Increased cognitive demands affect agility performance in female athletes: implications for testing and training of agility in team ball sports. Percept Mot Skills2022; 129: 1074–1088.
27.
SinkovicFNovakDForeticN, et al. The effects of biological age on speed-explosive properties in young tennis players. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol2023; 8: 48.
28.
SinkovicFForeticNNovakD.Reliability, validity and sensitivity of newly developed tennis-specific reactive agility tests. Sustain2022; 14: 13321.
29.
MirwaldRLBaxter-JonesADGBaileyDA, et al. An assessment of maturity from anthropometric measurements. Med Sci Sports Exerc2002; 34: 689–694.
30.
EarpJENewtonRU.Advances in electronic timing systems: considerations for selecting an appropriate timing system. J Strength Cond Res2012; 26: 1245–1248.
31.
YeadonMRKatoTKerwinDG.Measuring running speed using photocells. J Sports Sci1999; 17: 249–257.
32.
BlandJMAltmanDG.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–10.
BuchheitMMendez-VillanuevaA.Reliability and stability of anthropometric and performance measures in highly-trained young soccer players: effect of age and maturation. J Sports Sci2013; 31: 1332–1343.
35.
O’DonnellSTavaresFMcMasterD, et al. The validity and reliability of the GymAware linear position transducer for measuring counter-movement jump performance in female athletes. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2018; 22: 101–107.
36.
YıldızMFidanU.The reliability and validity of the fitjump photoelectric cell system for determining vertical jump height. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2020; 24: 56–64.
37.
TomczakMTomczakE.The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci2014; 1: 19–25.
38.
HopkinsWG.Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sport Med2000; 30: 1–15.
39.
NikolaidisPTKnechtleBClementeF, et al. Reference values for the sprint performance in male football players aged from 9–35 years. Biomed Hum Kinet2016; 8: 103–112.
40.
ChenZBianCLiaoK, et al. Validity and reliability of a phone app and stopwatch for the measurement of 505 change of direction performance: a test-retest study design. Front Physiol2021; 12: 743800.
41.
ChristouMSmiliosISotiropoulosK, et al. Effects of resistance training on the physical capacities of adolescent soccer players. J Strength Cond Res2006; 20: 783–791.
ClarkeRReadPJDe Ste CroixMBA, et al. Phases of the traditional 505 test: between session and direction reliability. Mov Sport Sci - Sci Mot2020; 2020: 21–27.
