Table 7 Measurement properties (validity and responsiveness) of the physiological tests and methodological quality scores

BP RTF 60 [81]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

38

Sign diff b/w groups

NRL (36.1 ± 7.2) vs. SRL (28.0 ± 5.6)

Fair

–

–

–

–

BP RTF 102.5 [81]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

38

Sign diff b/w groups

NRL (12.5 ± 4.3) vs. SRL (5.9 ± 3.9)

Fair

–

–

–

–

BP RTF 60% 1RM [81]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

26

No sign diff b/w NRL and SRL players

Poor

–

–

–

–

5 m sprint test [19]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

42

Sign diff b/w groups (First grade RL players vs. Second grade RL players)

Effect Size = 0.68

Fair

–

–

–

–

10 m sprint test [19]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

42

Sign diff b/w groups (First grade RL players vs. second grade RL players)

Effect size = 0.85

Fair

–

–

–

–

10 m sprint test [6]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

28

Sign diff b/w (Club RU players vs. Academy RU players) Effect size = 2.86

Poor

–

–

–

–

30 m sprint test [6]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

28

Sign diff b/w (club RU players vs. Academy RU players) Effect size = 1.61

Poor

–

–

–

–

505 test [19]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

42

No sign diff b/w between groups

Effect size = 0.28

Fair

–

–

–

–

Modified 505 test [19]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

42

No sign diff b/w groups

Effect size = 0.32

Fair

–

–

–

–

L run [19]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

42

No sign diff b/w groups

Effect size = 0.28

Fair

–

–

–

–

CODS test [6]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

28

Sign diff b/w groups. Effect size = 2.23

Poor

–

–

–

–

CODS test [74]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

30

No sign diff b/w groups (Low performance group, n = 15 vs. High performance group, n = 15)

Poor

–

–

–

–

T120S test [70]

Criterion validity

12

Sign corr in maximum heart rate b/w the 2 trials of T120S and W60 cycle test (r = 0.63 and 0.71).

No sign corr b/w 2 trials of T120S and W60 cycle test for post 3 min lactate (r = 0.11 and 0.10).

Poor

–

–

–

–

Yo-Yo IR2 [97]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

51

Sign diff b/w elite vs. sub-elite soccer players.

Poor

–

–

–

–

Hypothesis testing (convergent validity)

12

39

Sign corr b/w Yo-Yo IR2 and Yo-Yo IR1 (r = 0.74, p < 0.01) for the elite players.

Sign corr b/w Yo-Yo IR2 and Yo-Yo IR1 (r = 0.76, p < 0.01) for sub-elite players.

Poor

Hypothesis testing (convergent validity)

12

39

Sign corr b/w Yo-Yo IR2 and 35 m repeated sprint ability test (r = −0.74, p < 0.01) for elite players.

Moderate corr observed for sub-elite (r = −0.34, p < 0.05)

Poor

Criterion validity

13

12

Moderate corr for sub-elite players b/w Yo-Yo IR2 and treadmill test (r = 0.48, p < 0.01).

No significant corr for the elite players (r = 0.59, p < 0.10)

Poor

Yo-Yo IR1 [97]

Hypothesis testing (Known group validity)

51

Sign diff b/w elite (n = 12) vs. sub-elite (n = 39) soccer players

Poor

–

–

–

–

Hypothesis testing (convergent validity)

12

39

Very large corr b/w Yo-Yo IR1 and 35 m repeated sprint time (r = −0.80, p < 0.01) for elite players (n = 12).

Large corr b/w Yo-Yo IR1 and 35 m repeated sprint time (r = −0.51, p < 0.05) for sub-elite players (n = 39)

Poor

Criterion validity

12

39

Very large corr. b/w Yo-Yo IR1 and VO_2MAX for elite players (r = 0.76, p < 0.01).

Very large corr b/w Yo-Yo IR1 and VO_2MAX for sub-elite players (r = 0.73, p < 0.01).

Poor

Yo-yo IRT1 [92]

Hypotheses testing

(Known group validity)

60

Sign diff b/w groups (P < 0.001).

*ES = 3.78 elite Australian rules football (n = 20) vs. healthy group (n = 20).

Poor

–

–

–

–

Yo-yo IRT1 [88]

Hypotheses testing (Known group validity)

208

Sign diff b/w groups (p < 0.001)

ES = 0.94 (90% CI = 0.46–1.43) b/w U15 Elite vs. Sub-elite

Poor

–

–

–

–

Yo-yo IRT1 [89]

Hypotheses testing (Convergent validity)

22

Sign corr b/w

Yo-yo test performances and fitness performances during soccer match assessed using time motion analysis (r = 0.53–0.71, p < 0.05)

Poor

Repeated measures, 4 testing sessions [pre-preparation, mid preparation, start season, end season]

10

Sign diff in Yo-yo mean distance covered between preseason measures and seasonal measures (p < 0.05)

Sign diff in heart rate measures b/w preseason and seasonal measures (p < 0.05)

Poor

Criterion validity

17

Sign corr b/w Yo-yo test performances and time to fatigue (r = 0.79, p < 0.05) and maximal oxygen uptake (r = 0.71, p < 0.05)

Yo-Yo IRT1 [93]

Hypotheses testing (Known group validity)

106

Sign group differences in YY IRT1 among age categories (F = 25.3; p < 0.001).

*ES = 4.17 (U 13 vs.

U 19) p < 0.01

Poor

–

–

–

–

Yo-Yo IRT1 [94]

Hypotheses testing (Convergent validity)

24

Sign corr b/w Yo-Yo IRT1 and Yo-Yo IRT2 (r = 0.56–0.84)

–

Repeated measures

[(3 testing sessions of Yo-yo IRT1 before 11 wks of training + matches and 2 testing sessions post training + matches]

24

ES = 0.9 (90%CI = 0.66–1.18);

SWC = 3.7%;

MDC = 20.2%;

% changes after training = 14.5%;

Probability of substantial changes btwn pre-and post-measures = 99.9%

Poor

Yo-Yo IRT2 [94]

Hypotheses testing (Convergent validity)

24

Sign corr b/w Yo-Yo IRT1 and Yo-Yo IRT2 (r = 0.56–0.84).

poor

Repeated measures

[(3 testing sessions of Yo-yo IRT2 before 11 wks of training + matches and 2 testing sessions post training + matches]

24

ES = 0.4 (90%CI = 0.17–0.69);

SWC = 4.8%;

MDC = 19.5%;

Yo-Yo IR1 [95]

Hypotheses testing (Convergent validity)

14

Large corr b/n Yo-yo IRT1 and 30–15 IFT (r = 0.75, 90%CI = 0.57–0.86)

Poor

Pre and post measures interspaced by an 8-week training intervention

14

Within-test % changes = +35% (90% CI = 24–45) for Yo-yo IRT1 vs. +7% (90% CI = 4–10) for 30–15 IFT

ES for the changes (standardised differences): Yo-yo IRT1 = 1.2 vs. 1.1 for 30–15 IFT

Poor

Yo-Yo IRT2 [98]

Criterion validity

13

A sign corr b/w Yo-yo IR2 and time to fatigue in the incremental running test (r = 0.74, p < 0.05)

Poor

Yo-Yo IRT2 [91]

Hypotheses testing (Concurrent validity)

18

High positive corr found b/w Yo-Yo IRT2 and PRT >85% MHR during the match (r = 0.71, p = 0.001)

Poor

–

–

–

Vertical (Sargent) jump test [90]

Criterion validity

45

ICC = 0.99 (95% CI = 0.97–1.00) p = 0.001

Fair

–

–

–