Table 1 Relationships between different variables and change of direction performance
From: Alternatives to common approaches for training change of direction performance: a scoping review
Authors | N | Variables | COD task | Pre-planned/reactive | Relationships |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alemdaroglu 2012 [2] | 12 | Strength and power | T-test | Pre-planned | Force produced during a squat jump (r = – 0.47); force produced during a counter movement jump (r = – 0.59) |
Banda et al. 2019 [7] | 12 | Power | Pro-agility test | Pre-planned | Average power produced during a vertical jump (r = 0.74), peak power produced during a vertical jump (r = 0.59), peak power produced during a vertical jump relative to body mass (r = – 0.66), broad jump distance (r = – 0.80) |
Chaouachi et al. 2009 [14] | 14 | Power | T-test | Pre-planned | Total distance during a five horizontal jump test (r = – 0.61) |
Delaney et al. 2015 [17] | 31 | Strength and power | 505 test (changing direction to the dominant and non-dominant side) | Pre-planned | Squat one repetition maximum (kg) relative to body weight (r = – 0.52 for 505 dominant, r =– 0.55 for 505 non-dominant), lateral jump from dominant limb relative to height (r = – 0.34 for 505 dominant, r = – 0.65 for 505 non-dominant), lateral jump from non-dominant limb relative to height (r = – 0.42 for 505 dominant, r = – 0.56 for 505 non-dominant), peak power produced during a counter movement jump relative to body mass (r = – 0.47 for 505 dominant, r = – 0.48 for 505 non-dominant) |
Dos'Santos et al. 2021 [19] | 61 | Kinetic and kinematic variables | cutting task with a 90° change of direction | Pre-planned | Greater velocity at final foot contact (r = – 0.75) and exit (r = – 0.73), faster approach velocity (r = – 0.66), greater peak (r = – 0.64) and mean (r = – 0.53) propulsive forces, greater medial lateral propulsive forces (r = – 0.58 to – 0.62), shorter approach time (r = 0.62), greater mean horizontal propulsive force (r = 0.60), shorter ground contact time at final and penultimate foot contact (r = 0.55 and 0.58) and greater mean horizontal braking forces at penultimate and final foot contact (r = 0.55 and 0.53) |
Dos'Santos et al. 2020 [22] | 61 | Kinetic | 505 test and modified 505 test (same as standard version except with a 20 m approach) | Pre-planned | Angle of resultant peak force (r = – 0.77), horizontal to vertical peak (r = 0.77) and mean (r = 0.74) propulsive ratio at final foot contact, horizontal to vertical peak (r = 0.51) and mean (r = 0.60) braking ratio at penultimate foot contact, peak hip flexion angle at penultimate foot contact (r = 0.59) and peak knee flexion angle at penultimate foot contact (r = – 0.51) associated with 505 test performance. Angle of resultant peak force (r = – 0.66), horizontal to vertical peak (r = 0.66) and mean (r = 0.68) propulsive ratio at final foot contact, horizontal to vertical peak (r = 0.51) and mean (r = 0.79) propulsive ratio at penultimate foot contact, angle of peak resultant braking force at final foot contact (r = – 0.57) and penultimate foot contact (r = – 0.55), peak (r = 0.59) and mean (r = 0.54) horizontal propulsive force at final foot contact all related to modified 505 performance |
Dos'Santos et al. 2016 [20] | 40 | Kinetic | 505 test and modified 505 test (same as standard version except with a 20 m approach) | Pre-planned | Vertical impact force at penultimate foot contact (r = 0.33), ground contact time at final foot contact (r = 0.75), vertical impact force at final foot contact (r = 0.55), horizontal braking force at final foot contact (r = 0.33) and horizontal propulsive force at final foot contact (r = – 0.61) related to modified 505 performance. Horizontal braking force at penultimate foot contact (r = – 0.33), vertical impact force at final foot contact (r = 0.44) and horizontal propulsive force at final foot contact (r = – 0.57) related to 505 test performance |
Falch et al. 2020 [23] | 23 | Strength and power | Change of direction task at 45° or 180° with 4 m or 20 m approach | Pre-planned | Skate jump distance (r = – 0.49 for 45° COD with 4 m approach), height during a unilateral counter movement jump (r = – 0.60 for 180° change of direction with 4 m approach), distance during a skate jump (r = – 0.56 for 180° change of direction with a 4 m approach), reactive strength index during a drop jump (r = – 0.54 for 45° change of direction with 20 m approach), unilateral countermovement jump height (r = – 0.49 for 45° change of direction with 20 m approach), skate jump distance (r = – 0.76 and – 0.60 for 45° and 180° change of direction with 20 m approach) |
Greig and Naylor. 2017 [29] | 19 | Strength | T-test and reactive cut | Pre-planned and reactive | Eccentric knee flexor strength at 60, 180 and 300°.s−1 (r = – 0.56, – 0.78 and – 0.64) related to pre-planned change of direction performance. Eccentric knee flexor strength at 60, 180 and 300°.s−1 not related to reactive agility performance (r = – 0.10 to – 0.14) |
Havens and Sigward. 2015 [30] | 25 | Kinematic | Cutting tasks with direction changes at 45° and 90° | Pre-planned | Mediolateral centre of mass-centre of pressure separations (r = – 0.38), hip extensor moment (r = 0.39), hip sagittal power (r = – 0.47) and ankle plantar flexor moment (r = 0.45) associated with cutting performance at 45°. Mediolateral ground reaction force impulse (r = – 0.48), hip rotation angle (r = – 0.47), hip frontal power (r = – 0.58) and knee extensor moment (r = 0.49) associated with cutting performance at 90° |
Jones et al. 2019 [41] | 19 | Kinetic | 75° Cutting task | Pre-planned | Eccentric knee extensor moment (r = – 0.75) and eccentric knee flexor moment (r = – 0.54) |
Marshall et al. 2014 [40] | 15 | Kinematic | Cutting task with a 75° direction change | Pre-planned | Maximum ankle power (r = 0.77), maximum ankle plantar flexor moment (r = 0.65), pelvis lateral tilt range (r = – 0.54), maximum lateral thorax rotation angle (r = 0.51), ground contact time (r = – 0.48) |
McBurnie et al. 2019 [41] | 34 | Kinetic | Cutting task with change of direction at approximately 80° | Pre-planned | Peak knee rotation moment (r = 0.52) and peak knee flexion moment (r = – 0.51) |
Nimphius et al. 2010 [44] | 10 | Strength and power | 505 test (changing direction to the dominant and non-dominant side) | Pre-planned | Squat one repetition maximum relative to body weight (r = – 0.75, – 0.73 and – 0.85 for 505 non-dominant at pre-, mid- and post-season; r = 0.50, – 0.75 and – 0.60 for 505 dominant at pre-, mid- and post-season) |
Pereira et al. 2018 [46] | 38 | Power | Zig-zag test and t-test | Pre-planned | Squat jump height (r = – 0.38, – 0.65) countermovement jump height (r = – 0.55, – 0.85) and mean propulsive power during a jump squat (r = – 0.40, – 0.50) related to zig zag test and t-test performance respectively |
Santoro et al. 2021 [49] | 40 | Kinetic | 505 test | Pre-planned | Linear regression model containing approach velocity, braking horizontal ground reaction force at final foot contact, braking vertical ground reaction force at final foot contact, propulsive horizontal ground reaction force at first accelerating foot contact, ground contact time at final foot contact, and propulsive vertical ground reaction force at first accelerating foot contact had an r value of 0.87 |
Sasaki et al. 2011 [50] | 12 | Kinematic | 180° change of direction task | Pre-planned | Forward angular displacement of the trunk between foot contact and maximum trunk inclination (r = 0.61), ground contact time between foot contact and maximum trunk inclination (r = 0.65) |
Scanlen et al. 2021 [52] | 24 | Strength and power | T-test | Pre-planned | Relative peak force during an isometric mid-thigh pull (r = 0.55), relative peak force during a countermovement jump (r = 0.62), standing long jump distance (r = 0.67) |
Soslu et al. 2016 [56] | 23 | Strength | T-test | Pre-planned | Absolute force produced during a counter movement jump (r = – 0.58), absolute force produced during a squat jump (r = – 0.47) |
Spiteri et al. 2015 [58] | 12 | Strength | T-test, 505 test and reactive basketball agility test | Pre-planned and reactive | Squat one repetition maximum (r = – 0.80 and – 0.80), maximal eccentric squat (r = – 0.87 and – 0.89), maximal concentric squat (r = – 0.79 and – 0.79) force produced during an isometric mid-thigh pull (r = – 0.85 and – 0.79) all related to t-test and 505 test performance respectively. Squat one repetition maximum (r = – 0.36), eccentric squat one repetition maximum (r = – 0.27), concentric squat one repetition maximum (r = – 0.27), isometric squat strength (r = – 0.08) and power produced during a countermovement jump (r = – 0.19) not significantly related to reactive agility performance |
Swinton et al. 2014 [60] | 30 | Power | 505 test | Pre-planned | Vertical jump height (r = – 0.54), squat one repetition maximum relative to body weight (r = – 0.70), average velocity during a squat jump (r = – 0.51), peak velocity during a squat jump (r = – 0.63), average power relative to body mass during a squat jump (r = – 0.40), peak power relative to body mass during a squat jump (r = – 0.45) |
Thomas et al. 2017 [61] | 26 | Strength and power | 505 test performed to the left and right | Pre-planned | Peak force during isometric mid-thigh pull (r = – 0.66 with 505 to the right), squat jump height (r = – 0.71 and – 0.70 with 505 to the left and right, countermovement jump height (r = – 0.71 and – 0.60 with 505 to the left and right) |
Tramel et al. 2019 [62] | 10 | Strength | 505 test and T-test | Pre-planned | Absolute (r = – 0.72) and relative (r = – 0.84) estimated hex-bar deadlift one repetition maximum related to t-test performance. Estimated hex-bar deadlift one repetition maximum relative to bodyweight related to 505 test performance to the right (r = – 0.68) and right (r = – 0.74) |
Wang et al. 2016 [66] | 15 | Strength | Pro-agility test and T-test | Pre-planned | Peak rate of force development during isometric mid-thigh pull (r = – 0.52 with pro-agility), rate of force development at 30, 50, 90 and 100 ms (r = – 0.51, – 0.52, – 0.52 and – 0.51 all with pro-agility) |
Welch et al. 2021 [67] | 25 | Kinematic | Cutting tasks with a 45° or 110° direction change | Pre-planned | For 45° cut, principal component (r = 0.26) interpreted as maintaining a low centre of mass during the concentric phase, shorter ground contact time, resisting reduction in lateral centre of mass to ankle and knee distance in the eccentric phase and using a faster and large extension of hip and knee. For 110° cut, first principal component (r = 0.66) was related to maintaining a low centre of mass during the concentric phase, using a shorter ground contact time, resisting a reduction in lateral centre of mass to ankle and knee distance in the eccentric phase, and resisting hip flexion the using hip extension. The second principal component (r = 0.27) was related to leaning in the direction of the cut |
Young and Murray. 2017 [71] | 19 | Reactive strength | Offensive and defensive Reactive agility test for Australian Football | Reactive | Reactive strength measured during a drop jump (r = – 0.62 with defensive reactive agility, r = – 0.73 with offensive reactive agility) |
Young. 2002 [69] | 15 | Reactive strength and power | Cutting tasks with direction changes at 20, 40 or 60°. Slalom with 4 × 60° cuts | Pre-planned | Reactive strength measured during a drop jump (r = – 0.65, – 0.53 and – 0.54 with cutting at 20 and 40°, and slalom performance). Concentric knee extension power (r = 0.54 with cutting at 40°) |