Back to all available

Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a method for assessing sport-specific reactive agility in badminton players

kinesiology
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background: Reactive agility is a critical determinant of badminton performance, reflecting an athlete’s ability to rapidly perceive, decide, and execute movement responses under dynamic conditions. However, there is a lack of standardized and sport-specific assessment tools to evaluate this multidimensional skill in badminton. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a badminton-specific reactive agility test (B-RAT).
Methods: Nine technical and three strength coaches assessed the content validity of the B-RAT using a four-point scale. A total of 201 professional athletes (119 male, 82 female) from provincial and national teams participated in the testing. Test-retest reliability was examined in 58 athletes across two sessions separated by seven days. Criterion validity was assessed in 28 single players by correlating B-RAT performance with simulated match outcomes, while construct validity was evaluated by comparing B-RAT results with established change of direction speed (CODS) tests and among athletes of different competition levels. Feasibility was assessed based on experts’ ratings of practicality, clarity, and resource requirements.
Results: The B-RAT demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90, CV = 5.82%), strong content validity (S-CVI = 0.93), and correlations with match ranking (r = 0.65–0.76, p < 0.05). In addition, B-RAT was significantly associated with five conventional CODS tests (r = 0.52–0.71, p < 0.01), and effectively differentiated athletes by competition level (d = 1.39–1.67; η² = 0.29–0.43, p < 0.05). The feasibility score exceeded the required threshold (≥ 35/50).
Conclusions: The B-RAT is a reliable, valid, and feasible test for assessing sport-specific reactive agility in badminton players. It effectively integrates perceptual-cognitive and motor components, providing a practical and standardized tool for evaluating performance, guiding individualized training, and monitoring agility development in competitive badminton contexts.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].