Determinants of Reactive Agility in Tests with Different Demands on Sensory and Motor Components in Handball Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript ID applsci-1259685 entitled: “Determinants of reactive agility in tests with different demands on sensory and motor components in handball players” is suitable for the journal Applied Sciences. The study investigates the relationship between reactive agility and parameters of reaction speed, sprint speed and muscle strength and their contribution to Y-shaped agility test and the Reactive agility test  in a sample of 7 handball players.

The study is interesting but it needs some revisions:

• Was the sample size determined to achieve the objective of the study?
• Specify better the sample: sex, role and play level of the players; did they play in the same team? How many hours did they train in a week? 
• Line 174 reports: “descriptive statistics (mean +/- SD) were calculated for all results”, but I don’t see any descriptive statistics”. In my opinion it would be interesting to report descriptive statistics of the tests.
• Even if the variables were normally distributed, as the sample size is only 7 players, perhaps it is better to use non-parametric correlation
• Perhaps tables 2,3, and 4 could be joined in only one table because some data are repeated
• Lines 221-224: The Authors reported that in present study Y-shaped agility test is correlated with 20 m sprint time, in agreement with [13], but in [13] Y-shaped agility test is NOT correlated with 20 m sprint time. Modify the sentence
• Line 257: check the factor 58.1%
• Add the limits
• Check the references 1,2.

Author Response

Thank you for your revision. 

• Was the sample size determined to achieve the objective of the study? 
• We are aware of the low sample size, but due to COVID-19 restrictions it was not able to get a higher number of handball players. However, this sample included handball players who, despite the limitations, properly trained and played the competition.
• Specify better the sample: sex, role and play level of the players; did they play in the same team? How many hours did they train in a week? 
• We have added additional information to this section. 
• Line 174 reports: “descriptive statistics (mean +/- SD) were calculated for all results”, but I don’t see any descriptive statistics”. In my opinion it would be interesting to report descriptive statistics of the tests.
• We have added the table with descriptive statistics of the tests.
• Even if the variables were normally distributed, as the sample size is only 7 players, perhaps it is better to use non-parametric correlation
• We have calculated both correlation coefficients - Pearson and Spearman, and we get approximately the same results. Therefore, we decided for Pearson when the data were normally distributed. 
• Perhaps tables 2,3, and 4 could be joined in only one table because some data are repeated
• Yes, we changed that into one table with mutual correlations.
• Lines 221-224: The Authors reported that in present study Y-shaped agility test is correlated with 20 m sprint time, in agreement with [13], but in [13] Y-shaped agility test is NOT correlated with 20 m sprint time. Modify the sentence
• We have modified the sentence. 
• Line 257: check the factor 58.1%
• Thanks, it was a mistake. 
• Add the limits
• We added the limits of this study.
• Check the references 1,2.
• Thank you, the first two references were listed with mistakes, they were remade.

Reviewer 2 Report

Specific comments:

Introduction:

1. Page 1, line 36. ‘…more manageable components was necessary’. Use of pass tense is making this sentence disjointed. Replace ‘was’ with ‘are’ or ‘is’.
2. Page 1, line 37. ‘…that agility includes two subcomponents – CODS and perceptual and decision-making component..’ perceptual is different to decision-marking. The perception-action coupling can be viewed both ways. Authors should discuss this and provide references.
3. Page 1, line 41 - 43. Is this a general statement? what evidence do the authors have or can cite that has demonstrated this.
4. Page 1, line 44. ‘Previous studies…’ Just say Research has identified…’studies’ is previous. Additionally, determinants of what? Wining? Losing? Performance?
5. Page 2, line 55. ‘A previous study (again with the previous)…that RT increased. How much? was the difference significant? Using data here would be useful. How many responses, 1 vs. 4? How many are likely to occur in a game of handball?
6. Page 2, line 65-66. Valid to what? Or for what?
7. Page 2, line 76. Make sure to continue the use of the abbreviation (RAT)

Method:

1. N = 7 is a small sample, how was sample size power calculation performed?
2. Define ‘active’ in handball.
3. Indicate experience as a variable with a mean and SD
4. What level of competition – amateur vs. professional?
5. Define ‘aerobic’ and ‘stretching exercises’. Hopefully not static stretching. If static stretching was performed the authors need to justify this given the potential reduced muscle power output that can be achieved from such a warm-up.
6. Squat jump – how was the 90 deg position standardised? Why only two trials? Can the authors cite research to backs up this protocol, typically the minimum is three trials.

1. CMJ – again how was this 90 deg position standardise? Why not calculation lower limb power using Sayers equation - SAYERS, S. et al. (1999) Cross-validation of three jump power equations. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31, p. 572

7. How was muscle strength measured? Or do the authors mean muscle power? Muscle strength is not definable, it’s an all-encompassing term.
8. Where do the correlation coefficient (r) values and definitions come from? Citation is needed.

Results:

1. What does RSI mean? Abbreviation has not been defined. Make the abbreviation appear in page 3 line 148.
2. Table 1 indicates a p value for RSI in drop jump as 0.050. How is this less than 0.05 as stated in the statistical analysis. This contradicts the Results first sentence i.e. ‘significantly correlated….and RSI in drop jump’. This is incorrect. P was set at < 0.05 therefore it is not significant. It’s also a negative correlation, what does this mean?
3. Figure 1 needs to be changed to deal with RSI not being significant to Y-shaped agility test.

Discussion:

1. Line 233 needs updating due to the p value error.
2. Line 237, muscle power is being used now? How was muscle power measured?
3. Line 245, Yes, as no power analysis was done before testing. This is a major limitation of this research and a post research power analysis should be performed.
4. Line 250, ‘Subjects’ or ‘Participants’. Participant has been used as a sub-heading and therefore consistency is needed throughout.

Overall:

This research appears to be a mixture of physical performance tests put together to assess some participants involved in handball. The scientific relevance of conducting this research is lacking. No sample size power analysis was performed. Incorrect use of p value and poor definition of muscle strength/power (no actual measurement of either) and finally no good justification for the research makes for little interest.

Author Response

Thank you for your revisions. 

Introduction:

1. Page 1, line 36. ‘…more manageable components was necessary’. Use of pass tense is making this sentence disjointed. Replace ‘was’ with ‘are’ or ‘is’. - Done. Thanks. 
2. Page 1, line 37. ‘…that agility includes two subcomponents – CODS and perceptual and decision-making component..’ perceptual is different to decision-marking. The perception-action coupling can be viewed both ways. Authors should discuss this and provide references. - The name of two subcomponents of agility was taken from a study of Young et al. 2002, in which perceptual & decision making forms one component. We do not deny that perceptual is different to decision-making, but it was based on this literature.
3. Page 1, line 41 - 43. Is this a general statement? what evidence do the authors have or can cite that has demonstrated this. - We have deleted this sentence because it was not necessary there.
4. Page 1, line 44. ‘Previous studies…’ Just say Research has identified…’studies’ is previous. Additionally, determinants of what? Wining? Losing? Performance? - Performance... Thank you.
5. Page 2, line 55. ‘A previous study (again with the previous)…that RT increased. How much? was the difference significant? Using data here would be useful. How many responses, 1 vs. 4? How many are likely to occur in a game of handball? - We have refined the results of this study. 
6. Page 2, line 65-66. Valid to what? Or for what? - We added "valid for measuring reactive agility performance"
7. Page 2, line 76. Make sure to continue the use of the abbreviation (RAT) - We agree, thank you. 

Method:

1. N = 7 is a small sample, how was sample size power calculation performed? - Due to COVID-19 restrictions, we were not able to find more participants in that time, who would meet the inclusion criteria (to train at least 5 times a week, regularly play matches etc.). Moreover, covid appeared in several clubs and multiple players were after quarantine. We agree with the opinion that the sample size is low and we are aware of that limitation. However, we added the power analysis to the method section. 
2. Define ‘active’ in handball. - We have additionally defined that. 
3. Indicate experience as a variable with a mean and SD - We have added the table with these descriptive statistics. 
4. What level of competition – amateur vs. professional?  - professional, we have added their performance level. 
5. Define ‘aerobic’ and ‘stretching exercises’. Hopefully not static stretching. If static stretching was performed the authors need to justify this given the potential reduced muscle power output that can be achieved from such a warm-up. - Of course, that no static stretching was applied. It was dynamic stretching. It was added to the method section. 
6. Squat jump – how was the 90 deg position standardised? Why only two trials? Can the authors cite research to backs up this protocol, typically the minimum is three trials. - The position was standardised using a goniometer. Yes, three trials are common in these jump tests, but our participants might do three jump tests for two trials, which resulted in a total of 6 jumps. Furthermore, they did other tests and we wanted to eliminate the fatigue effect.

1. CMJ – again how was this 90 deg position standardise? Why not calculation lower limb power using Sayers equation - SAYERS, S. et al. (1999) Cross-validation of three jump power equations. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31, p. 572 - Here it was only on examinator experiences with this test. Muscle power was a general term, but the parameter in this test was jump height. However, this term was redefined to "muscular strength".

7. How was muscle strength measured? Or do the authors mean muscle power? Muscle strength is not definable, it’s an all-encompassing term. - We would like to point out the studies published by Kraemer and Newton (1994, 2000), in which vertical jump height is considered as "muscular strength" and therefore we changed "muscle strength/power" to the term "muscular strength".
8. Where do the correlation coefficient (r) values and definitions come from? Citation is needed. - It was added the citation. 

Results:

1. What does RSI mean? Abbreviation has not been defined. Make the abbreviation appear in page 3 line 148. - The definition of RSI was added to the line 148. 
2. Table 1 indicates a p value for RSI in drop jump as 0.050. How is this less than 0.05 as stated in the statistical analysis. This contradicts the Results first sentence i.e. ‘significantly correlated….and RSI in drop jump’. This is incorrect. P was set at < 0.05 therefore it is not significant. It’s also a negative correlation, what does this mean? - The value of p was 0.049922... All results were rounded to three decimal places, but in this case, we have changed that because of clearer information. Therefore, this value is less than 0.05 and the result is correct. A negative correlation means that a higher reactive strength index resulted in a shorter agility time in the Y-shaped agility test, which is in accordance with other studies and was added to the result section.
3. Figure 1 needs to be changed to deal with RSI not being significant to Y-shaped agility test. - It was explained above. 

Discussion:

1. Line 233 needs updating due to the p value error. - It was explained above. 
2. Line 237, muscle power is being used now? How was muscle power measured? - It was explained before. 
3. Line 245, Yes, as no power analysis was done before testing. This is a major limitation of this research and a post research power analysis should be performed. - We have added post research power analysis to the method section. 
4. Line 250, ‘Subjects’ or ‘Participants’. Participant has been used as a sub-heading and therefore consistency is needed throughout. - Thanks, it was changed. 

Overall:

This research appears to be a mixture of physical performance tests put together to assess some participants involved in handball. The scientific relevance of conducting this research is lacking. No sample size power analysis was performed. Incorrect use of p value and poor definition of muscle strength/power (no actual measurement of either) and finally no good justification for the research makes for little interest.

- We added power analysis priori and the post-research sample size to method section. Low ample size was affected due to COVID-19 restrictions as we mentioned before so it was not possible to have 26 participants for this research. P-value was clearly explained before, it was only due to our inaccuracy. Definition of muscle strength/power was explained and changed to "muscular strength" in accordance with Kraemer & Newton. In addition, the discussion and conclusion sections were improved. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This study investigates the relationship between reactive agility and parameters of reaction speed, sprint speed, muscle strength, and their contribution to Y‐shaped agility test and reactive agility test (RAT) in handball players. The study is well-conducted, well-described and presents interesting insights into the components of agility. The only major limitation of the study is the very low sample size, that the Authors highlighted within the Discussion. Whereas, the manuscript is very well-structured. I would like to congratulate the Authors for their work. I have only some minor suggestions that I believe will be useful to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Line 19. Please define RSI.

Line 40. “in contrast” seems not appropriate. Please use another term, such as “in combination”…

Line 83. The sample size seems quite low. Please elaborate in the discussion giving it more space than that given in line 271, to consider for further studies.

Line 92. Was the warm-up routine described performed within the familiarization session? Or in the testing session?

Line 93-97. Please rephrase, not completely clear. Was the order of the test randomized?

Line 134-149. Please describe the tool used for the jump assessments.

Line 178. Please define RSI as reactive strength index in line 148.

Line 220. I would suggest to introduce the Discussion section be summarizing the aim of the study and the main findings (that should be consistent with the study’s aim).

Line 245. “non-significant”

Line 247. Delete the “dot” in the middle of the sentence.

Line 260. “proven”?

Line 263. Delete the comma between “fact” and “that”.

Line 270-74 and last part of the conclusions. Please extend the practical applications that can be derived from this study. This is a crucial point given that the scientific community in the field of sport sciences should give suggestions for practitioners and coaches.

Author Response

Thank you for your revisions. 

Line 19. Please define RSI. - It is already defined.

Line 40. “in contrast” seems not appropriate. Please use another term, such as “in combination”… - We have clarified the wording of this sentence. 

Line 83. The sample size seems quite low. Please elaborate in the discussion giving it more space than that given in line 271, to consider for further studies. - We added the limitations of this study into the discussion. 

Line 92. Was the warm-up routine described performed within the familiarization session? Or in the testing session? - The warm-up routine was given and performed before the familiarization session. It was changed in the method section.

Line 93-97. Please rephrase, not completely clear. Was the order of the test randomized? -No, the order was not randomized, it had strict order that was followed for each participant. I have changed the exact order to this section. 

Line 134-149. Please describe the tool used for the jump assessments. - we added a goniometer for measuring 90 degrees in starting position and also information about RSI calculation. 

Line 178. Please define RSI as reactive strength index in line 148. - It was defined. 

Line 220. I would suggest to introduce the Discussion section be summarizing the aim of the study and the main findings (that should be consistent with the study’s aim). - We added the summarization of our findings into the discussion. 

Line 245. “non-significant” - Yes, thank you.

Line 247. Delete the “dot” in the middle of the sentence. - Done.

Line 260. “proven”? - Done.

Line 263. Delete the comma between “fact” and “that”. - Done, thanks for your comments. 

Line 270-74 and last part of the conclusions. Please extend the practical applications that can be derived from this study. This is a crucial point given that the scientific community in the field of sport sciences should give suggestions for practitioners and coaches. - We have extended the practical application. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to my comments and improved their manuscript.

The only request is to add the units of measurement in table 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

The sample size is a major limitation however the authors do provide reason for such a small size.