Change of Direction Speed Tests in Basketball Players: A Brief Review of Test Varieties and Recent Trends

Change of direction speed (CODS) is essential for basketball performance, extensively assessed by various tests. This review aimed to summarize the CODS test varieties for basketball players on publications until 2019 and identify recent trends regarding what types of tests have gained attention in the 2010s. Electronic literature searches were conducted using three databases with relevant keywords. 104 studies were found eligible, conducting CODS tests 159 times in total with 48 test varieties. To facilitate distinctions between the tests, each test was categorized into one of three types based on the distinctive movement characteristics and changing angles as follows: Defensive (involving lateral shuffling), 180°-turn (exerting only 180°-turns), and Cutting (performing diagonal- or side-cut). We then counted the number of publications and adopted times reported per year for each test, and calculated the adoption rate for each categorized test type. The first CODS test performed in basketball players was the T-Test, reported in 1991, and this was the most commonly adopted test (44/159 times). The 2010s saw abrupt increases in the number of publications (1990s-2000s-2010s: 5-9-90) and test varieties (4-7-44). The adoption rates in the 2010s were similar among the three types (i.e., Defensive/180°-turn/Cutting: 37%/30%/33%), with the Cutting type gradually increasing over the last three decades (1990s-2000s-2010s: 0%-9%-33%). These results suggest that while CODS performances in basketball players are increasingly studied with various tests, recent studies give equal weight to all of the three categorized test types, with increasing adoption of the Cutting type, to assess specific CODS performances.

The effects of ankle protectors on lower limb kinematics in male football players: a comparison to braced and unbraced ankles

Football (soccer) players have a high risk of injuring the lower extremities. To reduce the risk of ankle inversion injuries ankle braces can be worn. To reduce the risk of ankle contusion injuries ankle protectors can be utilised. However, athletes can only wear one of these devices at a time. The effects of ankle braces on stance limb kinematics has been extensively researched, however ankle protectors have had little attention. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate the effects of ankle protectors on lower extremity kinematics during the stance phase of jogging and compare them with braced and uncovered ankles. Twelve male participants ran at 3.4 m/s in three test conditions; ankle braces (BRACE), ankle protectors (PROTECTOR) and with uncovered ankles (WITHOUT). Stance phase kinematics were collected using an eight-camera motion capture system. Kinematic data between conditions were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. The results showed that BRACE (absolute range of motion (ROM) = 10.72° and relative ROM = 10.26°) significantly (P<0.05) restricted the ankle in the coronal plane when compared to PROTECTOR (absolute ROM=13.44° and relative ROM =12.82°) and WITHOUT (absolute ROM=13.64° and relative ROM=13.10°). It was also found that both BRACE (peak dorsiflexion=17.02° and absolute ROM=38.34°) and PROTECTOR (peak dorsiflexion =18.46° and absolute ROM =40.15°) significantly (P<0.05) reduced sagittal plane motion when compared to WITHOUT (peak dorsiflexion =19.20° and absolute ROM =42.66°). Ankle protectors’ effects on lower limb kinematics closely resemble that of an unbraced ankle. Therefore, ankle protectors should only be used as a means to reduce risk of ankle contusion injuries and not implemented as a method to reduce the risk of ankle inversion injuries. Furthermore, the reductions found in sagittal plane motion of the ankle could possibly increase the bodies energy demand needed for locomotion when ankle protectors are utilised.