This article was downloaded by: [East Tennessee State University]

On: 01 April 2013, At: 06:37

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Effect of strength on plant foot kinetics and kinematics

during a change of direction task
a a a a
Tania Spiteri , Jodie L. Cochrane , Nicolas H. Hart , G. Gregory Haff & Sophia
a
Nimphius
a
School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
Version of record first published: 28 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Tania Spiteri , Jodie L. Cochrane , Nicolas H. Hart , G. Gregory Haff & Sophia Nimphius (2013): Effect
of strength on plant foot kinetics and kinematics during a change of direction task, European Journal of Sport Science,
DOI:10.1080/17461391.2013.774053

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.774053

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 European Journal of Sport Science, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.774053

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of strength on plant foot kinetics and kinematics during a change

of direction task

TANIA SPITERI, JODIE L. COCHRANE, NICOLAS H. HART, G. GREGORY HAFF, &

SOPHIA NIMPHIUS

School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013

Abstract
Understanding the magnitude of forces and lower body kinematics that occur during a change of direction (COD) task can
provide information about the biomechanical demands required to improve performance. To compare the magnitude of
force, impulse, lower body kinematics and post-COD stride velocity produced between athletes of different strength levels
during a COD task, 12 stronger (8 males, 4 females) and 12 weaker (4 males, 8 females) recreational team sport athletes
were recruited. Strength levels were determined by relative peak isometric force of the dominant and non-dominant leg. All
athletes performed 10 pre-planned 458 changes of direction (5 left, 5 right) while three-dimensional motion and ground
reaction force (GRF) data were collected. Differences in all variables for the dominant leg were examined using a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a level of significance set at p 50.05. The stronger group displayed significantly faster
post-COD stride velocity and greater vertical and horizontal braking forces, vertical propulsive force, vertical braking
impulse, horizontal propulsive impulse, angle of peak braking force application, hip abduction and knee flexion angle
compared to the weaker group. The results suggest that individuals with greater relative lower body strength produced
higher magnitude plant foot kinetics and modified lower body positioning while producing faster COD performances.
Future investigations should determine if strength training to enable athletes to increase plant foot kinetics while
maintaining or adopting a lower body position results in a concomitant increases in post-COD stride velocity.

Keywords: Agility, sidestepping, ground reaction forces, impulse, performance, cutting

Introduction significant and non-significant relationships between

The ability to change direction is essential for
successful performance within multidirectional
sports, providing athletes with a mechanism to evade
opponents and gain positional advantage during
competition (Baker & Newton, 2008; Barnes et al.,
2007; Bradshaw, Young, Russell, & Burge, 2011;
Green, Blake, & Caulfield, 2011). Several studies
have shown significant differences in total change of
direction (COD) running time between genders and
starters and non-starters (Brughelli, Cronin, Levin,
& Chaouachi, 2008; Nimphius, McGuigan, &
Newton, 2010), attributing the difference in perfor-
mance to lower body strength discrepancies (Baker
& Newton, 2008; Young, James, & Montgomery,
2002). While increasing lower body strength has
been shown to benefit athletic performance both
strength (isometric, concentric and eccentric) and
total running time during COD protocols have been
reported (Kovaleski et al., 2001; Young et al., 2002).
Currently, it is unknown if the conflicting evidence
underpinning the relationship between strength and
COD performance is attributed to variations be-
tween COD protocols or the level of transferability of
measured level of strength to the athletic perfor-
mance, in this case, COD ability.
COD protocols such as the 505, T-test and Illinois
agility run contain varying amounts of straight-line
sprinting, number of directional changes and total
distance covered. Thus, breaking down the move-
ment into two distinct phases is warranted. Total
running time is a combination of both COD ability
and straight-line sprinting, whereas specifically

Correspondence: T. Spiteri, School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Perth
6027, Australia. E-mail: t.spiteri@ecu.edu.au

# 2013 European College of Sport Science

 2 T. Spiteri et al.
quantifying the COD movement, termed COD
ability, provides an indication of athletes ability to
rapidly decelerate and reaccelerate in the new direc-
tion. Although faster total running times during
COD protocols are assumed to demonstrate a faster
COD performance, COD ability has yet to be
directly assessed without the confounding factor of
straight-line running speed. Furthermore, the influ-
ence of lower body strength on kinetic and kinematic
mechanisms contributing to the differences in COD
ability has not been well established in the literature.
During COD movements, athletes must reposition
their centre of mass, requiring the athlete to apply
horizontal and vertical ground reaction forces
(GRFs), and impulses while maintaining an optimal
body position to achieve a faster performance. The
production of GRF and impulse have been identified
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013
as critical factors to detect differences during
straight-line sprinting between faster and slower
performance times (Hunter, Marshall, & McNair,
2005; Mero, Komi, & Gregor, 1992; Weyand,
Sternlight, Bellizzi, & Wright, 2000), with greater
forces and impulses produced during faster sprinting
performances (McClay et al., 1994). Increasing force
and impulse production can be achieved by increas-
ing lower body strength, which has been shown to
improve performance and reduce the risk of lower
limb injury by improving functional biomechanics
(Noyes, Barber-Westin, Smith, Campbell, & Garrison,
2012). The improvement in force absorption cap-
abilities and joint stabilisation as a result of increased
strength may also enable athletes to adopt a better
body position during COD movements (Myer, Ford,
Paulumbo, & Hewett, 2005) improving the angle at
which force and impulse is applied and subsequently
improving COD ability. However, as a majority of
research has investigated COD ability from an injury
prevention perspective, further research is required
to quantify the optimal kinetic and kinematic profile
of a faster COD performance.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
compare the magnitude of vertical and horizontal
GRF and impulse variables and lower body kine-
matics between strength levels during a pre-planned
COD performance test, and identify if these variables
contribute to differences in COD performance, as a
result of differences in lower body strength.
Table I. Stronger and weaker groups subject demographics
Stronger (n 12)
Males Females
Age (years) 24.0192.91 20.5091.29
Height (cm) 179.0597.76 167.5297.37
Body mass (kg) 77.2915.0 57.4794.38
Values are presented as mean9SD.
Methods
Subjects
Twelve stronger (8 males and 4 females) and 12
weaker (4 males and 8 females) (Table I) recreational
team sport athletes (soccer, basketball and netball)
participated in this study, with subjects reporting no
previous history of major lower limb injuries (such as
anterior-cruciate ligament injuries or previous frac-
tures) and no significant vision problems. Strength
groups were stratified using isometric strength of the
dominant and non-dominant unilateral limb in
respect to the cutting direction. Subjects above the
50th percentile were assigned to the stronger group
and those below the 50th percentile were assigned to
the weaker group, similar to previous research
(McBride, Nimphius, & Erickson, 2005). Subjects
were required to partake in a minimum of two
competitive games and one structured skills training
session for their chosen sport each week to be
included in the study. All testing and familiarisation
sessions occurred during the recreational team sport
season. The Human Research Ethics Committee at
Edith Cowan University approved all test procedures
and written informed consent was obtained from all
subjects prior to the commencement of the study.
Testing protocol
All familiarisation and testing procedures occurred
on one day with a minimum recovery period of one
hour separating isometric and COD protocols. Prior
to completing the isometric strength protocol, sub-
jects completed two sub-maximal familiarisation
trials (50% maximal effort), on both left and right
legs. Each trial was separated by two minutes with a
five-minute recovery period required prior to max-
imal effort data collection. After one hour, subjects
then completed a 10-minute dynamic warm-up,
followed by a specific warm-up consisting of two
sub-maximal (50% maximal effort) COD trials, for
both left and right directional changes. A two-minute
recovery period separated each trial, followed by a
five-minute recovery period between sub-maximal
and maximal effort data collection trials.
Weaker (n12)
Males Females p ES
22.6794.04 20.8692.54 0.37 0.41
184.3096.87 171.40911.49 0.86 0.08
86.8698.78 69.81916.68 0.44 0.35
 Kinetic and kinematic variables during a change of direction task
Isometric strength testing
Lower body strength was assessed with a unilateral
maximal isometric back squat performed on a
portable force plate (400 Series Performance Plate;
Fitness Technology, Adelaide, Australia) sampling at
600 Hz. The subject pushed against an immovable
bar position across the shoulders with both the knee
and hip angle set at approximately 1408 (Hart,
Nimphius, Cochrane, & Newton, 2012). Subjects
were instructed to position the leg to be assessed
under their centre of mass whilst the other limb was
unsupported and flexed at an angle of 908. Subjects
were required to perform a total of three trials for
each limb, for five seconds in duration (Nuzzo,
McBride, Cormie, & McCauley, 2008). Each trial
was separated by a two-minute recovery period.
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coeffi-
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013
cient of variation (CV) for strength were as follows:
left leg (ICC 0.95; CV 7.0%) and right leg
(ICC 0.95; CV 5.5). The highest peak force of
the three trials was used and presented as a value
relative to body mass (N ×kg 1).
COD protocol
Subjects were instructed to begin on a marked line
and sprint six metres at a velocity of 4.590.5 m ×s 1
in a straight-line before contacting their left foot on
the triaxial force platform (Kistler, Type9290AD,
Victoria, Australia) and cutting 458 to the right or
contacting the force plate with their right foot and
cutting 458 to the left, sprinting two and half metres
to complete the test (Figure 1). For a trial to be
deemed successful, subjects were required to contact
their whole foot on the force plate without targeting
the plate, run at the set approach speed, cut at the
required angle and performed a side-step cut only
(Besier, Lloyd, Cochrane, & Ackland, 2001). The
Figure 1. Change of direction (COD) performance test.
3
approach speed of 4.590.5 m ×s 1 was selected to
ensure that the differences observed in kinetic data
were not attributed to velocity variations between
subjects. During all trials, approach velocity was
monitored over a three-metre distance prior to
changing direction using a dual-beam infrared tim-
ing light system (Speedlight Timing System, Swift
Performance Equipment). Cutting angle was mon-
itored by tape markings placed 458 from the centre of
all three in-ground force plates, and visual inspection
from high-speed video recording of each trial (Sony
HDD Camcorder HDR-XR550V, Sony Australia).
Subjects completed a total of 10 randomised trials
(5 left and 5 right) with a minimum 30-s recovery
between trials.
GRFs were recorded at 1000 Hz using a 600 
900 mm triaxial force plate with Vicon Nexus software
(ver. 1.6.1, Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, UK. Raw
medio-lateral, anterior
posterior and vertical GRF
data were exported to MATLAB programing soft-
ware (R2010a, The MathWorks Inc., Chatswood,
NSW, Australia) to examine specific variables for
both vertical and horizontal force profiles for the
dominant limb only, of the COD step for each trial.
Limb dominance was defined as the limb that
produced the greater amount of force during the
unilateral strength assessment. Net horizontal force
data were obtained by calculating the resultant
force vector of medio-lateral, anterior
posterior
force curves using a custom written MATLAB
code. Variables of interest include peak braking and
propulsive force (N×kg 1), time to peak braking and
propulsive force (s), contact time (s), time between
peak braking and propulsive peaks (s), relative
braking impulse, propulsive impulse and total im-
pulse (m×s 1) and angle of peak braking and
propulsive horizontal force application (degrees).
All force and impulse variables were calculated
relative to body mass (kg) and analysed over the
stance phase, with heel strike defined as the instance
the vertical GRF data exceed 10 N and toe off
defined as the instance the vertical GRF data are
below 10 N (McLean, Lipfert, & Van Den Bogert,
2004). Braking impulse was calculated from heel
strike to the minimum of the mid-support phase, and
propulsive impulse was calculated from minimum of
mid-support phase to toe off.
To record three-dimensional movements, 37 retro-
reflective markers were fixed to anatomical landmarks
of the athlete in accordance with the previously
validated Vicon Plug-In Gait model, with move-
ments captured using a 10 camera, 250Hz Vicon
motion analysis system (Oxford Metrics Ltd.,
Oxford, UK). Prior to data collection, a static
calibration for each athlete was performed to locate
anatomical landmarks and define segment and joint
coordinate systems to the kinematic model (Besier
 4 T. Spiteri et al.
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013

Figure 2. Comparison of kinetic variables (mean9SD) between stronger and weaker athletes; (a) peak vertical forces: braking and
propulsive; (b) peak horizontal forces: braking and propulsive; (c) vertical impulses: braking, propulsive and total; (d) horizontal impulses:
braking, propulsive and total. *Significant (p 50.05) difference between strength levels.

et al., 2001). All trials were processed in Vicon Nexus,
through a custom pipeline to obtain filtered marker
trajectories using a zero-lag fourth order 18 Hz, low
pass Butterworth filter (Besier et al., 2001). Joint
kinematic data for each trial were interpolated and
time normalised to 100% of stance; from heel strike to
toe off, of the dominant plant foot used to change
direction. Variables of interest included maximum
and minimum spine flexion, hip flexion, hip abduc-
tion and knee flexion (degrees) and post-COD stride
velocity (m×s 1). Post-COD stride velocity was
determined as the time from toe off of the COD
step, to heel-strike of the first step after changing
direction, of the athletes centre of mass (Glaister,
Orendutff, Schoen, & Bernatz, 2008).
Statistical analysis
All results are represented as means9SD. To exam-
ine differences between groups (stronger versus
weaker athletes), one-way ANOVAs were conducted
on each dependent variable; including subject demo-
graphics, performance characteristics, kinetic and
kinematic variables, with sequential Bonferonni
corrections (Holm, 1979) made to reduce type I
errors. A significance level of p 50.05 was employed
throughout all statistical analyses. Effect sizes (ES)
were calculated for group comparisons by dividing
the difference between groups by the pooled stan-
dard deviation (Cohen, 1988). The magnitude of ES
calculations was interpreted following Hopkins
(2002) guidelines with small  ]0.2; moderate  stronger and weaker athletes (Figure 2c). Vertical and
]0.6; large  ]1.2; very large  ]2.0; nearly
perfect  ]4.0. All statistical computations were
performed using a statistical analysis program
(SPSS, Version 17.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Subject performance characteristics are presented in
Table II, reporting significant differences for all
performance variables except for approach velocity
and total running time. The non-significant differ-
ence in approach velocity was expected as this was
controlled in the protocol.
Vertical and horizontal force and impulse compar-
isons between stronger and weaker athletes are
presented in Figure 2. Stronger athletes produced
significantly greater peak vertical propulsive force
(p0.012; ES 1.10) and horizontal braking force
(p0.004; ES 1.31) than weaker athletes (Figure
2a and c, respectively). Although no significant
differences in peak vertical braking force (p
0.140) or horizontal propulsive force (p0.116)
were observed between groups, a moderate ES of
0.62
0.66 was achieved. Vertical impulse variables
(Figure 2b); braking impulse (p 0.028; ES 0.99),
propulsive impulse (p0.025; ES 0.98) and total
impulse (p0.010; ES 1.15), were significantly
greater for stronger athletes compared to weaker
athletes. Significant differences were also observed
for horizontal braking impulse (p 0.004; ES 1.29)
and total impulse (p0.004; ES 1.70) between
 Kinetic and kinematic variables during a change of direction task
Table II. Stronger and weaker performance characteristics
Stronger (n 12)
1
UL strength dominant (N kg ) 20.7892.13
UL strength non-dominant (N kg 1) 19.45 92.32
Approach velocity (m s 1) 4.4190.53
Post-stride velocity (m s 1) 2.5090.37
Total time (s) 1.9990.23
UL, Unilateral. Values are presented as mean9SD.
horizontal timing variables compared between stron-
ger and weaker athletes revealed no significant
differences (ES 0.12
0.48). Stronger athletes pro-
duced a significantly greater angle of horizontal peak
braking force application (stronger 69.5196.64,
weaker 44.9297.91; p 0.001; ES 3.36), and
propulsive force application (stronger 50.699
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013
3.40, weaker 46.1792.67; p 0.001; ES 1.47)
compared to weaker athletes.
The comparison of peak kinematic variables across
stance phase reveals stronger subjects demonstrates a
significantly greater knee flexion (stronger: 59.899
8.95, weaker: 54.8497.86; p 0.01; ES 0.59) and
hip abduction (stronger: 7.6596.18, weaker:  movement compared to weaker subjects. This sug-
3.7096.32; p 0.04; ES 0.63) angle compared to
weaker subjects. While not significantly different,
stronger athletes displayed slightly greater hip flexion
(stronger: 53.3298.80, weaker: 51.10910.70; p  phase of the movement to increase propulsive ability.
0.45; ES 0.22) and spine flexion (stronger:
12.47912.05, weaker: 10.05916.65; p 0.58;
ES 0.16) compared to weaker subjects.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to quantify and examine
the differences in vertical and horizontal GRF and
impulse variables as well as lower body kinematics
between stronger and weaker athletes during a pre-
planned 458 COD test. The primary findings of this
study demonstrate that stronger subjects were able to
produce a significantly faster post-COD stride velo-
city and greater vertical and horizontal braking force,
vertical propulsive force, vertical braking and pro-
pulsive impulse, angle of peak braking and propul-
sive force application, increased knee flexion and hip
abduction angle when compared to weaker subjects.
These findings suggest relative isometric strength
could be a fundamentally important mechanism
underpinning COD ability.
Altering the rate of deceleration can be achieved
by increasing force and impulse application during
the braking phase of the movement (Jindrich, Besier,
& Lloyd, 2006; Glaister et al., 2008). Although no
difference was observed in timing variables, the
significantly greater vertical and horizontal peak
braking force observed for the stronger athletes
indicates an increased ability to rapidly apply more
5
Weaker (n 12) p ES
11.9693.50 0.00 3.04
10.87 93.36 0.00 2.97
4.2290.31 0.14 0.38
2.2890.27 0.01 0.67
2.1390.23 0.19 0.61
force in the same time period as the weaker athletes,
increasing braking impulse application (Figure 2).
Braking impulse has recently been shown to con-
tribute to the storage and utilisation of elastic energy
during sprinting (Hunter et al., 2005), enabling an
increased force output, subsequently improving
propulsive ability (Brughelli et al., 2008). This
appears to be inherently important during COD
movements to enable rapid reacceleration in the
new direction (Nimphius et al., 2010; Sheppard &
Young, 2006; Young et al., 2002), as stronger
subjects demonstrated a significantly faster post-
COD stride velocity, and propulsive phase of the
gests a certain level of strength is required to rapidly
apply force (Lockie, Murphy, Knight, & Janse De
Jonge, 2011; Weyand et al., 2000) during the braking
Findings from this study are similar to recent
research (Green et al., 2011), observing significantly
greater knee flexion and hip abduction angles in
stronger subjects, improving COD performance.
Whilst this body position has been found to increase
performance outcomes (Green et al., 2011; Inaba,
Yoshioka, Iida, Hay, & Fukashiro, 2012; Noyes et al.,
2012), injury prevention research has identified an
upright trunk posture and foot position closer to the
centre of the body is beneficial to reduce the loading
around the knee (Dempsey et al., 2007). Whilst
altering body position in this manner is said to
reduce injury risk (Dempsey, Lloyd, Elliott, Steele,
& Munro, 2009; Dempsey et al., 2007), insufficient
and incorrect neuromuscular control is also reported
in athletes more at risk to injury (Cochrane et al.,
2009; Myer et al., 2005). Therefore, increasing
lower body strength (Myer et al., 2005; Noyes
et al., 2012) may not only reduce the risk of injury
by enhancing neuromuscular control but it will also
improve performance by enabling the athletes to
overcome the increased force produced during COD
movements (Nimphius et al., 2010).
In contrast to other forms of gait, greater lateral
translation of the centre of mass and rotation of the
body is required during COD movements (Hollands,
Sorensen, & Patla, 2001), causing athletes to move
through a greater range of motion. Previous research
investigating pre-planned turning tasks have
 6 T. Spiteri et al.
identified that a more prominent lateral foot plant
increases the acceleration of the centre of mass to the
contralateral side (Patla, Adkin, & Ballard, 1999),
which is required in higher demand during COD
movements. Findings of the current study suggest
stronger athletes initiate greater knee flexion and hip
abduction angle during stance phase of the COD
movement as a mechanism to achieve a greater angle
of horizontal braking and propulsive force applica-
tion. Increased lower body strength enables athletes
to execute the COD movement in a lower body
position (Inaba et al., 2012) maximising the ability to
apply greater force and impulse in the intended
direction (Fukashiro et al., 2005), subsequently
improving an athlete’s ability to decelerate and re-
accelerate in the new direction.
There are many confounding variables that may
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013
affect the forces, impulses and lower body kinematics
produced during COD manoeuvres. Factors such as
anthropometrical gender differences, reactive strength
and eccentric strength were not measured and are
limitations of the current study, as these factors may
also determine one’s ability to apply force during a
COD movement. As is the case with all assessments
investigating in vivo joint motion, the accuracy of
results is limited by the use of an external marker set.
Furthermore, while these results provide insight into
the kinetic and kinematic profile required for a faster
COD performance, these findings are only applicable
to movements performed under pre-planned condi-
tions. These findings may not be the same under
reactive agility conditions when a decision-making
element is involved, that may affect the force,
impulse and body position required to change
direction, due to altered neuromuscular control
(Besier, Lloyd, & Ackland, 2003).
In conclusion, within the context of these limita-
tions, our results indicate that an increased lower
body strength capacity enables athletes to execute
COD movements in lower body positions, whilst also
producing more force in the intended direction
during the braking and propulsive phase of the
movement leading to an increased propulsive ability.
These findings demonstrate the importance of in-
creasing lower body strength in athletes who are
required to perform multiple directional changes to
improve performance. Future research should inves-
tigate the effects of various long-term strength
training interventions on COD performance and
the neuromuscular mechanisms that may underpin
the observed changes in performance.
References
Baker, D. G., & Newton, R. U. (2008). Comparison of lower body
strength, power, acceleration, speed, agility, and sprint momen-
tum to describe and compare playing rank among professional
rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 22, 153
158. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f9519
Barnes, J. L., Schilling, B. K., Falvo, M. J., Weiss, L. W., Creasy,
A. K., & Fry, A. C. (2007). Relationship of jumping and agility
performance in female volleyball athletes. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1192
1196. Retrieved from
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/18076276
Besier, T. F., Lloyd, D. G., & Ackland, T. R. (2003). Muscle
activation strategies at the knee during running and cutting
maneuvers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(1),
119
127. doi:10.1097/00005768-200301000-00019
Besier, T. F., Lloyd, D. G., Cochrane, J. L., & Ackland, T. R.
(2001). External loading of the knee joint during running and
cutting maneuvers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
33(7), 1168
1175. Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/ab-
stract/MED/11445764
Bradshaw, R. J., Young, W. B., Russell, A., & Burge, P. (2011).
Comparison of offensive agility techniques in Australian rules
football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14, 65
69.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2010.06.002
Brughelli, M., Cronin, J., Levin, G., & Chaouachi, A. (2008).
Understanding change of direction ability in sport: a review of
resistance training studies. Sports Medicine, 38(12), 1045

1063. doi:10.2165/00007256-200838120-00007
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dempsey, A. R., Lloyd, D. G., Elliott, B. C., Steele, J. R., &
Munro, B. J. (2009). Changing sidestep cutting technique
reduces knee valgus loading. American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 37(11), 2194
2201. doi:10.1177/036354650933
4373
Dempsey, A. R., Lloyd, D. G., Elliott, B. C., Steele, J. R., Munro,
B. J., & Russo, K. A. (2007). The effect of technique change on
knee loads during sidestep cutting. Medicine & Science in Sports
& Exercise, 39(10), 1765
1773. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31
812f56d1
Fukashiro, S., Besier, T.F, Barrett, R., Cochrane, J. L., Nagano, A.,
& Lloyd, D. G. (2005). Direction control in standing hor-
izontal and vertical jumps. International Journal of Sport and
Health Science, 3, 272
279. doi:10.5432/ijshs.3.272
Glaister, B. C., Orendutff, M. S., Schoen, J. A., & Bernatz, G. C.
(2008). Ground reaction forces and impulses during a transient
maneuver. Journal of Biomechanics, 41, 3090
3093. doi:10.
1016/j.jbiomech.2008.07.022
Green, B. S., Blake, C., & Caulfield, B. M. (2011). A comparison
of cutting technique performance in rugby union players.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(10), 2668

2680. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318207ed2a
Hart, N., Nimphius, S., Cochrane, J. L., & Newton, R. U. (2012).
Reliability and validity of unilateral and bilateral isometric
strength measures using a new customised, portable device.
Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 20(Supp 1):
61
67. Retrieved from http://www.strengthandconditioning.
org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210&
Itemid=506
Hollands, M. A., Sorensen, K. L., & Patla, A. E. (2001). Effects
of head immobilization on the coordination and control of head
and body reorientation and translation during steering.
Experimental Brain Research, 140, 223
233. doi:10.1007/
s002210100811
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test
procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65
70. Re-
trieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4615733?
uid=23310&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=62&
uid=23309&uid=5909656&sid=21101695085631
Hopkins, W. G. (2002). A new view of statistics. Internet Society
for Sport Science. Retrieved from http://www.sportsci.org/
resource/stats
 Kinetic and kinematic variables during a change of direction task
Hunter, J. P., Marshall, R. N., & McNair, P. J. (2005). Relation-
ship between ground reaction force impulse and kinematics of
sprint-running acceleration. Journal of Applied Biomechanics,
21, 31
43. Retrieved from http://iodine.byu.edu/~seeleym/
exsc365(seeley)/Assignments/grf_and_sprint_kinematics.pdf
Inaba, Y., Yoshioka, S., Iida, Y., Hay, D. C., & Fukashiro S.
(2012). A biomechanical study of side steps at different
distances. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. Retrieved from
http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-in-press/jab-in-press/a-
biomechanical-study-of-side-steps-at-different-distances
Jindrich, D. L., Besier, T. F., & Lloyd, D. G. (2006). A hypothesis
for the function of braking forces during running turns. Journal
of Biomechanics, 39, 1611
1620. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.
2005.05.007
Kovaleski, J. E., Heitman, R. J., Andrew, D. P. S., Gurchiek, L.
R., & Pearsall, A. W. (2001). Relationship between closed-
linear-kinetic- and open-kinetic-chain isokinetic strength and
lower extremity functional performance. Journal of Sport
Rehabilitation, 10(3), 196
204. Retrieved from http://www.
getcited.org/pub/103467813
Downloaded by [East Tennessee State University] at 06:37 01 April 2013
Lockie, R. G., Murphy, A. J., Knight, T. J., & Janse De Jonge,
X. A. K. (2011). Factors that differentiate acceleration ability
in elite sport athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 25(10), 2704
2714. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31
820d9f17
McBride, J. M., Nimphius, S., & Erikson, T. M. (2005). The
acute effects of heavy-load squats and loaded countermove-
ment jumps on sprint performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 19(4), 893
898. Retrieved from http://
europepmc.org/abstract/MED/16287357
McClay, I. S., Robinson, J. R., Andriacchi, T. P., Frederick, E. C.,
Gross, T., Martin, P., . . . Cavanagh, P. R. (1994). A profile of
ground reaction forces in professional basketball. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 10, 222
236. Retrieved from http://web.
ebscohost.com.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=692872a4-
2933-4393-b515-c047214e94b9%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&
hid=12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1z
aXRl#db=s3h&AN=20725415
McLean, S. G., Lipfert, S. W., & Van Den Bogert, A. J. (2004).
Effect of gender and defensive opponent on the biomechanics
of sidestep cutting. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
36(6), 1008
1016. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000128180.51443.83
7
Mero, A., Komi, P. V., & Gregor, R. J. (1992). Biomechanics of
sprinting. Sports Medicine, 13, 376
392. doi:10.2165/
00007256-199213060-00002
Myer, G. D., Ford, K. R., Padua, D. A., & Hewett, T. E. (2005).
Neuromuscular training improves performance and lower-
extremity biomechanics in female athletes. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 19(1), 51
60. Retrieved from http://
journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2005/02000/Neuromuscu
lar_Training_Improves_Performance_and.10.aspx
Nimphius, S., Mcguigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010).
Relationship between strength, power, speed and change of
direction performance of female softball players. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 885
895.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d41d
Noyes, F. R., Barber-Westin, S. D., Smith, S. T., Campbell, T., &
Garrison, T. T. (2012). A training program to improve
neuromuscular and performance indices in female high school
basketball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
26(2), 709
719. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-
jscr/Abstract/2012/03000/A_Training_Program_to_Improve_
Neuromuscular_and.16.aspx
Nuzzo, J., McBride, J., Cormie, P., & McCauley, G. (2008).
Relationship between countermovement jump performance
and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(3), 669
707.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816d5eda
Patla, A. E., Adkin, A., & Ballard, T. (1999). Online steering:
coordination and control of body center of mass, head and
body reorientation. Experimental Brain Research, 129, 629
634.
doi:10.1007/s002210050932
Sheppard, J. M., & Young, W. B. (2006). Agility literature review:
classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Science,
24(9), 919
932. doi:10.1080/02640410500457109
Weyand, P., Sternlight, D., Bellizzi, M. J., & Wright, S. (2000).
Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground
forces not more rapid leg movements. Applied Physiology, 89,
1991
1999. Retrieved from http://www.jappl.org/content/89/5/
1991.short
Young, W. B., James, R., & Montgomery, I. (2002). Is muscle
power related to running speed with changes of direction?
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42, 282
288.
Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12094116