RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF PHYSICAL-TECHNICAL APTITUDE TESTS IN MALE SOCCER PLAYERS

CONFIABILIDAD Y VALIDEZ DE PRUEBAS DE APTITUD FÍSICO-TÉCNICAS EN JUGADORES DE FÚTBOL MASCULINOS

Introduction

The combination of physical and technical skill tests in soccer has been scarcely examined among adolescent players. The starting ages in professional-level play are becoming increasingly younger, making talent identification an important concern. The performance characteristics observed during this developmental phase should reflect those required in actual play. Therefore, coaches and trainers need comprehensive, reliable, and valid test designs available that enable the identification of potential players while respecting each stage of growth and its specific biological characteristics (Dugdale et al., 2020).

In soccer practice, numerous tests have been developed to evaluate specific physical attributes and technical skills. Among the fundamental physical qualities essential to the game are speed and agility (Pruna et al., 2018); both planned and unplanned changes of direction (COD) are strongly considered components for evaluating these abilities. However, a recent study (Morral-Yepes et al., 2023) suggests that agility and COD are independent skills.

Agility, as a physical capacity, is defined as the rapid movement of the body involving a change of speed or direction in response to stimuli (Altmann et al., 2022). The COD, on the other hand, refers to the ability to change direction toward a specific location on the field (Dugdale et al., 2020). These two abilities, change of direction and agility, have been regarded as important criteria for talent identification and selection in soccer (Bustos et al., 2017).

Technical skills such as receiving, passing, shooting, and dribbling are considered among the most influential factors in achieving success during play (Putra & Bahtra, 2021). In early adolescence, these skills may have a greater impact on performance than speed (Kokštejn & Musalek, 2019; Slaidiņš & Fernāte, 2021). It has been observed that during a Premier League match, an average player performs between 100 and 150 technical actions such as those mentioned above (Alfonso-Mora et al., 2018), and between 1,000 and 1,500 changes of direction or movement per game, that is, a change in movement every 3.5 seconds, with COD being involved in approximately 10% of goals (Dugdale et al., 2020).

Widely used tests in soccer include the K-test for agility assessment, as well as the m505COD and the Illinois Change of Direction (ICOD) tests, in addition to 10 m and 20 m sprint tests. These tests have demonstrated good reliability and validity, although they do not incorporate technical skills or simulate realistic game situations (Kovacevic et al., 2018).

Some authors emphasize the need to bring testing conditions closer to actual match scenarios and skill performance, as ball-skill tests are among the most demanded assessments in soccer, thereby increasing test validity (Bustos et al., 2017; Qowiyyuridho & Fauzi, 2021; Alfonso-Mora et al., 2018; Costa et al., 2021). For example, some protocols, such as those evaluating maximum ball velocity (MBV), differ from real-game conditions, because they are often performed without soccer footwear (cleats), over very short distances, and without an intention of reaching maximum speed (Medina & Alvarado, 2018). Therefore, it is important that evaluations of technical skills and motor abilities reflect common match situations, such as ball control, passing, and shooting. This is particularly relevant in tests assessing ball-specific agility and agility related to goal-scoring success (Kutlu et al., 2012, 2014; Altmann et al., 2022).

Moreover, during adolescence, measurement bias may occur due to body growth and the biological maturation process, factors that should be considered while evaluating technical skills (Salinero et al., 2013). Finally, it is essential to review and analyze field testing instruments based on reliability and validity criteria to ensure high-quality soccer evaluations that reflect players’ individual characteristics (Triana-Cardona & Buitrago Espitia, 2019).

In the background, the present study aims to review the psychometric properties of tests assessing technical–tactical skills in youth football players.

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The search was performed in April 2023 across the databases of PubMed, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Springer. Along with Google Scholar was also used, where the first 100 results were considered.

The descriptors or keywords were obtained from the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) thesaurus and included: (1) adolescents, (2) maturation status, (3) coordination, (4) motor skills, (5) agility test, (6) change of direction, (7) dribbling, (8) validity, (9) reliability, and (10) soccer. Seven combinations were generated for each language using the Boolean operators AND and OR.

Selection of Studies

Potential articles were first identified based on their title and abstract. The following inclusion criteria were then applied for selection:

• articles written in English or Spanish;

• original research articles;

• full-text availability;

• studies involving male soccer players;

• age range between 11 and 18 years;

• studies that evaluated the validity and reliability of tests measuring specific or technical soccer skills related to agility, change of direction, dribbling, and running around obstacles.

The final selection of studies was performed by two independent researchers. In cases of disagreement, a consensus was reached through discussion with two additional researchers to decide on inclusion or exclusion. For each selected article, the following information was extracted: language, authors, year, objective, study design, sample size, tests used, variables, statistical analysis, primary and secondary results, and conclusions.

Methodological Assessment

The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the STROBE statement, which provides general recommendations for descriptive studies (Vandenbroucke et al., 2009). The checklist consists of 22 verification items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections; however, only 21 items were considered in this study, excluding the item “Other information”.

Each item was scored as 1 = meets the criterion and 0 = does not meet the criterion. Studies with higher scores were considered to have greater methodological rigor (Vandenbroucke et al., 2009). After scoring, studies were classified as follows:

1. (1) low methodological quality for scores ≤50%;

2. (2) good methodological quality for scores between 51% and 75%; and

3. (3) excellent methodological quality for scores >75%.

Results

From a total of 20,681 titles identified, 12 articles were selected. Figure 1 presents the flow diagram of the article selection process included in this review and table 1 presents the general and methodological characteristics of the selected studies.

Reliability

The reliability of the tests was primarily analyzed using relative and absolute methods. Among the most frequently employed statistical techniques were the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), used in 58% of the studies (A1, A2, A4, A5, A8, A9, A11, A12); the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), applied in 42% (A1, A2, A5, A9, A12); Pearson’s correlation coefficient, also in 42% (A3, A4, A7, A11, A12); the paired-sample t-test, in 12% (A4, A7, A9); and Cronbach’s alpha, in 8% (A10).

Overall, the results showed that all evaluated tests demonstrated good to excellent reliability in both relative and absolute terms, supporting their use in the assessment of physical–technical abilities in male soccer players.

The ICC values ranged from 0.70 to 0.99, with most studies reporting values above 0.89, indicating excellent inter- and intra-rater stability. The exceptions were studies A9 (ICC = 0.79) and A7 (ICC = 0.70), corresponding to the FS-RAG and S-RAG tests. Pearson’s correlation coefficients ranged from 0.83 to 0.99, indicating strong correlations between measures.

The SEM was reported in five studies and remained consistently low, with values below 5%, suggesting good measurement precision. In the studies using the paired-sample t-test (A3 and A6), no significant differences were found between repeated measures (p> 0.05), indicating adequate temporal stability. In study A10, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95, reflecting excellent internal consistency, while in A4, the reliability index R ranged from 0.88 to 0.90.

Detailed reliability and validity results are presented in Table 2.

Validity

In general, based on the analyzed studies, most physical–technical tests applied to young male soccer players demonstrated adequate criterion and discriminant validity, with moderate to high correlations (. value between 0.48 and 0.99) and the ability to distinguish between competitive levels, age categories, and biological maturation stages. However, only a small number of studies examined content validity, and most focused on a single type of validation, limiting the generalizability of their findings.

The main types of validity identified were criterion validity (A6, A12, A2, A9, A3, A10, A11) and construct or discriminant validity (A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A9), both reported in seven studies. Only one study (A10) assessed content validity. Nine studies employed a single type of validity analysis, while three (A2, A4, and A9) combined two validation methods.

In study A2, the MICODT and ICODT tests showed a Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.77, as well as adequate discriminant validity for MICODT, which effectively distinguished between elite and sub-elite soccer players through ROC analysis, with elite players showing better physical performance. Similar findings were observed in A9, where the FS-RAG and FS-CODS tests correlated with 10 m and 20 m sprints, 20 m change-of-direction tasks, and vertical jump performance (r> 0.79), and also discriminated between U15 and U13 age groups.

In A10, the Dribbling and Passing Agility Test—which integrates technical indicators such as dribbling, change of direction, and difficulty—demonstrated adequate content validity according to the Delphi method (Aiken’s V > 0.8) and high criterion validity with another agility test (r = 0.99).

Studies A1, A4, A5, and A7 assessed discriminant validity using the Student’s t-test, comparing athletes across competitive levels and technical demands. The NMAT tests with and without the ball (A1) significantly discriminated between competitive levels (AUC ≥ 0.85 and 0.92, respectively), correlating with other agility tests (Agility-15m, Ball-15m). The K-Agility test (A5) showed significant differences between international and national athletes; the S-COD and S-RAG tests (A7) favored U19 over U17 players; and the S-Keeper and SL-Keeper tests (A4) demonstrated better performance among elite compared to sub-elite players.

Additionally, in A10, older and more biologically mature players (based on peak height velocity) achieved better results in 10m and 20m sprints, although the M505COD test did not adequately discriminate between groups by maturation or age.

In studies A3, A6, A11, and A12, only criterion validity was assessed, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = 0.48 to 0.99. In A12, the ICODT with the ball correlated significantly with the version without the ball (r = 0.65; p< 0.05); in A3, the AS–Ball Conduction test correlated with AS–Goal Success, T-Drill, and Zig-Zag tests (r = 0.99, 0.43, and 0.70; p< 0.001).

Complete results for validity and reliability are presented in Table 2, while Table 3 describes the specific soccer skill assessment tests identified in this review.

Discussion

In the present systematic review, we examined the validity and reliability of tests used to assess specific physical and technical qualities in soccer. These tests were categorized into specific and non-specific agility tests, as well as specific and non-specific change of direction (COD) tests. The significance of these assessments lies in their ability to capture not only physical capabilities but also technical, ball-related skills that occur in real-game scenarios. A total of 23 tests from 12 studies that met established validity and reliability criteria were analyzed. Among the specific agility tests showing the strongest psychometric properties, the NMAT test stood out, demonstrating high test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.97 without the ball and 0.96 with the ball) and excellent discriminant capacity (AUC = 0.85 and 0.92, respectively). These findings support its usefulness in evaluating both change-of-direction speed and soccer-specific agility (Brahim et al., 2013).

Regarding the relationship between agility and other physical qualities (such as change of direction, jumping ability, and acceleration), results were mixed. Some studies reported strong correlations, while others found weak or non-significant associations, indicating variability depending on training context. For instance, Calleja-González et al. (2015) found no significant correlations between linear acceleration and tests such as MAT or 90ºS (r = 0.53 and r = 0.46; p< 0.01), whereas Salguero-Rubio et al. (2023) reported a low correlation (r = 0.034) between agility and soccer skills, possibly influenced by players’ age and physical capacity.

With respect to reliability, most tests reported ICC values above 0.89, consistent with previous research in soccer players (Sporis et al., 2010). The ICODT with ball and the Illinois with ball tests reached ICC > 0.90 and measurement error <5%, indicating excellent stability (Makhlouf et al., 2022). These tests, which incorporate movement patterns characteristic of soccer (Makhlouf et al., 2018; Negra et al., 2017), reinforce the ecological validity of performance assessment.

Similarly, soccer-specific change-of-direction tests (FS-CODS and FS-RAG), which integrate agility and shooting precision, also showed high reliability (ICC = 0.82–0.79; variation <5%) and good discriminant validity between youth categories (Krolo et al., 2020). Likewise, the AS with ball and AS for goal success tests (Kutlu et al., 2014), as well as the Dribbling and Passing Agility Test (Qowiyyuridho & Fauzi, 2021), demonstrated higher psychometric rigor, as they included two types of validation.

Reactive COD tests, such as Y-Sprint-React, FS-RAG, and S-RAG, exhibited greater variability due to the perceptual and cognitive complexity of their protocols (Brahim et al., 2013; Hulka et al., 2018; Makhlouf et al., 2022). Because these tests involve responses to unpredictable stimuli, they reflect open motor situations similar to real-game contexts (Pérez-Gómez et al., 2017). In this regard, Rebelo-Gonçalves et al. (2016) observed that goalkeepers’ typical movements, such as diving toward the ball, were more closely associated with acceleration and change of direction than with jump power.

Among the methodological factors influencing validity are course length, turning angle, and recovery time between trials (Nimphius et al., 2018). In study A8, the m505COD and Y-SprintP tests, involving 180° and 45° turns respectively, demonstrated high reliability (Dugdale et al., 2020). Across the reviewed studies, recovery times ranged from 3 to 5 minutes; those employing longer recovery periods (A1, A2, A3, A7, A9, A12) showed reduced fatigue and improved technical performance, especially in ball-related tests (Brahim et al., 2013; Makhlouf et al., 2022; Hachana et al., 2014; Pojskic et al., 2019; Krolo et al., 2020).

Instrumentation also influenced measurement precision. Nine studies used photoelectric timing gates (A1–A9, A12), two used electronic devices and stopwatches (A5, A11), and one used a manual chronograph (A10). The height of the timing gates and the player’s starting posture affect measurement accuracy (Condello et al., 2020). Only five studies controlled these factors (A2–A7), achieving higher precision. It is recommended to position the gates at hip height, as lower placements tend to underestimate times (López et al., 2012); as well as the use of photoelectric cells, used to carry out the timing of the tests and other systems such as GPS and the use of multi-camera videos that serve to collect information on the performance of the players (Kubayi, 2019; López et al., 2012).

From a biological perspective, several authors have highlighted the influence of biological maturation and sport experience on the validity and reliability of these tests (Machek-Casanova & Gamardo-Hernández, 2017; Manangón-Pesantez. et al., 2020; Méndez-Pérez, 2020). Only three studies considered maturation status (Dugdale et al., 2020; Hachana et al., 2014; Krolo et al., 2020), finding a significant relationship between maturation level and agility performance, particularly around peak height velocity (Živković et al., 2022). Elite players, who tend to be more mature and experienced, achieved higher scores (Sonesson et al., 2021).

Familiarization with the tests was another critical factor; eight studies (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A12) included familiarization sessions with demonstrations and technical instructions, which improved result consistency (Pojskic et al., 2019). Familiarization reduces intra- and inter-session error and promotes more standardized execution.

Some of the main limitations identified were:(a) the limited consideration of player position, a key aspect given that each role demands specific skills—only one study included goalkeepers;(b) more than 50% of studies did not evaluate measurement bias; and(c) approximately half assessed only one type of validity, whereas the literature recommends at least two. Finally, instrumental variability hinders comparability across studies and limits the standardization of testing protocols.

Conclusions

This systematic review characterized the validity and reliability of 23 tests assessing various physical and technical abilities used in soccer performance evaluation. Key factors influencing test validity and reliability include methodological differences among tests, the precision of measurement equipment, biological maturation status, training age and volume, and familiarization with the testing protocol. Among the tests with the strongest psychometric properties were the ICODT with ball (A12), the Soccer-Specific Change-of-Direction Speed Test (FS-CODS) (A9), Agility in Soccer with Ball (AS–with ball), Agility in Soccer for Goal Success (A3), and the Dribbling and Passing Agility Test (A10).

Ethics Committee Statement

Not applicable due to the type of scientific study, which is a systematic review.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The affiliating entities or institutions had no influence on the design of the study, the analysis of the data, or the interpretation of the results.

Funding

This research did not receive funding due to the type of study design.

Authors' Contribution

For multi-authored research articles, you must detail their individual contributions. For this purpose, use the CRedit taxonomy (https://credit.niso.org/): Conceptualization D.L.D. & L.A.F.O. ; Methodology D.L.D. & L.A.F.O.; Validation D.L.D. & L.A.F.O. & M.I.J.C.F; Formal Analysis M.I.J.C.F; L.A.F.O; S.D.B.; Investigation D.L.D. & L.A.F.O; M.I.J.C.F.; Data Curation D.L.D. & L.A.F.O; Writing – Original Draft D.L.D. & L.A.F.O; Writing – Review & Editing D.L.D. & L.A.F.O & M.I.J.C.F & S.D.B. & L.A.E.C; N.C.H; Visualization D.L.D. & M.I.J.C.F & L.A.F.O.; Supervision L.A.F.O. & M.I.J.C.F; Project Administration D.L.D.; L.A.F.O. & M.I.J.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.’

Data Availability Statement

Data could be find in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/, https://www.proquest.com, https://www.sciencedirect.com, https://link.springer.com.

References

Author notes

Autor para la correspondencia: Luis Alberto Flores, lolivares@uach.mx

Additional information

Título Abreviado: Reliability and Validity of Soccer Aptitude Tests

How to cite this article: Laborde-Daisson, D., Fragoso, I., Datta Banik, S.,del-Castillo, L.A., Cervantes-Hernández, N., & Flores, L.A. (2025). Validity and reliability of physical-technical Aptitude tests in male soccer players. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 20(66), 2249. https://doi.org/10.12800/ccd.v20i66.2249