Authors' response to letter to the Editor: “The need for ‘representative task design’ in evaluating efficacy of skills tests in sport: A comment on Russell, Benton and Kingsley (2010)”

Abstract

Our article in the Journal of Sports Sciences (Russell, Benton, & Kingsley, 2010) was designed to evaluate the reliability and construct validity of soccer skills tests that assess passing, shooting, and dribbling. This aim is stated explicitly in the title, abstract, introduction and discussion sections of the article (Russell et al., 2010). Test-retest reproducibility was presented as absolute- and relative-reliability (Hopkins, 2000), and construct validity was determined as the ability of the tests to discriminate between abilities in a group of performers (National Coaching Foundation, 1995). Construct validity was confirmed and the absolute reliability statistics were comparable or tighter than previous soccer skill tests of passing, shooting and dribbling (Russell & Kingsley, 2011). These skill tests have been combined with an exercise protocol to simulate physiological demands and movement patterns of soccer match-play (Russell, Rees, Benton, & Kingsley, 2011). Through a series of subsequent studies, these skill tests have already been used to evaluate the effects of: (1) soccer-specific movement patterns on acid-base balance (Russell & Kingsley, in press), (2) soccer-specific fatigue on precision, speed and success of passing, shooting and dribbling (Russell, Benton, & Kingsley, 2011), and (3) carbohydrate supplementation on passing, shooting and dribbling (Russell, Benton, & Kingsley, 2012). In this response, we provide a brief description of some of the inaccuracies presented in the ‘Letter to the Editor’ along with further commentary on some of the theoretical issues that relate to soccer skills tests.