# The impact of computerized agility training on basketball performance: a comparative study with rope ladder training

## TL;DR

Computerized agility training improved basketball performance more than rope ladder training, especially for decision-making and foot speed.

## Contribution

Demonstrates that computerized agility training outperforms traditional methods in enhancing basketball-specific skills and reactive agility.

## Key findings

- CAT improved foot speed by 7.0% compared to 2.4% with RLT.
- CAT reduced choice reaction time by 6.9% versus 0.7% with RLT.
- Centers showed greater adaptive gains in decision-making with CAT.

## Abstract

Agility is a critical determinant of basketball performance, enabling rapid directional changes, movement reorganization, and real-time decision-making under competitive pressure.

To evaluate the effects of a four-week computerized agility training (CAT) program and rope ladder training (RLT) on general agility and basketball-specific skill performance in collegiate male basketball players. The study also aimed to examine position-specific training responses and quantify individual variability using linear mixed-effects models (LMM).

In a randomized controlled trial, 64 male collegiate basketball players (aged 18–24; guards = 26, forwards = 26, centers = 12) were randomly assigned to either the CAT or RLT groups (n = 32 each group). Both interventions were performed three times per week for 4 weeks. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included a footwork speed test, a T-test for change of direction, and measures of choice reaction time and accuracy. Basketball-specific proficiency was assessed using the Combined Basketball Skill Test (CBST), incorporating performance time, penalty time, and stimulus response time. LMM were used to analyze the training effects.

Compared with RLT, CAT elicited significantly greater improvements in foot speed (+7.0% vs. +2.4%), choice reaction time (−6.9% vs. −0.7%), and CBST reaction time (−9.8% vs. −1.4%) (p < 0.05). CAT also led to larger reductions in overall CBST performance time (−2.1% vs. −0.3%) and completion time (−2.3% vs. −0.5%), although penalty time decreased significantly only among centers. Positional effects were observed: guards exhibited superior baseline agility, while centers demonstrated greater adaptive gains in decision-making and directional change. LMM revealed small to large effect sizes (Cohen’s f = 0.12–0.74) and high conditional R
2 values (0.71–0.95), reflecting robust model fit and substantial inter-individual variability.

Computerized agility training significantly enhanced reactive agility and basketball-specific skill execution beyond rope ladder training, particularly in tasks involving perception and decision-making. The effects were position-dependent, with centers benefiting most from CAT. These findings highlight the limitations of traditional footwork drills and support the integration of perception–action–coupled, individualized agility training paradigms. Future research should explore the neurophysiological mechanisms and long-term retention of CAT in basketball conditioning.