Assessment & Screening — all lessons

Athlete assessment and evaluation

Building a test battery for athletes — needs analysis, validity and reliability, typical error and smallest worthwhile change, test order, and turning results into programming decisions.

Advanced Evidence: Strong evidence 3 min read Reviewed 2026-10-31 Status: draft

Learning objectives

  • Design a test battery from a needs analysis
  • Explain validity, reliability, typical error and smallest worthwhile change
  • Sequence tests to minimise fatigue effects
  • Interpret individual changes and communicate results to athletes and coaches

Before this lesson

Why this matters

Testing consumes training time. A good battery measures qualities that drive performance, is sensitive enough to detect real change, and leads directly to programming decisions.

Needs analysis

Before choosing tests, analyse:

  • Sport demands — energy systems, movement patterns, injury profile.
  • Position or event — e.g., fast bowler vs batter; goalkeeper vs midfielder.
  • Athlete — training age, injury history, current season phase.

Validity and reliability

  • Validity — does the test measure a quality that matters for this athlete?
  • Reliability — does it give consistent results? Quantified by typical error (TE) — the random variation between repeated trials on the same person [hopkins2000].
  • Smallest worthwhile change (SWC) — commonly 0.2 × between-athlete SD.

A test is useful for monitoring when its TE is smaller than (or similar to) the SWC. An observed change should exceed TE (ideally by a clear margin) to be considered real.

Test order

Order tests from least to most fatiguing [haff2016]:

  1. Non-fatiguing: anthropometrics, flexibility, vertical jump
  2. Agility / change of direction
  3. Maximal power and strength
  4. Sprint speed
  5. Local muscular endurance
  6. Fatiguing anaerobic capacity
  7. Aerobic capacity (e.g., Yo-Yo, 1.5-mile run)

Standardise warm-up, footwear, surface, time of day, nutrition and prior training.

Using results

Common mistakes and misconceptions

  • Using tests to predict injury — screening tests have poor predictive accuracy for individuals [bahr2016].

Case study

A cricket academy tests CMJ, 20 m sprint, 1RM trap-bar deadlift and Yo-Yo IR1 in pre-season. One fast bowler’s CMJ is low relative to squad norms while his strength is high; the coach adds ballistic and plyometric work. Mid-season, his CMJ rises beyond the TE + SWC threshold — a meaningful change.

Further learning: video lessons

Video links are only marked “verified” after a human has watched them. Unverified entries open a YouTube search for that channel and topic rather than a guessed link.

Knowledge check

Knowledge check · 0/5

1. Smallest worthwhile change is commonly estimated as…

Answer A. Hopkins popularised 0.2 × between-subject SD as a small effect threshold.

2. Typical error of measurement describes…

Answer B. It quantifies within-subject noise between trials.

3. Which test should come first in a battery?

Answer B. NSCA guidance orders tests from non-fatiguing to most fatiguing.

4. A test that correlates strongly with match performance has good…

Answer B. Validity concerns whether a test measures what matters.

5. An athlete’s 10 m sprint improves by 0.02 s; typical error is 0.04 s. The change is…

Answer B. The change is smaller than the noise of the test.

Short-answer & application questions

  1. Design a one-day test battery for a semi-professional football squad, in order, with rest periods.
  2. Explain to a coach why a 3% change in jump height may or may not be meaningful.
  3. How would you present results to athletes to support motivation?

Key takeaways

  • Start with a needs analysis of the sport, position and athlete; test what informs decisions.
  • Valid tests measure what matters; reliable tests give consistent results.
  • A change is meaningful only if it exceeds measurement noise (typical error) and is larger than the smallest worthwhile change.
  • Order tests from least to most fatiguing and standardise conditions.

Connected topics

This is the canonical lesson for: Strength & Conditioning → Coaching and Assessment

References

  1. Hopkins WG (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine, 30(1):1–15. Narrative review check pending
  2. Haff GG, Triplett NT (eds) (2016). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (4th ed.) — chapters on test selection and administration. Human Kinetics / NSCA. Textbook check pending
  3. Bahr R (2016). Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—and probably never will…: a critical review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13):776–780. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096256 Narrative review check pending

Educational content only — not medical advice. Consult a qualified clinician for diagnosis or treatment.