The Reliability and Validity of the Modified Butterfly Agility Test.
Richard Cahanin, Troy Burley, Andy Waldhelm
PMID 40322524WHAT IT FOUND
The modified Butterfly Agility Test is reliable if athletes practice three times first.
It did not correlate with balance tests or distinguish between player positions, so it cannot yet replace other assessments for return to sport decisions.
Key findings
01The test requires three practice trials to stabilize performance and ensure reliability before recording data.
02Performance on the modified test did not correlate with the Y-Balance Test, suggesting they measure different physical attributes.
03Competitive soccer athletes performed significantly faster on the test than recreationally active adults, but the test did not distinguish between specific player positions.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size in Phase II was small, leading to low statistical power for comparing player positions. Testing conditions differed significantly between phases: Phase I was indoors on a wooden floor with a larger box, while Phase II was outdoors on turf or track with a smaller box. The study did not validate the test against actual injury outcomes, so its ability to predict risk is unknown. Height and weight were self-reported in Phase II, which may introduce measurement error.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use the mBAT to assess balance or predict injury risk. It did not correlate with the Y-Balance Test, and the study did not track injuries, so its validity for these purposes is not established.