Decision-making accuracy in reactive agility: quantifying the cost of poor decisions

Decision-making accuracy and the time cost of incorrect responses was compared between higher- (n = 14) and lower-standard (n = 14) Australian footballers during reactive agility tasks incorporating feint and nonfeint scenarios. Accuracy was assessed as whether the subject turned in the correct direction to each stimulus. With skill groups pooled, decision accuracy at the first (or only) stimulus (decision time 1) was 94 ± 7%, and it decreased to 83 ± 20% for the second stimulus (decision time 2; p = 0.01; d = 0.69). However, with skill groups separated, decision accuracy was similar between groups at decision time 1 (higher 95 ± 6% vs. lower 92 ± 7%; p = 0.6; d = 0.42), somewhat better in the higher-standard group at decision time 2 (88 ± 22% vs. 78 ± 17%; p = 0.08; d = 0.50). But the decrease in accuracy from decision time 1 to 2 was significant in the lower-standard group only (92 ± 7% to 78 ± 17%; p = 0.02; d = 1.04). However, with skill groups pooled but agility times examined exclusively in trials involving correct or incorrect decisions, incorrect decisions at decision time 1 during feint trials resulted in a shorter agility time (1.73 ± 0.24 seconds vs. 2.03 ± 0.39 seconds; p = 0.008; d = 0.92), whereas agility time was significantly longer in feint (incorrect at decision time 2 only; 2.65 ± 0.41 seconds vs. 1.97 ± 0.36 seconds; p < 0.001; d = 1.76) and nonfeint trials (1.64 ± 0.13 seconds vs. 1.51 ± 0.10 seconds; p = 0.001; d = 1.13). Therefore, although decision-making errors typically worsen reactive agility performance, successful anticipation of a feint can produce performance improvements. Furthermore, higher-standard footballers are less susceptible to such feints, perhaps because of superior anticipation. Training to improve decision-making accuracy, particularly involving feint movements, may therefore principally benefit lesser-skilled players and should be practiced regularly.