For S&C and Coaches # Few training tools prove they work. QuickBoard does. > In randomized research with 64 men's college basketball players, four weeks of QuickBoard training cut Agility T-Test time 5.4%, versus 2.3% for agility ladder training (Zhang et al., 2026). In randomized research with 64 men's college basketball players, four weeks of QuickBoard training cut Agility T-Test time 5.4%. Agility ladder training cut it 2.3%. Reaction time on a basketball skill test dropped 9.8%, versus 1.4% (Zhang et al., Frontiers in Physiology, 2026). Request a 15-Minute Demo Get the Free Agility Drill App Randomized Research · College Basketball · 2026 ## The gains showed up on tests run off the board. Researchers at Dalian University split 64 men's college basketball players into two groups of 32. One group trained on QuickBoard. The other did agility ladder training, which moved from ladder drills in week 1 to other agility drills in weeks 2 to 4. Both groups trained three times a week for four weeks. Sessions had the same length, the same structure, and the same target intensity. Both groups started even. Then the researchers tested them two ways: off the board, and on it. 5.4% vs 2.3% Agility T-Test time cut. More than double the agility ladder group. 9.8% vs 1.4% Reaction time cut on a basketball skill test. 7x as much. 2.1% vs 0.3% Total time cut on the same skill test. 7x as much. ### Transfer tests, run off the board The Agility T-Test was timed with electronic gates. It was not one of the training drills, though both programs included change-of-direction work. The basketball skill test combined dribbling, passing, and shooting, with each rep cued from a screen. Zhang et al. 2026: tests run off the board, before and after four weeks Measure QuickBoard Agility ladder Agility T-Test 10.89s → 10.31s **(down 5.4%)** 10.81s → 10.57s (down 2.3%) Skill-test reaction time 0.68s → 0.62s **(down 9.8%)** 0.70s → 0.69s (down 1.4%) Skill-test total time 244.7s → 239.5s **(down 2.1%)** 244.6s → 243.8s (down 0.3%) Skill-test completion time 201.7s → 197.1s **(down 2.3%)** 197.8s → 196.8s (down 0.5%) Skill-test penalty time* 44.7s → 44.4s **(down 0.6%)** 45.7s → 46.1s (up 1.0%) ### QuickBoard tests, run on the board These three tests ran on QuickBoard, the same board that group trained on. They show the training worked on the board. The tests above show it carried over. Zhang et al. 2026: QuickBoard tests, before and after four weeks Measure QuickBoard Agility ladder Foot speed (reps) 106.3 → 113.7 **(up 7.0%)** 105.6 → 108.1 (up 2.4%) Choice reaction time 0.71s → 0.67s **(down 6.9%)** 0.74s → 0.74s (down 0.7%) Choice reaction accuracy* 86% → 93% **(up 7.5%)** 85% → 89% (up 4.8%) Group averages, before and after four weeks. The QuickBoard group improved more on every measure. On six of the eight, the gap between groups was statistically significant. *On penalty time and choice accuracy, it was not. Why this study matters ### Randomized, matched and timed off the board. It was randomized. It used competitive college athletes. The comparison group trained too, on a matched program. And the headline tests were timed off the device. Who ran it ### Independent research, with stated limits. The paper states no QuickBoard role in its design, funding or authorship. The study covered men's college basketball over four weeks, with no follow-up. The authors suggest adding this training alongside ladder drills. Zhang M, Zhang W, Chen R, Liu Y, Diaz-Cidoncha Garcia J, Chen C, Xu X. The impact of computerized agility training on basketball performance: a comparative study with rope ladder training. Frontiers in Physiology. 2026. Read the open-access paper. QuickBoard is a cognitive-motor and physical performance training system. Audiences include strength and conditioning coaches and sports performance specialists working with high school, collegiate, and professional athletes. The sensor board pairs with an iPad app that runs the Agility Rating, vertical and reactive jump testing, and pre-built protocols designed by PTs and S&C coaches. It captures reaction time, ground contact time, bilateral symmetry, and accuracy from Touches and Errors during each exercise, adding a cognitive-motor layer that standard physical testing does not cover. A live Agility Rating session: score, symmetry, and the recommended workout, generated on the iPad. In-Season Monitoring ## Reaction time moved with self-reported stress in a Division I soccer pilot. Standard physical testing measures the body. It does not measure how the brain controls movement under cognitive load and accumulating fatigue. That gap is where in-season decline, late-game errors, and missed return-to-play readiness hide. University of Louisville · 2012 ### Reaction time moved with self-reported stress, in a pilot study. In a University of Louisville master's thesis pilot, QuickBoard reaction time moved with self-reported stress symptoms across a Division I women's soccer season (Martin, University of Louisville, 2012). There was no control group. If your monitoring battery is force-only, that cognitive-motor signal is not in the data. Cognitive-motor gap ### Force plates measure the body. They do not measure the decision. Force plates and timing gates answer biomechanical questions: how high, how hard, how fast. They do not capture how an athlete reads a stimulus, decides, and responds while moving. QuickBoard measures that decision directly: as the number of response choices rises, decision time rises in step, the signature of central-nervous-system processing speed rather than physical movement alone (Downing et al., University of Memphis). It adds reaction time, decision-making, and bilateral symmetry under full body weight to the same battery. The Research ## Athletic-population studies back cognitive-motor performance training. Each card names who took part: some studied athletes, some studied active adults new to agility training. Each notes whether the study ran on QuickBoard or is independent research on the training model. Zhang et al. · Frontiers in Physiology · 2026 **The impact of computerized agility training on basketball performance: a comparative study with rope ladder training.** Randomized controlled research at Dalian University, China. It compared QuickBoard training to agility ladder training in 64 men's college basketball players over four weeks. The paper states no QuickBoard role in its design, funding or authorship. On the Agility T-Test, QuickBoard players cut their time 5.4%, versus 2.3% for the agility ladder group. That is more than double. The training also carried over to a basketball skill test run off the board. QuickBoard players reacted 9.8% faster, versus 1.4%, and cut total skill-test time 2.1%, versus 0.3%. On the board's own tests, they gained more foot speed, 7.0% vs 2.4%, and cut choice reaction time more, 6.9% vs 0.7%. See the full results table. Martin · University of Louisville · 2012 **Reaction time and self-reported stress in Division I women's soccer players.** A master's thesis by Lisa Christine Martin at the University of Louisville. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Seventeen Division I women's soccer players were tested once a week through one season, with no control group. Slower reaction times went along with more self-reported stress symptoms. Over the season, reaction times got faster, and stress symptoms and effort ratings fell. The author calls it a pilot that shows early promise for reaction time as a fatigue check. Galpin et al. · JSCR · 2008 **Reaction time and foot speed training effects over four weeks.** Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Active adults who were new to agility training, not competitive athletes. Eleven adults trained foot speed and choice reaction on the board for four weeks. Twelve others did no training. The trained group improved foot speed by 26% and reaction time by 19%. The training also transferred to a separate change-of-direction test that was not part of the program: about 0.45 seconds, roughly 7%, off an electronically timed course. The control group did not improve on any of the tests. Paquette et al. · Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2016 **Change-of-direction and balance performance in recreationally active young adults.** Published in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Run by the University of Memphis. The QuickBoard, LLC supplied the boards. All three footwear groups did the same six weeks of QuickBoard training; there was no no-training control group. All groups got faster on a change-of-direction test. Reach balance and eyes-open single-leg stability also improved, starting as early as two weeks in. Eyes-closed stability did not improve. Footwear made no difference. University of Mississippi · Agility Rating Validation **QuickBoard Agility Rating validation.** University research validating the Agility Rating composite score against established performance tests. The university is preparing the manuscript for journal submission. Publication is expected in late 2026. The validation study confirms a strong correlation with force plate measurements, the Star Drill, and the T-test. Teams and clinics use the Agility Rating for baselines, for tracking rehabilitation progress, and for return-to-sport decisions. McNicholas & Comyns · JSCR · 2020 · Independent study **External attentional focus and change-of-direction speed in college athletes.** Independent research, not a QuickBoard study. Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. College athletes cutting under an external focus cue posted faster change-of-direction and acceleration times than under an internal or neutral cue. QuickBoard cues attention to an outside target on the screen, which is the same external focus condition. Baccouch et al. · Perceptual and Motor Skills · 2024 · Independent study **Four weeks of dual-task training in elite youth soccer players.** Independent research, not a QuickBoard study. Population was U13 elite soccer athletes. Four weeks of dual-task training improved change-of-direction ability, plus cognitive flexibility and inhibition. Conventional training alone did not. The finding supports the training model QuickBoard runs on, tested by other researchers. See all published research Download the Free Performance Coach Guide Protocol Library ## Pre-built protocols designed by PTs and S&C coaches. Pick a protocol. The board runs it automatically with real-time feedback while the coach observes movement quality, runs another athlete, or works the next station. The library grows over time, and custom protocol building is also available for staff who want to design their own. Performance Warm-Up ### Warm-Up Protocols Lower-intensity reactive activation routines that fit at the start of a lift, practice, or session. Used as performance warm-ups in S&C settings to prime the cognitive-motor system before heavy work. LE Neurocognitive ### Lower Extremity Neurocognitive Protocols Reactive stepping, dual-task, and decision-making on the sensor board. Layer cognitive load over reactive motor demand for athletes who already clear the physical battery. UE / Closed Chain ### Upper Extremity Neurocognitive Program Performed in a full or modified plank position on the sensor board. Layers reaction, sequence, and decision-making demands on top of shoulder stability and closed-chain loading. In-Season Monitoring ### Agility Rating Monitoring Run the Agility Rating to track in-season fatigue, recovery, and readiness alongside your existing physical battery. Reactive Power ### Vertical and Drop Jump Testing Vertical and drop jump testing on the board outputs air time, jump height, and reactive strength index. With body weight entered in the athlete profile, impulse, average force, and peak power are also captured. Custom Protocols ### Custom Protocol Builder Build protocols around your training calendar, position groups, or sport-specific demands. Mix Speed, Stability, Movement, and Reaction work with progressive cognitive load. Sports Medicine Bridge ### ACL and Lower Extremity Return-to-Play When an athlete is moving from rehab back to performance, the same board handles both ends. The ACL Protocols cover acute through return-to-sport phases. Performance staff pick up the same athlete on the same hardware. Balance & Proprioception ### Balance Outcomes in Athletic Populations The cognitive-motor training measurably improves balance (Paquette et al., 2016, studied in recreationally active young adults). External focus is the training model. Proprioception is a downstream outcome. The athlete profile: Agility Rating, bilateral symmetry, and the recommended workout. Performance Workouts ## Agility-Rating-recommended workouts. 12 in the grid. The Agility Rating diagnoses the weakest dimension; the workouts prescribe the next session. Four workout types (Speed, Stability, Movement, Reaction) at three progressive levels (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) for twelve total Agility-Rating-recommended workouts. The app automatically recommends the matching workout type and level based on the athlete's weakest dimension. The five-dimension radar chart. The weakest dimension drives the recommended workout. Speed · Levels 1, 2, 3 ### Speed Foot speed work under cognitive load. Recommended when the Agility Rating flags Explosiveness as the weakest dimension. Stability · Levels 1, 2, 3 ### Stability Reactive stability work that loads the lower kinetic chain while the brain handles a moving stimulus on the iPad screen. Bilateral symmetry tracked across both sides. Movement · Levels 1, 2, 3 ### Movement Multi-directional reactive movement. Pairs cognitive demand with movement efficiency, captured as ground contact time and accuracy from Touches and Errors during each exercise. Reaction · Levels 1, 2, 3 ### Reaction Pure reaction work with progressive cognitive load. Recommended when the Agility Rating flags Reaction as the weakest dimension. Cognitive Layers ### Discrimination, Go/No-Go, Stroop Cognitive tasks layered onto the workouts. Discrimination (Array in app), Go/No-Go for response inhibition, and Stroop variants for cognitive flexibility. Sport doesn't happen in a quiet room; the cognitive load is the point. Documentation ### PDF Reports for Athlete Files Progress Reports and Agility Rating Reports auto-generate as PDFs and are exported to the clinician's email. Sports medicine staff and performance directors attach the PDFs to athlete files from there. How a Session Runs ## Fully automated cognitive-motor training. The coach sets the protocol. QuickBoard runs the session. Protocol automation means the coach can run another athlete, work the next station, or watch movement quality while QuickBoard delivers the session and captures the data. 1 Pick a protocol Choose from the pre-built protocols designed by PTs and S&C coaches, or load a custom protocol. Athlete profile displays Best and Last result prior to every exercise. 2 Athlete steps on the board Visual stimulus and live movement feedback appear on the iPad screen. The athlete trains with eyes on the screen while the sensors register touches on the floor. External focus is the training model. Proprioception is a downstream outcome. 3 Data captured automatically Symmetry data captures right and left reaction time and ground contact time in milliseconds. Accuracy from Touches and Errors counted during each exercise. Jump testing outputs air time, jump height, reactive strength, peak power, impulse, and average force. 4 Reports generate as PDFs Progress Report after every session. Agility Rating Report after each Agility Rating assessment. Both auto-generate as PDFs and are exported to the clinician's email. Dual-Task Training ## Sport never isolates one limb. Training shouldn't either. QuickBoard Companion syncs up to three additional iPads or iPhones to the training session, each running one or more reaction stimuli. Reaction drills Feet react on the board while hands react on the synced devices, at the same time. Speed-focused work Feet drive the board while hands react to stimuli on the companions. Fully automated The protocol runs on its own, so the coach is free to work with other athletes while it runs. One unified report Companion reaction times save alongside the sensor board results, no separate system to reconcile. That is what makes evidence-based dual-task training practical here. Done by hand, it is labor-intensive and the scoring is subjective. Companion running an upper-body reaction task while the athlete trains on the sensor board. Four ideas from sports-science research support Companion. External focus training has been tested extensively in the sports science literature. Across many studies, attention on an outside target has produced better performance than attention on the body itself (Wulf, 2013). College athletes cutting under an external focus cue posted significantly faster change-of-direction and acceleration times than under an internal or neutral cue (McNicholas & Comyns, JSCR 2020). Practicing two tasks together carries over to a different, untrained movement, not just the drills it was practiced on (Schaefer & Lang, 2012). QuickBoard training has shown this same transfer. Board training has carried over to an unpracticed change-of-direction drill (Galpin, 2008) and to balance testing in recreationally active young adults (Paquette, 2016). Elsewhere in the literature, four weeks of dual-task training improved change-of-direction ability, plus cognitive flexibility and inhibition, in youth soccer players, while conventional training alone did not (Baccouch et al., 2024). The training carries over past the drills it was built on. Return-to-sport researchers are reaching the same conclusion on testing. Standard RTS batteries are single-task, but real sport and real re-injury risk are not. Testing should add a cognitive load too (Grooms et al., 2023; Chaaban et al., 2023). That is the case for Companion: dual-task training and testing, not single-task drills in isolation. Bilateral Data ## Full weight bearing data for fatigue monitoring and return-to-play. QuickBoard captures bilateral data across the four exercises most often used to monitor athlete readiness: the Agility Rating, vertical jump testing, and reactive hop tests. Right vs left metrics feed performance and sports medicine decisions alongside strength testing and coach judgment. Agility Rating ### Composite score with right vs left exercise data The Agility Rating is built from four scored exercises (Stagger Step Left, Stagger Step Right, Double Leg React, Foot Fire). Stagger Step Left vs Right gives the bilateral deficit penalty. Double Leg React captures right and left reaction time at full body weight. Vertical Jump Testing ### Bilateral and unilateral jump outputs Vertical and drop jump testing produces air time, jump height, and reactive strength index. With body weight entered in the profile, impulse, average force, and peak power are also captured. Unilateral jumps make affected vs unaffected comparison direct. Reactive Hop Tests ### Reactive performance, right vs left, under cognitive load Reactive hop tests on the board produce right and left reaction and contact time at full body weight. In independent research from TRIA Orthopedic Center, QuickBoard was the reaction test for ACL patients, who gained less on reaction tests than on hop tests (Chmielewski et al., IJSPT 2024). Performance staff watch that same data during return-to-play. Symmetry Summary ### Deficit percentage The Agility Rating and Progress Reports include a Symmetry Summary showing percent deficit between sides based on exercise data. Coach Voice ## A high-performance coach on identifying weaknesses. Quick Board has played a critical role in developing my pro tennis clients for the last 9 years. It allows me to identify my athletes' weaknesses and address them. Quick Board has exceeded my expectations by increasing my athletes' performance on the court and reducing their injuries. Abdul Sillah High-Performance Coach, PEAK31 FAQ ## Common questions for performance staff. ### What does QuickBoard add to a strength and conditioning program? + The cognitive-motor dimension that physical-only testing misses. The board captures reaction time, ground contact time, bilateral symmetry, and accuracy from Touches and Errors during each exercise, and produces the Agility Rating, vertical jump testing, and reactive hop testing on one platform. See the Louisville research above for the in-season fatigue data. ### Does QuickBoard replace force plates? + No. Force plates measure ground reaction force; QuickBoard measures cognitive-motor integration. They answer different questions. QuickBoard's vertical and drop jump testing produces air time, jump height, and reactive strength index, with estimated impulse, average force, and peak power available when body weight is entered in the athlete profile. Many performance staff run both. ### Can I use QuickBoard for in-season fatigue monitoring? + Yes. The Agility Rating and reaction time serve as a weekly or session-by-session monitoring input alongside the existing physical battery. See the Louisville study elsewhere on this page for the season-long fatigue data behind this. ### What does the Agility Rating measure? + The Agility Rating is a composite score from 0 to 10,000 built from four standardized exercises on the QuickBoard sensor board (Stagger Step Left, Stagger Step Right, Double Leg React, Foot Fire) across five dimensions (Explosiveness, Reaction, Proprioception/Accuracy, Movement Efficiency, Symmetry). The auto-generated report includes a five-dimension radar chart and a Symmetry Summary. The app then recommends the matching workout type and level (Speed, Stability, Movement, or Reaction at Levels 1, 2, or 3) based on the weakest dimension. See the full Agility Rating page. ### How long does an Agility Rating assessment take? + Under two minutes per athlete once the profile is loaded. The four standardized exercises run automatically. The report auto-generates as a PDF after the session and is exported to the coach's email. The radar chart and Symmetry Summary travel with that PDF. ### Does QuickBoard work for team settings? + Yes. Initial setup (download the app, log in, unbox the board, start) takes about fifteen minutes or less. Every session after that is under a minute to start, or athletes can run their own protocols. The board leans against a wall when not in use and runs from any iPad with active subscription. Profiles per software tier scale from 25 athletes (Starter) to unlimited (Enterprise). Performance staff cycle athletes through Agility Rating assessments and the matching Agility-Rating-recommended workouts in the same way they run a standard physical battery. ### What does QuickBoard cost? + HD Sensor Board $2,295. HD Pro $2,495. Both include a lifetime warranty with active subscription. Software subscriptions from $49.99 to $199.99 per month based on profile count. Payment plans up to six months are available for qualifying programs. See full pricing. ### Is QuickBoard a BlazePod or FitLight alternative for sports performance testing? + Not exactly. BlazePod and FitLight are strong, portable reaction-light systems built for drills and warm-ups, and they cost less. QuickBoard is a different category of tool. It captures full body-weight standing exercises, bilateral symmetry on every rep (contact time and reaction time, per leg), the Agility Rating composite score across five dimensions, and vertical jump testing, none of which reaction lights measure. Reaction lights are great for fast, portable drills. QuickBoard is built for structured testing, monitoring, and reporting. ### Is QuickBoard worth it for a high school or club program with a limited budget? + Many high school and club programs run on tight budgets. The HD Sensor Board is $2,295 with a lifetime warranty on an active subscription, and software starts at the Starter tier, $49.99 a month for 25 profiles. Payment plans up to six months are available for qualifying programs. Most programs start on the Starter tier and move up only when profile count outgrows it, so there is no need to buy more than the roster needs on day one. ### What is visuomotor reaction training and does it carry over to competition? + Visuomotor reaction training pairs a visual stimulus with a movement response, training the nervous system to perceive, decide, and react faster. Yes. After a 4-week QuickBoard protocol, athletes gained a control-adjusted 0.45 seconds on a separate change-of-direction test they never trained on, a gain the control group did not show (Galpin et al., 2008). On the board itself, foot speed improved 26% and reaction time 19%. ### Does reaction training in one limb transfer to the rest of the body? + It depends which limb trains. Training the lower body on QuickBoard improved visuomotor choice reaction time in both the legs and the arms, while upper-body-only training did not carry over to the legs (Engeroff et al., Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2019). Foot-based reactive training produced the broader transfer, which is why QuickBoard protocols default to standing, full-body reactions. ## Keep reading - How QuickBoard works next to force plates. For programs that already own a plate. - How pro teams and training facilities use QuickBoard - QuickBoard compared with force plates, reaction lights, and screen-based training From the blog ## Recent writing on sports performance Sep 28, 2026 ### Practicing one movement can speed up a different one Training one functional movement improved performance on a different, untrained movement (Schaefer 2012). What that means for program design. Aug 10, 2026 ### Why training feet also speeds up hand reaction time Engeroff 2019 found foot-based QuickBoard training also improved hand reaction time, while hand training stayed limited to the hands. All posts 15-Minute Virtual Demo ## See it before you buy. A QuickBoard rep walks your team through one or two pre-built protocols, runs an Agility Rating session, and shows the auto-generated reports. Request Your Demo Or try the free Agility Drill app Not ready yet? Read the published research → Source: https://thequickboard.com/sports-performance