Comparison and effects of coordination based circuit training and small side games on agility and dynamic balance in healthy students aged 15-18 years

Abstract

Background and Study Aim. Agility and dynamic balance are essential motor skills that support movement efficiency, postural control, and active participation in physical education learning for adolescents. Coordination-based circuit training provides structured and repetitive multidirectional movement stimuli, while small-sided games (SSG) present more contextual movement demands through spatial orientation, changes of direction, and rapid decision-making. However, the comparative effects of these two approaches on agility and dynamic balance in healthy, non-athlete students warrant further examination. This study aimed to analyze and compare the effects of coordination-based circuit training and SSG on agility and dynamic balance in healthy students aged 15–18 years, and to determine whether these intervention effects differ by gender. Materials and Methods. This study used a pretest-posttest controlled trial involving 84 healthy students from four high schools in Surakarta City, Indonesia. The participants comprised 42 male and 42 female students who were stratified by school of origin and gender and then randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to the circuit training, small-sided games, and control groups. Each group included 28 students (14 male and 14 female). Both intervention groups participated in a six-week program comprising 18 sessions, conducted three times per week for 60 minutes per session, with progressive increases in training volume and task complexity. The control group continued to participate in regular school physical activity without receiving either structured coordination intervention. Agility was measured using the Illinois Agility Test, while dynamic balance was measured using the three-way Star Excursion Balance Test composite score. Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 factorial MANCOVA with group and gender as fixed factors and pretest scores as covariates. Results. Group had a significant effect on the combined posttest scores of agility and dynamic balance after controlling for baseline scores, F = 290.969, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.886. Gender did not show a significant main multivariate effect, F = 0.141, p = 0.869, partial η² = 0.004, whereas the group × gender interaction was significant, F = 23.329, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.384. The group effect was also significant for posttest agility, F = 219.112, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.852, and dynamic balance, F = 1510.249, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.975. Pairwise comparisons showed that both circuit training and SSG produced significantly better agility outcomes than the control condition in male and female students (all p < 0.001), with no significant difference between circuit training and SSG in males (p = 0.371) or females (p = 1.000). For dynamic balance, circuit training produced significantly higher adjusted scores than SSG in both males and females (both p < 0.001), while both interventions also significantly outperformed the control condition. Conclusions. Coordination-based circuit training and small-sided games produced significantly better agility and dynamic balance outcomes than the control condition in healthy, non-athlete adolescents. Both interventions were similarly effective for agility, with no significant difference between them within either gender. In contrast, circuit training produced significantly more favorable dynamic balance outcomes than SSG in both male and female students. The significant group × gender interaction indicated that the effects of the training methods varied according to gender. Circuit training may therefore be prioritized when dynamic balance is the primary objective, whereas either circuit training or SSG may be used to improve agility in school-based physical education. Future research should involve larger multicenter samples, longer intervention periods, post-program monitoring, and tracking of physical activity outside the study.