Table 2.

Adapted version of the Downs and Black checklist – used rating criteria.

	Points were awarded, if the following criteria were clearly met:
Items
Reporting
Aim	The objective of the study is clearly described
Outcomes	Outcome measures are stated in the Introduction or Methods section. Reliability/validity data are provided. Scored “0” if methods are first mentioned in the Results section
Sample characteristics	Characteristics of the included participants (e.g., age, sex, body weight/height, sports and performance level) described. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be stated
Motor task/conditions	Adequate and comprehensible reporting of the procedure of the motor task, including the pre-planned and unplanned condition
Confounders	Potential confounders (i.e. assessment of dominant/non-dominant limb, sex, available response time to react to the visual cue; approach speed) are reported
Findings	Adequate and comprehensible reporting of the study findings. All tests mentioned in the Methods section are addressed
Variability estimates	Standard deviations, standard errors or confidence intervals reported. For non-normally distributed data, the interquartile range is reported
Actual p-values	Actual p-values reported instead of the mere reporting of thresholds (e.g., p < 0.05)
Funding	External funding/grants reported
External validity
Participants representative	The study identified the source and target population and provided su fficient details about related characteristics (e.g., sex, age, activity/performance level or playing position), and these participants were actually included. For example, scored “0” if only males/females were included and this was not mentioned in the objectives, or if elite athletes were included and the objective was not specific for this
Setting representative	The athletic tasks consisted of movements performed in the sports habitually performed by the participants (e.g., cutting/jump landing in team sports) and contained a clear decision-making component
Internal validity (study bias and confounding)
Data dredging	If data analysis was consistent with the pre-registration (if available), or described in the Introduction or Methods section, indicating no data dredging, a score of 1 was given
Adequate statistics	Adequate inference statistical analyses were applied to answer the research question. Alpha error inflation is controlled for (statistical power is rated as a separate item)
Multiple testing of the same outcome measure*	If one study tested/investigated the same outcome multiple (> 2x) times (e.g. using different tasks, cutting angles, response times, limb, phases or groups)
Accurate measures	Objective measurement tools with suffi cient test quality (reliability/validity) were used
Randomness of conditions/directions	The order of the planned and unplanned conditions and landing side/cutting direction was randomized
Adjustment for confounders	Potential confounders were considered as covariates in the statistical analysis, or, for example, it was made clear that potential confounding variables (e.g., approach speed and available response time) did not differ between conditions
Statistical power	An a priori sample size calculation was performed and detailed in the Methods section and/or if statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between conditions were found for at least one biomechanical outcome