## 5 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Basketball Players (N = 22)**} \\ \hline  & **U1D (CI 95\%)** & **UIND (CI 95\%)** \\ \hline
5 m Sprint (s) & \(-\)0.571 * & (\(-\)1.099, \(-\)0.199) & \(-\)0.535 * & (\(-\)1.047, \(-\)0.147) \\
10 m Sprint (s) & \(-\)0.670 * & (\(-\)1.260, \(-\)0.361) & \(-\)0.637 * & (\(-\)1.203, \(-\)0.303) \\ BP (m) & 0.956 *** & (1.448, 2.347) & 0.933 *** & (1.231, 2.131) \\ CMJF (cm) & 0.848 ** & (0.799, 1.699) & 0.851 * & (0.810, 1.709) \\ CMJWF (cm) & 0.856 ** & (0.829, 1.728) & 0.827 ** & (0.729, 1.628) \\ CMJDF (cm) & 0.859 ** & (0.840, 1.739) & 0.888 ** & (0.963, 1.862) \\ CMJDWH (cm) & 0.811 ** & (0.680, 1.580) & 0.780 ** & (0.596, 1.495) \\ CMJNDF (cm) & 0.775 ** & (0.583, 1.482) & 0.860 ** & (0.844, 1.743) \\ CMJNDWH (cm) & 0.706 ** & (0.430, 1.329) & 0.775 ** & (0.583, 1.482) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Correlations between the Novel Test and Standardized Tests. of the new test was nearly perfect (r > 0.9) for both legs. Moreover, as only one point was found to be outside the confidence interval (CI), our findings enhance the reliability and validity of the new test for both legs. Although the new test was found to be valid for both legs, differences were seen in the mean scores when comparing the test/retest results. For the dominant leg, better scores were seen in the test (U1D), while, for the non-dominant leg, better scores were seen in the retest, conducted 72 h after the initial test (U2 ND). This finding could stem from the ongoing need for strong coordination skills with the dominant leg when playing basketball--as no differences were seen in the test-retest scores for this leg. Although the test was performed on one leg, it was performed after a layup--which could explain the large differences in mean scores compared to the CMJ tests that were performed on one leg without accelerating beforehand. According to the Bland-Altman plot, accuracy is higher for the dominant (preferred) leg, as compared to the non-dominant leg, where variability is higher. This is apparently due to the fact that the participants are more used to using the dominant leg in games and practice, so there is more consistency. For the horizontal tests, the highest correlation was seen for the 10 m sprint test (r > 0.670), which required greater acceleration than the 5 m sprint, as well as a greater combination of horizontal and vertical movements. In the vertical tests, the CMJ presented very high correlations for all assessments, with the highest correlation being between the CMJF and the CMJDF (r > 0.8). As in these tests, the participants were required to jump with their hands free, not on their hips, and this could explain the higher significance of the results. The highest correlation was seen for the BP test (r > 0.9), where both horizontal and vertical skills were combined. As this is a typical requirement when playing basketball, this finding enhances the importance and relevance of the newly developed test. As with the novel testing protocol, the BP test requires strong capabilities of both vertical and horizontal lower limb explosive power [5]. The participants possessed a strong foundation for doing so, based on their training in plumetrics and in explosive power--which is why we compared the BP test and our newly proposed test. Yet, despite the combination of movements, the BP test is not as specific as the new test in replicating and assessing basketball players' explosive power. As such, our findings indicate the significance of the newly proposed test for assessing lower limb explosive power among basketball players in the field. The findings of this research are in line with those of previous studies that assessed standardized tests for measuring lower limb explosive power and complex coordination (that require both horizontal and vertical capabilities) for a range of ball games [11; 32; 34; 35].