MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2147649002 · doi:10.1080/17408980701444718

The validity and reliability of a performance assessment procedure in ice hockey

2008· article· en· W2147649002 sur OpenAlex
Luc Nadeau, Jean‐François Richard, Paul Godbout

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysical Education and Sport Pedagogy · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePhysical Education and Pedagogy
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MonctonUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIce hockeyPsychologyApplied psychologyContext (archaeology)ValidityPhysical educationReliability (semiconductor)Sport psychologyMathematics educationPsychometricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyMedicineGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Coaches and physical educators must obtain valid data relating to the contribution of each of their players in order to assess their level of performance in team sport competition. This information must also be collected and used in real game situations to be more valid. Developed initially for a physical education class context, the Team Sport Assessment Procedure (TSAP) is precisely an assessment procedure developed to measure the individual performance of each player in a game situation. The procedure has shown appropriate levels of validity for performance measurement in team sports (soccer, handball, volley-ball) taught in physical education classes. However, this procedure was never adapted for ice hockey and all of its specific characteristics. Purpose: Ice hockey has specific characteristics of play which were not considered in the original TSAP model. In order to establish the quality of the procedure in this new context, it was necessary to verify its psychometrical qualities. The purpose of the study was to establish the validity and reliability of the Team Sport Assessment Procedure (TSAP) in the context of ice hockey. Participants and setting: Nineteen young hockey players, between 14 and 17 years of age, participated in this study. These subjects played in different elite teams (CC to AA levels) in the Quebec City area in Canada. All subjects took part in three afternoon training practices per week in the context of a Sports-Studies school programme. Research design: Two correlational studies were used to determine the validity and the inter-rater reliability of the measuring instrument. Data collection: Data were collected using a peer observation strategy, similar to the one used by Gréhaigne et al. in their original study. The performance of each player was assessed during three simulated games of two minutes. Two student-observers were assigned for each player during the game. Data analysis: Validity analysis was conducted using the Spearman rank correlation between the average ranks assigned by expert observers to the players performance and scores calculated from student-observers' collected data using the TSAP. Reliability was established using percentage of agreement between student-observers for the same player observed. Findings: A correlation coefficient of − 0.77 was obtained between the average ranks assigned by expert observers to players' performance and scores calculated from student-observers' collected data using the TSAP. In addition, peer observation during a simulated game showed that young players can effectively use the TSAP in an objective manner. A mean percentage of agreement of 81.4% was calculated between student-observers. Conclusions: The results from these different analyses showed that TSAP is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of ice hockey performance. Conclusions drawn from the study are similar to those obtained by Gréhaigne et al. for the original procedure.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,413

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,075
Tête enseignante GPT0,484
Écart entre enseignants0,409 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle