MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W101442374 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.5.505

Reliability of Fitness Tests Using Methods and Time Periods Common in Sport and Occupational Management

2011· article· en· W101442374 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan D. Burnstein, Russell Steele, Ian Shrier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Intraclass correlationPlyometricsPhysical therapyTest (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)Balance (ability)Vertical jumpJumpMedicineStatisticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMathematicsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Fitness testing is used frequently in many areas of physical activity, but the reliability of these measurements under real-world, practical conditions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of specific fitness tests using the methods and time periods used in the context of real-world sport and occupational management. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Eighteen different Cirque du Soleil shows. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Cirque du Soleil physical performers who completed 4 consecutive tests (6-month intervals) and were free of injury or illness at each session (n = 238 of 701 physical performers). INTERVENTION(S): Performers completed 6 fitness tests on each assessment date: dynamic balance, Harvard step test, handgrip, vertical jump, pull-ups, and 60-second jump test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement between baseline and each time point and the ICC over all 4 time points combined. RESULTS: Reliability was acceptable (ICC > 0.6) over an 18-month time period for all pairwise comparisons and all time points together for the handgrip, vertical jump, and pull-up assessments. The Harvard step test and 60-second jump test had poor reliability (ICC < 0.6) between baseline and other time points. When we excluded the baseline data and calculated the ICC for 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month time points, both the Harvard step test and 60-second jump test demonstrated acceptable reliability. Dynamic balance was unreliable in all contexts. Limit-of-agreement analysis demonstrated considerable intraindividual variability for some tests and a learning effect by administrators on others. CONCLUSIONS: Five of the 6 tests in this battery had acceptable reliability over an 18-month time frame, but the values for certain individuals may vary considerably from time to time for some tests. Specific tests may require a learning period for administrators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207