Comparing Technical Proficiency of Elite Table Tennis Players with Intellectual Disability: Simulation Testing versus Game Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technical skill proficiency among elite table tennis players with intellectual disabilities (ID) was investigated in this study using two approaches: an off-court simulation testing protocol and an on-court, standardized observational framework during game play. Participants included 24 players with ID (M age = 25 yr., SD = 6; M IQ = 61, SD = 9), the top 16 performers, 13 men and 11 women, at the International Federation for sport for para-athletes with an intellectual disability (Inas) World Championships. Self-reported table tennis training experience of the players was 13 +/- 5 yr. In the Simulation Testing condition, players were instructed to play five sets of basic and five sets of advanced skills, which were subsequently assessed by experts using a standardized and validated observational protocol. The same protocol was used to assess the same skills during Game Play. Ratings of overall technical proficiency were not significantly different between Simulation Testing and Game Play conditions. There was a strong positive correlation between technical proficiency measured during Game Play vs Simulation Testing for the variables flick, topspin forehand, and topspin backhand. No correlations were found for the variables contra, block, and push. Insight into this relationship is important for future development of classification systems for ID athletes in the Paralympic Games, because comparing competition observation with the athlete's potential shown during the classification session is essential information for classifiers to confirm the athlete's competition class.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".