Effect of a High-Rolling-Resistance Training Method on the Success Rate and Time Required to Learn the Wheelchair Wheelie Skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to test the hypotheses that a wheelie training method that begins in a high-rolling-resistance (RR) setting (1) improves the success rate and (2) reduces the training time. Our secondary objectives were to assess the effects of other factors (e.g., age, gender) on training time and to acquire data on the perceptions of the participants that would assist us in refining our training methods. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study including 48 able-bodied participants with no significant wheelchair experience. Each participant was taught the wheelie skill, using up to five training sessions. Participants in the conventional group did all of their training on a smooth, level, tile surface. The RR group began training in a high-RR setting (rear wheels initially prevented from moving at all, progressing to being on 12-cm-thick foam that permitted some movement) before moving to the tile surface. Outcome measures were success rate (%), training time (mins) to achieve wheelie competence (defined as the ability to perform two consecutive 30-sec wheelies within a 1.5-m-diameter circle, assessed at least 2 days after training), and a questionnaire. RESULTS: The success rates for those in the conventional and RR groups were 96% and 100%, respectively (P = 1.000). The mean (+/-SD) training times for the conventional and RR groups were 55.9 mins (+/-27.1) and 51.8 mins (+/-18.7) (P = 0.549). Training time was not significantly affected by trainer or age, but it was affected by sex, with women requiring an average of 21.4 mins more than men (P = 0.002). Perceptions of participants in both groups about the training were positive. Of the participants in the RR group, 14 (74%) perceived the RR technique as "very effective," and five (26%) perceived it as "moderately effective." CONCLUSIONS: Neither success rate nor training time for wheelie skill acquisition by able-bodied learners are improved by a training method using high RR. Women require more time to learn than men. Learners using the RR technique perceive it to be effective. These results have implications for training practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".