Test-Retest Reliability, Criterion-Related Validity, and Minimal Detectable Change of Score on an Abbreviated Wingate Test for Field Sport Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeat measurements in 69 young adults were performed to assess the test-retest reliability and the 95% confidence interval of the difference in score between paired observations (MDC95) of a Wingate test as abbreviated for field sport participants (test of a 15-second duration [15-secT]). Test-retest reliability was excellent for peak power output (PPO) and mean power output (MPO), independently of their mode of expression and was moderate for the fatigue index (FI). The standard errors of measurement (SEM) for absolute, relative, and derived PPO and MPO values ranged from 2.6 to 3.7%, all being smaller than the corresponding smallest worthwhile change (SWC). In contrast, FI values were rated as "marginal," with an SEM (9.6%) greater than the SWC (1.7). The range of MDC95 values for PPO and MPO were 9.9-10.4 and 7.37-7.42%, respectively. The absolute MPO showed the highest test-retest reliability and was the most effective in detecting real change. A second phase of the study evaluated the criterion-related validity of the 15-secT in 43 young men who performed 15-secT and standard 30-second Wingate anaerobic test (30-secT) in random order, on 2 separate occasions. There were no significant intertest differences in absolute, relative, or derived PPO. However, the FI for the 30-secT was greater than that for the 15-secT. Intertest correlations were highly significant for both MPOs and FIs. These findings suggest that the abbreviated Wingate test offers a reliable and valid tool for the evaluation of PPO and MPO, at least in young physical education students.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".