The validity and reliability of a performance assessment procedure in ice hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.028 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".