VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF MEASUREMENT OF KINEMATIC PARAMETERS IN A RUNNING SPEED TEST Validity and reliability of speed test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary criterion of running speed is the time necessary to cover a designated distance. So far, the validity and reliability of measurement of kinematic parameters of running was mainly assessed based on speed tests involving the phase of acceleration. However, there are no data on validity and reliability of running speed tests involving running starts (preceded by a pre-run), during which the speed is relatively constant. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of measurements of kinematic parameters in running speed test (20 m + 20 m). The research involved participation of female students (n=16) of the university of physical education, who were not involved in competitive sports. The average age of the participants was 20.89±0.6 years, body height 169.4±5.2 cm and weight 61.3±6.4 kg. The 20 m + 20 m speed test involved running (in as short time as possible) of a 20 m distance from a 20 m running start. The participants performed two runs during first session and a week later during the second session (test-retest). In order to determine the validity, the test results were correlated with the results of the ergonometric Quebec tests (10 s). The correlation showed a significant interdependency between the time of running with the absolute maximum power (r=-0.72; p=0.002), as well as to relative power (r=-0.55; p=0.025). In addition to speed, the relative variability of the test parameters expressed in the form of interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) did not fall below 0.76. On the other hand the absolute variability of the tested parameters expressed in the form of variability coefficient (CV) did not exceed 5.0%. The satisfactory validity and high reliability of measurement of the basic kinematic parameters of running confirms the purposefulness of the application of the 20 m + 20 m test in speed control.
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 | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".