EXPLORATION OF SCORE AGREEMENT ON A MODIFIED UPPER QUARTER Y-BALANCE TEST KIT AS COMPARED TO THE UPPER QUARTER Y-BALANCE TEST.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Physical performance measures (PPMs) such as The Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) and the Y-Balance Test (YBT) are functional movement tests used to assess participants' dynamic balance, which can be a vital component in physical exams to identify predisposing factors for risk of injury. The YBT is a functional assessment tool for the upper and lower body. It evolved from the SEBT, which has been previously used in research as a lower body functional assessment. It is comprised of fewer movement directions, which help limit fatigue. The YBT kit is a commercialized tool, which may pose barriers for clinicians with limited budgets and/or strict approval process for purchasing capital items in their clinics, especially healthcare providers in the secondary school setting. The cost may also pose a barrier for researchers with limited budgets. A less expensive, easy to make kit, may provide clinicians an opportunity to integrate functional testing into their evaluation or research. The purpose of this pilot study was to describe a cost efficient method to gather participant's upper quarter YBT (UQYBT) measurements and examine the inter- and intra-rater score agreement between this method and the commercial YBT measurements. METHODS: A convenience sample of 20 physically active participants volunteered to participate in a comparison study of the of Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test (UQYBT) using the commercialized kit and the Modified Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test kit (mUQYBT) made with three cloth tape measures, athletic tape, a goniometer and three 2x4x8 wood blocks. A Pearson Product Moment correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were used to examine the relationship between intra-rater scores comparing the UQYBT and mUQYBT. Inter-rater scores were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (2,1) and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: All Pearson Product Moment r-values for intra-rater scores were greater than .96 and statistically significant at p<0.05. Coefficients of determination suggest that the mUQYBT scores account for approximately 92% of the UQYBT composite score when analyzing intra-rater comparisons. Bland-Altman plots suggest moderate agreement between the two tests with a potential bias towards higher composite scores in the mUQYBT. Inter-rater ICC scores were all greater than .98, while Bland-Altman plot analyses suggest moderate agreement between the raters. CONCLUSION: The mUQYBT produced similar results in both inter- and intra-rater measurements when compared to the commercialized YBT kit and offers a cost-effective alternative for assessing upper quarter PPMs for clinicians with limited budgets. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
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 | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".