Between-Day Reliability of Pre-Participation Screening Components in Pre-Professional Ballet and Contemporary Dancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical appraisal of research investigating risk factors for musculoskeletal injury in dancers suggests high quality reliability studies are lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine between-day reliability of pre-participation screening (PPS) components in pre-professional ballet and contemporary dancers. Thirty-eight dancers (35 female, 3 male; median age; 18 years; range: 11 to 30 years) participated. Screening components (Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28, body mass index, percent total body fat, total bone mineral density, Foot Posture Index-6, hip and ankle range of motion, three lumbopelvic control tasks, unipedal dynamic balance, and the Y-Balance Test) were conducted one week apart. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs: 95% confidence intervals), standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change (MDC), Bland-Altman methods of agreement [95% limits of agreement (LOA)], Cohen's kappa coefficients, standard error, and percent agreements were calculated. Depending on the screening component, ICC estimates ranged from 0.51 to 0.98, kappa coefficients varied between -0.09 and 0.47, and percent agreement spanned 71% to 95%. Wide 95% LOA were demonstrated by Foot Posture Index-6 (right: -6.06, 7.31), passive hip external rotation (right: -9.89, 16.54), and passive supine turnout (left: -15.36, 17.58). The PPS components examined demonstrated moderate to excellent relative reliability with mean between-day differences less than MDC, or sufficient percent agreement, across all assessments. However, due to wide 95% limits of agreement, the Foot Posture Index-6 and passive hip range of motion are not recommended for screening injury risk in pre-professional dancers.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".