Test-retest reliability and criterion validity of a new Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the relative and absolute test-retest reliability and criterion validity of a new Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test (TAIKT). METHODS: Twenty Tunisian elite Taekwondo athletes participated in this study (15 males and 5 females). Participants performed the TAIKT and the Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST), twice (test and retest), on separate occasions three-week apart. Peak heart rate (HRpeak), blood lactate concentration [La־], and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during each session. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the test and retest of TAIKT and RAST for all performances and physiological variables, except for the absolute mean power (Pmean) of RAST. Test-retest results showed that the TAIKT and RAST were reliable. All TAIKT and RAST parameters had an ICC>0.90, SEM<5%, with the smallest worthwhile change slightly higher than SEM, with very small limits of concordance. Strong significant correlations were found between TAIKT and RAST parameters (Ppeak (r=0.81; r=0.70), Pmean (r=0.72; r=0.60) in (W and W·Kg-67 respectively), fatigue index (r=0.81), [La־] (r=0.89) and RPE (r=0.78) at P<0.01, and HRpeak (r=0.55, at P<0.05)). CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that the TAIKT can be considered as a valid and reliable specific test for assessing anaerobic power of Taekwondo athletes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".