Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test: Discriminant Validity and an Update with the Gold-Standard Wingate Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to update the validity of the Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test compared with the 30-s Wingate anaerobic test as the "Gold-Standard", squat jump and countermovement jump tests. The second objective was to examine whether this new specific test would be able to effectively discriminate between elite taekwondo athletes of different competitive levels. Twenty taekwondo athletes (15 males and 5 females) participated in the validation component, whereas 18 (14 males and 4 females) and 16 (13 males and 3 females) athletes participated in the reliability analysis of the Wingate anaerobic test and jumping tests, respectively. They performed these tests on two separate occasions (i.e., test-retest), in addition to the Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test. To establish test's discriminatory capability (i.e., construct validity), two subgroups were identified based on their international and national taekwondo performance: 10 elite (8 males and 2 females) and 9 sub-elite (7 males and 2 females) athletes. Wingate anaerobic test and jumping tests performances showed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.90, SEM < 5% for most variables). Significant correlations between Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test, Wingate anaerobic test, and jumping tests' variables were mostly "large". Elite taekwondo athletes showed greater taekwondo test performances compared with their sub-elite counterparts (p < 0.001). Receiving operating characteristic analysis indicated that the taekwondo specific test was able to effectively discriminate between elite and sub-elite taekwondo athletes. Overall, the findings of the current study support the concurrent validity of the Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test. In particular, the Taekwondo Anaerobic Intermittent Kick Test showed good ability to effectively discriminate between taekwondo athletes of different competitive levels.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".