Reliability, criterion-concurrent validity, and construct-discriminant validity of a head-marking version of the taekwondo anaerobic intermittent kick test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of a head-marking version of the taekwondo anaerobic intermittent kick test (TAIKT-head). Twenty-seven (21 males and 6 females) taekwondo athletes performed TAIKT-head on two occasions (test-retest). In addition, they performed the chest-marking version of the TAIKT (TAIKT-chest), 30-s continuous jump (CJ30s), countermovement jump (CMJ) and flexibility tests. To establish TAIKT-head's construct validity (discriminatory capability), two subgroups were identified based on their international and national taekwondo results: 15 elite (12 males and 3 females) and 12 sub-elite (9 males and 3 females) athletes. TAIKT-head showed high relative (ICCs ≥ 0.90) and absolute (SEMs < SWCs) reliability. The comparison between TAIKT-head and TAIKT-chest revealed that absolute and relative peak and mean powers were higher (p < 0.001) in TAIKT-head than in TAIKT-chest. In contrast, the fatigue index and rating of perceived exertion were lower in TAIKT-head than in TAIKT-chest (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference between the two tests regarding physiological variables. Significant correlations between TAIKT-head and TAIKT-chest (r ranged from 0.74 to 0.53), CJ30s (r ranged from 0.84 to 0.43), and CMJ (r ranged from 0.88 to 0.79) were mostly "very large". There was no association between TAIKT-head and flexibility tests. Elite athletes showed greater TAIKT-head performances than sub-elite counterparts. Receiving operating characteristic analysis indicated that the TAIKT-head effectively discriminated between elite and sub-elite athletes. In conclusion, the TAIKT-head is a reliable and valid test to evaluate the specific intermittent anaerobic power of taekwondo athletes through the most used kicking technique at the head level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".