A Generalizability Theory Study of Athletic Taping Using the Technical Skill Assessment Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context : Athletic taping skills are highly valued clinical competencies in the athletic therapy and training profession. The Technical Skill Assessment Instrument (TSAI) has been content validated and tested for intrarater reliability. Objective : To test the reliability of the TSAI using a more robust measure of reliability, generalizability theory, and to hypothetically and mathematically project the optimal number of raters and scenarios to reliably measure athletic taping skills in the future. Setting : Mount Royal University. Design : Observational study. Patients or Other Participants : A total of 29 university students (8 men, 21 women; age = 20.79 ± 1.59 years) from the Athletic Therapy Program at Mount Royal University. Intervention(s) : Participants were allowed 10 minutes per scenario to complete prophylactic taping for a standardized patient presenting with (1) a 4-week-old second-degree ankle sprain and (2) a thumb that had been hyperextended. Two raters judged student performance using the TSAI. Main Outcome Measure(s) : Generalizability coefficients were calculated using variance scores for raters, participants, and scenarios. A decision study was calculated to project the optimal number of raters and scenarios to achieve acceptable levels of reliability. Generalizability coefficients were interpreted the same as other reliability coefficients, with 0 indicating no reliability and 1.0 indicating perfect reliability. Results : The result of our study design (2 raters, 1 standardized patient, 2 scenarios) was a generalizability coefficient of 0.67. Decision study projects indicated that 4 scenarios were necessary to reliably measure athletic taping skills. Conclusions : We found moderate reliability coefficients. Researchers should include more scenarios to reliably measure athletic taping skills. They should also focus on the development of evidence-based practice guidelines and standards of athletic taping and should test those standards using a psychometrically sound instrument, such as the TSAI.
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 | 0.005 | 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".