Validity and Reliability of a Medicine Ball Explosive Power Test
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a medicine ball throw test to assess explosive power. Twenty competitive sand volleyball players (10 male players, 10 female players) performed a medicine ball throw and a standard countermovement vertical jump. The subjects attended 2 sessions; at each session, 3 attempts of each test were completed. The movement pattern for the medicine ball throw was a backward overhead toss. To standardize for body weight, a power index was calculated for the countermovement vertical jump using the Lewis formula. Validity was assessed using the best score for both the throw and the jump, and reliability was assessed using the best score from each session. There was a strong correlation between the distance of the medicine ball throw and the power index for the countermovement vertical jump (r = 0.906, p < 0.01). For the countermovement vertical jump, the test-retest reliability was 0.993 (p < 0.01), and for the medicine ball throw, the testretest reliability was 0.996 (p < 0.01). These findings suggest that the medicine ball throw test is a valid and reliable test for assessing explosive power for an analogous total-body movement pattern and general athletic bility.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it