Validity and Reliability of a Medicine Ball Explosive Power Test
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".