Re-examining the relationship between measures of static and dynamic balance among young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balance is essential to several activities of daily life, from the capacity to stand independently to the execution of complex sport movements. The extent to which balance can be improved has led researchers to consider whether underlying features of a general balance ability exists, and whether they can be used to predict performance on future balance tasks. Adjacent to this investigation is the debate between theorists who support a general motor ability (GMA) and those who advocate for motor specificity. The notion of task specificity has been supported within the literature, such as the highly cited study by Drowatzky and Zuccato (1967) that compared balance tasks, finding weak correlations between tasks assessed. The purpose of the current study was to replicate this classic study using a more mature, contemporary sample and investigate the relationship between six static and dynamic measures of balance among a young adult population to determine if there is continuing support for this notion. Standardized instructions and procedures were followed when completing the Stork Stand Test, Diver’s Stand Test, Bass Lengthwise Stick Test, Sideward Leap Test, Modified Bass Stepping Stone Test, and a Modified Balance Beam Test. Five hundred and seventy university students completed these six balance performance tests. A Spearman’s rank-order correlation test, assessing the relationship between the results, revealed significant weak to moderate correlations. These results contrasted with the original study that yielded weak correlations between balance tasks, with only one correlation reaching significance (Drowatzky & Zuccato, 1967). While the nature of the tasks assessed made it difficult to draw conclusions with respect to the motor specificity hypothesis, they allowed further reflection on the complexity of balance, and on the specificity of practice hypothesis, thus calling to revisit the debate.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".