Developing a Research Agenda for the Profession of Kinesiology: A Modified Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Optimal delivery of health care service requires evidence-based practice by the professionals within their respective fields. Kinesiology recently became a regulated health profession in the Province of Ontario, drawing on principles of movement science in related areas of human clinical and performance disciplines to appropriately guide practice. However, with the addition of kinesiology to the class of regulated health professions, research that specifically guides service delivery and best practice policy is needed. A clear research agenda with identified priorities within the profession of kinesiology that is informed by current practitioners and stakeholders will enhance the discipline by ensuring clinical excellence and scientific relevance. A mixed methods Delphi study for consensus building was used, consisting of four rounds of participant engagement including baseline focus groups, online Delphi survey (two rounds), and final ranking of top research questions. In the final round, Kendall's W was used to determine agreement among participants on final questions. n = 67 participated in the focus groups, and n = 104, 102, 102 kinesiologists participated in rounds 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Two hundred and eighteen baseline research questions were identified from the focus groups, spanning three thematic areas: clinical skills, education/professional development, and contemporary issues/advocacy for professionals. Following the conclusion of the third round, 32 research questions achieved consensus of “significant importance.” The list of 32 questions was prioritized by respondents to identify the top 10 research questions for professional kinesiology, which reached statistical concordance ( W = 0.44, P < 0.001). This is the inaugural research agenda for registered kinesiologists. Consensus-based research priorities identified in this agenda should be considered when designing and allocating resources to professional kinesiology research.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".