Are Single Limb Hopping Scores the Same When Performed in a Physical Education Class Versus a Laboratory Setting in Uninjured Adolescents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the performance of adolescents (11-13 years old) in two environments with five single-limb hopping tasks. The purpose was to assess the reproducibility and responsiveness of single-limb hop tests in two environments (gymnasium and laboratory) for uninjured adolescents, and determine whether there are differences in baseline measures between males and females. Thirty-four participants (12 ± 0.3 years) were randomly assigned the gymnasium during a regularly scheduled physical education class or the laboratory and completed five single-limb hop tasks. Two weeks later, participants completed the tasks in the other location. The performances were evaluated for reproducibility (intra-class correlation coefficients [ICC], and standard errors of measurement [SEM]), and responsiveness (Bland-Altman analyses [BA], and smallest real difference [SRD]). Limb symmetry indices (LSI) were also calculated for each task. Two-way mixed ANOVAs examined location and sex differences. All hops were reproducible (ICC = 0.62-0.88) with SEMs ranging between 6.7-13.0% of the mean of the group. BA showed location differences for the triple hop on the dominant limb (d = -13.3 cm, p=0.03). SRDs ranged between 18.5-35.9% of the mean of the group for all hops. Males scored higher (percent difference (%D) = 9.9-21.4%, p<0.05) for all hops except the anterior hop on both limbs, the 6-meter timed hop and lateral hop on the non-dominant limb. LSIs were 93.5-102.6% and 94.4-101.7% for all hopping task for females and males, respectively. In conclusion, this battery of single-limb hop tests offer a reliable method for clinicians and researchers to assess the functional capacity of uninjured adolescents in various environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".