Assessing inter- and intra-rater reliability of movement scores and the effects of body-shape using a custom visualisation tool: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature shows conflicting results regarding inter- and intra-rater reliability, even for the same movement screen. The purpose of this study was to assess inter- and intra-rater reliability of movement scores within and between sessions of expert assessors and the effects of body-shape on reliability during a movement screen using a custom online visualisation software. METHODS: Kinematic data from 542 athletes performing seven movement tasks were used to create animations (i.e., avatar representations) using motion and shape capture from sparse markers (MoSh). For each task, assessors viewed a total of 90 animations. Using a custom developed visualisation tool, expert assessors completed two identical sessions where they rated each animation on a scale of 1-10. The arithmetic mean of weighted Cohen's kappa for each task and day were calculated to test reliability. RESULTS: Across tasks, inter-rater reliability ranged from slight to fair agreement and intra-rater reliability had slightly better reliability with slight to moderate agreement. When looking at the average kappa values, intra-rater reliability within session with and without body manipulation and between sessions were 0.45, 0.37, and 0.35, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, supplementary or alternative methods should be explored and are likely required to increase scoring objectivity and reliability even within expert assessors. To help future research and practitioners, the custom visualisation software has been made available to the public.
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 | 0.078 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".