Discussion on the validity of commonly used reliability indices in sports medicine and exercise science: a critical review with data simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Apart from objectivity and validity, reliability is considered a precondition for testing within scientific works, as unreliable testing protocols limit conclusions, especially for practical application. Classification guidelines commonly refer to relative reliability, focusing on Pearson correlation coefficients ( r p ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). On those, the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) are often calculated in addition to the variability coefficient (CV). These, however, do not account for systematic or random errors (e.g., standardization problems). To illustrate, we applied common reliability statistics in sports science on simulated data which extended the sample size of two original counter-movement-jump sessions from (youth) elite basketball players. These show that excellent r p and ICC (≥ 0.9) without a systematic bias were accompanied by a mean absolute percentage error of over 20%. Furthermore, we showed that the ICC does not account for systematic errors and has only limited value for accuracy, which can cause misleading conclusions of data. While a simple re-organization of data caused an improvement in relative reliability and reduced limits of agreement meaningfully, systematic errors occurred. This example underlines the lack of validity and objectivity of commonly used ICC-based reliability statistics (SEM, MDC) to quantify the primary and secondary variance sources. After revealing several caveats in the literature (e.g., neglecting of the systematic and random error or not distinguishing between protocol and device reliability), we suggest a methodological approach to provide reliable data collections as a precondition for valid conclusions by, e.g., recommending pre-set acceptable measurement errors.
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 | 0.310 | 0.613 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".