The reasoning behind assessing push-up tests – an in depth analysis

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60162694%3AG38__%2F24%3A00560244" target="_blank" >RIV/60162694:G38__/24:00560244 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://www.efsupit.ro/images/stories/iulie2023/Art%20209.pdf" target="_blank" >http://www.efsupit.ro/images/stories/iulie2023/Art%20209.pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2023.07209" target="_blank" >10.7752/jpes.2023.07209</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The reasoning behind assessing push-up tests – an in depth analysis

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

A good exercise does not necessarily make for a good measurement tool and using such a tool may lead to wrong conclusions if used for scientific measurement and personal evaluation, yet it happens when using push-up tests which are subjective and lack reliability. This study examined the reasons behind the questionable reliability of push-up testing. Material and Methods: Fifty videorecorded 30-second push-up test performances were evaluated by 10 highly experienced raters in two separate assessment trials. The assessment involved counting the number of acceptable repetitions and identifying any technical flaws in the execution of the exercise. The collected evaluations were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: Statistical analysis (p ≤ 0.05) revealed significant inter-rater differences in counting in both trials. Comparable counting was only found among raters who marked the same technique as "perfect" and overall concordance on perfect execution was 79.4%. Intra-rater counting reliability ranged from r = 0.57 to r = 0.92. Three main areas of technique deterioration were identified: incomplete arm extension (10.2% of denied repetitions), inadequate arm flexion (7%), and failure to keep the body straight and rigid (6.3%), which was also the most disputed between the raters. Additionally, male raters were more lenient towards the technique imperfections of female subjects. Many miscalculations were also detected, often correlated with perfect technique execution (88% of cases). The second most common cause of miscalculating was raters' willingness to count a repetition that was interrupted mid-execution due to time constraints. Conclusions: The study findings indicate that push-up assessment is highly subjective and should be avoided in scientific or personal evaluations that require a higher level of precision. The reliability of the assessment heavily depends on the individual administering the test, and the average evaluator demonstrates only moderate reliability. To mitigate gender-based bias, considering a female evaluator for female examinees is recommended. Therefore, caution is advised when relying on push-up tests when more reliable alternatives are available.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The reasoning behind assessing push-up tests – an in depth analysis

Popis výsledku anglicky

A good exercise does not necessarily make for a good measurement tool and using such a tool may lead to wrong conclusions if used for scientific measurement and personal evaluation, yet it happens when using push-up tests which are subjective and lack reliability. This study examined the reasons behind the questionable reliability of push-up testing. Material and Methods: Fifty videorecorded 30-second push-up test performances were evaluated by 10 highly experienced raters in two separate assessment trials. The assessment involved counting the number of acceptable repetitions and identifying any technical flaws in the execution of the exercise. The collected evaluations were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: Statistical analysis (p ≤ 0.05) revealed significant inter-rater differences in counting in both trials. Comparable counting was only found among raters who marked the same technique as "perfect" and overall concordance on perfect execution was 79.4%. Intra-rater counting reliability ranged from r = 0.57 to r = 0.92. Three main areas of technique deterioration were identified: incomplete arm extension (10.2% of denied repetitions), inadequate arm flexion (7%), and failure to keep the body straight and rigid (6.3%), which was also the most disputed between the raters. Additionally, male raters were more lenient towards the technique imperfections of female subjects. Many miscalculations were also detected, often correlated with perfect technique execution (88% of cases). The second most common cause of miscalculating was raters' willingness to count a repetition that was interrupted mid-execution due to time constraints. Conclusions: The study findings indicate that push-up assessment is highly subjective and should be avoided in scientific or personal evaluations that require a higher level of precision. The reliability of the assessment heavily depends on the individual administering the test, and the average evaluator demonstrates only moderate reliability. To mitigate gender-based bias, considering a female evaluator for female examinees is recommended. Therefore, caution is advised when relying on push-up tests when more reliable alternatives are available.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Physical Education and Sport

ISSN

2247-8051

e-ISSN

2247-806X

Svazek periodika

23

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

7

Stát vydavatele periodika

RO - Rumunsko

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

1706-1713

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85166965125