Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24293244›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2014

Tests examining skill outcomes in sport: a systematic review of measurement properties and feasibility.

Samuel J Robertson, Angus F Burnett, Jodie Cochrane

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Talent Identification in Sport: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samuel J RobertsonCentre for Exercise and Sports Sciences, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, 3125, Australia, sam.robertson@deakin.edu.au.
Angus F Burnett
Jodie Cochrane

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA high level of participant skill is influential in determining the outcome of many sports. Thus, tests assessing skill outcomes in sport are commonly used by coaches and researchers to estimate an athlete's ability level, to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or for the purpose of talent identification.

objectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the methodological quality, measurement properties and feasibility characteristics of sporting skill outcome tests reported in the peer-reviewed literature. DATA SOURCES: A search of both SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE databases was undertaken. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that examined tests of sporting skill outcomes were reviewed. Only studies that investigated measurement properties of the test (reliability or validity) were included. A total of 22 studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsA customised checklist of assessment criteria, based on previous research, was utilised for the purpose of this review.

resultsA range of sports were the subject of the 22 studies included in this review, with considerations relating to methodological quality being generally well addressed by authors. A range of methods and statistical procedures were used by researchers to determine the measurement properties of their skill outcome tests. The majority (95%) of the reviewed studies investigated test-retest reliability, and where relevant, inter and intra-rater reliability was also determined. Content validity was examined in 68% of the studies, with most tests investigating multiple skill domains relevant to the sport. Only 18% of studies assessed all three reviewed forms of validity (content, construct and criterion), with just 14% investigating the predictive validity of the test. Test responsiveness was reported in only 9% of studies, whilst feasibility received varying levels of attention. LIMITATIONS: In organised sport, further tests may exist which have not been investigated in this review. This could be due to such tests firstly not being published in the peer-review literature and secondly, not having their measurement properties (i.e., reliability or validity) examined formally.

conclusionsOf the 22 studies included in this review, items relating to test methodological quality were, on the whole, well addressed. Test-retest reliability was determined in all but one of the reviewed studies, whilst most studies investigated at least two aspects of validity (i.e., content, construct or criterion-related validity). Few studies examined predictive validity or responsiveness. While feasibility was addressed in over half of the studies, practicality and test limitations were rarely addressed. Consideration of study quality, measurement properties and feasibility components assessed in this review can assist future researchers when developing or modifying tests of sporting skill outcomes.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceChecklistHumansMotor SkillsReproducibility of ResultsSportsTask Performance and Analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.