ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2016
Reliability and Validity of the Inline Skating Skill Test.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Behavior in Inline Speed Skating: An Eye-Tracking Evaluation for Performance Analysis.European journal of sport science · 2026Article
- Association Between Balance and Hip Muscle Strength in Inline Skaters.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Student Perceptions of Motor, Mental and Social Benefits and the Impact of Practicing Recreational Figure Skating.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the inline skating skill test. Based on previous skating experience forty-two skaters (26 female and 16 male) were randomized into two groups (competitive level vs. recreational level). They performed the test four times, with a recovery time of 45 minutes between sessions. Prior to testing, the participants rated their skating skill using a scale from 1 to 10. The protocol included performance time measurement through a course, combining different skating techniques. Trivial changes in performance time between the repeated sessions were determined in both competitive females/males and recreational females/males (-1.7% [95% CI: -5.8-2.6%] - 2.2% [95% CI: 0.0-4.5%]). In all four subgroups, the skill test had a low mean within-individual variation (1.6% [95% CI: 1.2-2.4%] - 2.7% [95% CI: 2.1-4.0%]) and high mean inter-session correlation (ICC = 0.97 [95% CI: 0.92-0.99] - 0.99 [95% CI: 0.98-1.00]). The comparison of detected typical errors and smallest worthwhile changes (calculated as standard deviations × 0.2) revealed that the skill test was able to track changes in skaters' performances. Competitive-level skaters needed shorter time (24.4-26.4%, all p < 0.01) to complete the test in comparison to recreational-level skaters. Moreover, moderate correlation (ρ = 0.80-0.82; all p < 0.01) was observed between the participant's self-rating and achieved performance times. In conclusion, the proposed test is a reliable and valid method to evaluate inline skating skills in amateur competitive and recreational level skaters. Further studies are needed to evaluate the reproducibility of this skill test in different populations including elite inline skaters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27803616PMC4974850W2443467000What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.