ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2024
Development, validation and reliability of a questionnaire to evaluate coaches' and players' perceptions, learning, and resources regarding the ruck in rugby union.
Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The lack of a reliable research tool for assessing the attitudes, behaviours, and learning resources of rugby coaches and players regarding the ruck event is a significant gap in rugby research. Objectives: This study aimed to adapt an existing questionnaire focused on the tackle event and to validate and establish the reliability of the instrument. The questionnaire explores the attitudes, behaviours, and learning resources of rugby coaches and players, with a focus on the ruck event and its impact on coach and player development, as well as coaching practices. Methods: A seven-step design process was followed to validate the questionnaire's content, construct, clarity, and relevance. A panel of 12 experts evaluated the questionnaire, followed by a test-retest procedure involving 15 coaches and 16 players, highlighting the effectiveness of this questionnaire, and emphasising its potential to generate data that can impact the field of rugby coaching and player development. Results: The questionnaire was deemed appropriate and clear by the expert panel, with an average completion time of 22 minutes. Moderate to good agreement was observed among players (ICC Agreement = 0.71) and coaches (ICC Agreement = 0.88), with high response consistency (ICC Consistency = 0.71 for players and 0.87 for coaches). Significant agreement was also found in Kendall's W scores (players = 0.85, coaches = 0.93, p<0.01). Conclusion: This study presents a developed questionnaire noted for its clarity, reliability, and consistency. It serves as a valuable tool for future rugby research, with the potential to impact coach and player development significantly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.