ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Between-rater reliability for using radar technology to quantify maximal horizontal deceleration performance in NCAA division 1 American football and female lacrosse athletes.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Deceleration Performance: Methodological and Practical Considerations.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With recent increases in the popularity of studying the physical construct of horizontal deceleration performance in team-sport athletes, the aim of the present study was to assess the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of processing and quantifying horizontal deceleration ability using radar technology. Methods: Data from 92 NCAA Division 1 athletes from two different athletic teams (American football and Lacrosse) were used for the present investigation. All athletes performed two trials of the modified acceleration to deceleration assessment (ADA), which consisted of a maximal 10 m sprint acceleration, followed by a rapid deceleration. Four individual raters manually processed raw, radar-derived instantaneous velocity data for the ADA, and an automated script was used to calculate metrics of interest. Results: Primary study findings suggest moderate to excellent levels of agreement (ICC = 0.56-0.91) for maximal horizontal deceleration metrics between the four individual raters. The intra-rater analyses revealed poor to excellent consistency (ICC = 0.31-0.94) between ADA trials, with CV%'s ranging from 3.1% to 13.2%, depending on the respective metric and rater. Discussion: Our data suggests that if a foundational understanding and agreement of manual data processing procedures for radar-derived data is given between raters, metrics may be interpreted with moderate to excellent levels of confidence. However, when possible, and when using the Stalker ATS radar technology, authors recommend that practitioners use one trained individual to manually process raw data. Ideally, this process should become fully automated, based on selected filters or algorithms, rather than the subjectivity of the rater.
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.