ArticleJSAMS plus2025
Inter- and intra-rater reliability of two aquatic safety skill assessment tools.
Article in JSAMS plus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Learning to swim is recommended as an important layer of protection in drowning prevention. However, identifying what aquatic skill(s) are essential, and the absence of a gold or industry standard makes establishing the reliability of learn to swim assessment difficult. Methods: Five aquatic skills aligned with water safety and survival, from the Australian Water Safety Council's 2016 benchmark, were included in a cross-sectional study designed to test the reliability of two assessment tools: 1. competent/not yet competent and 2. RAEE (Refuse, Assisted, Effective, Efficient) assessment tool. Twelve participants (raters) from a single Gold Level AUSTSWIM recognised swim centre completed the assessment across three sessions and inter- (weighted kappa) and intra-rater (Chi squares) reliability was calculated. Results: There was limited/poor inter and intra rater reliability for both assessment methods and this increased across sessions for three of the five chosen skills (crouch dive, sidestroke and compact jump). RAEE assessment tool demonstrated lower inter- and intra-rater reliability (poor to fair) when compared to use of the C/NYC assessment method (fair to moderate) across five water safety skills. Conclusion: Regardless of the assessment approach taken, both inter and intra - rater reliability was limited when assessing water safety skills. A lack of consensus was found relating to proficiency in performance and raters lacked a clear understanding of the complexities involved in assessment, including an established foundation of what proficient motor skills performance looks like.
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.