ArticlePloS one2026
The Lions Sports Academy TackleTEK Tool: The intra-and inter-coach reliability of assessing tackling competency in rugby union.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tackling skill tests in rugby aim to evaluate skill competency, but their reliability to detect meaningful changes in tackling competency over time remains uncertain. This study aimed to: 1) determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of scoring composite tackle competency by three youth grassroots rugby coaches (tier one, two, and three), and 2) assess reliability in scoring across tackling subcomponents (pre-contact, contact, and post-contact) using the TackleTEK Tool. Pilot data was used to develop a-priori analytical goals to assess the reliability of composite and subcomponent scoring. Non-parametric 95% Limits of Agreement were used to assess reliability. Twenty-five participants were recorded performing the one vs. one tackling assessment. The three coaches scored each tackle against pre-defined 18-point criteria. Systematic differences were assessed using Wilcoxon tests. Intra-coach composite tackling scores demonstrated agreement levels of 72% (95% CI 60% to 84%) for the tier three coach, and 100% (95% CI 100% to 100%) for both the tier two and one coaches, relative to the analytical goal. Inter-coach composite tackling agreement ranged from 78% (95% CI 67% to 89%) to 100% (95% CI 100% to 100%). Intra-coach subcomponent analysis showed the tier one and tier two coach to score all tackling subcomponents consistently (P > 0.05); however, the tier three coach only reliably scored the pre-contact phase. Subcomponent agreement ranged from 68% (95% CI 55% to 81%) to 82% (95% CI 71% to 93%), between tier three and tier one coaches, to 72% (95% CI 60% to 84%) to 98% (95% CI 94% to 100%), between tier two and tier one coaches. Within the context of this study, agreement was strongest for tier one and tier two coaches, supporting the use of the TackleTEK Tool to assess changes in tackling competency over time, with further work required to extend its application across coaching levels.
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.