ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Revisiting judging reliability in taekwondo freestyle Poomsae: implications for AI-supported evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Before artificial intelligence-based judging systems can be applied to Taekwondo Poomsae, it is necessary to understand which performance components human judges can identify consistently and which remain difficult to evaluate reliably. This study examined reliability in freestyle Poomsae judging to identify evaluation components with stable and unstable human scoring. Methods: Ten internationally certified Taekwondo Poomsae referees evaluated ten official competition videos twice, separated by a one-week washout period. Systematic session effects were evaluated with separate linear mixed-effects models estimated by restricted maximum likelihood using the SPSS MIXED procedure. Session was specified as a fixed effect, judge and video as crossed random intercepts, and the two observations within each judge-video pair as repeated measurements with an unstructured residual covariance matrix. Fixed-effect inference used Satterthwaite denominator degrees of freedom. Test-retest stability was evaluated for identical judge-video pairs, with primary emphasis on the absolute-agreement ICC because systematic session effects were detected. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated separately by session using two-way random effects, single rating absolute-agreement and consistency ICCs with 95% confidence intervals and Kendall's W. Item-specific analyses were exploratory, and no multiplicity adjustment was applied. Results: The total score increased by 0.304 points, 95% CI [0.187, 0.421], t (99) = 5.177, Conclusion: Systematic session effects, absolute test-retest agreement, relative consistency over time, and inter-rater agreement represent distinct aspects of judging reliability. Evaluation components with poor single-judge agreement require clearer operational definitions and further validation before computational or AI-assisted scoring is considered.
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.