芭蕾舞、现代舞和当代舞的表演质量评估:两步系统回顾

IF 1.1 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES Journal of Dance Medicine & Science Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1177/1089313X241272139
Matthew Wirdnam, Christian Bonello, Susan Mayes, Jill Cook, Katia Ferrar
{"title":"芭蕾舞、现代舞和当代舞的表演质量评估:两步系统回顾","authors":"Matthew Wirdnam, Christian Bonello, Susan Mayes, Jill Cook, Katia Ferrar","doi":"10.1177/1089313X241272139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Measurement of performance quality in dance is important but challenging and few dance performance quality measures exist. This study aims to (1) identify and (2) assess the quality of dance performance outcome measures for ballet, modern and contemporary dance. <b>Methods:</b> A 2-step systematic review with two separate literature searches was conducted. Step 1 involved a systematic review to identify all ballet, modern and contemporary dance performance quality outcome measures. Step 2 involved a systematic review to identify studies that reported measurement properties (eg, validity, reliability) of the tools identified in Step 1. A comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE, SPORTSDiscus, CINHAL, Embase and IADMS Bibliography was conducted from inception to November 2020 (Part 1) and February 2021 (Part 2). To evaluate the quality of each dance performance outcome measure, three steps were conducted (1) assessment of methodological quality using the COSMIN checklists, (2) evaluation of results against criteria of good measurement properties and (3) summary of the evidence and an overall rating of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. <b>Results:</b> Fifteen dance performance quality outcome measures were identified (Step 1). Seventeen studies reported measurement property data for 14 of 15 identified outcome measures (Step 2). The majority of the 34 measurement property outcomes were rated as doubtful (COSMIN checklists), and demonstrated sufficient measurement properties. Only one outcome measure, the Radell Evaluation Scale for Dance Technique (RESDT), was assessed as having low and moderate quality evidence for validity and reliability respectively. The remaining 13 tools were rated as having very low-quality evidence (GRADE criteria). <b>Conclusions:</b> Due to low quality, the 15 dance performance quality tools cannot be confidently recommended for use at this time. Dance teachers, clinician and researchers should consider feasibility issues and use the tools with caution until adequate high-quality evidence is available.</p>","PeriodicalId":46421,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance Quality Assessment in Ballet, Modern and Contemporary Dance: A Two-Step Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Wirdnam, Christian Bonello, Susan Mayes, Jill Cook, Katia Ferrar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1089313X241272139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Measurement of performance quality in dance is important but challenging and few dance performance quality measures exist. This study aims to (1) identify and (2) assess the quality of dance performance outcome measures for ballet, modern and contemporary dance. <b>Methods:</b> A 2-step systematic review with two separate literature searches was conducted. Step 1 involved a systematic review to identify all ballet, modern and contemporary dance performance quality outcome measures. Step 2 involved a systematic review to identify studies that reported measurement properties (eg, validity, reliability) of the tools identified in Step 1. A comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE, SPORTSDiscus, CINHAL, Embase and IADMS Bibliography was conducted from inception to November 2020 (Part 1) and February 2021 (Part 2). To evaluate the quality of each dance performance outcome measure, three steps were conducted (1) assessment of methodological quality using the COSMIN checklists, (2) evaluation of results against criteria of good measurement properties and (3) summary of the evidence and an overall rating of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. <b>Results:</b> Fifteen dance performance quality outcome measures were identified (Step 1). Seventeen studies reported measurement property data for 14 of 15 identified outcome measures (Step 2). The majority of the 34 measurement property outcomes were rated as doubtful (COSMIN checklists), and demonstrated sufficient measurement properties. Only one outcome measure, the Radell Evaluation Scale for Dance Technique (RESDT), was assessed as having low and moderate quality evidence for validity and reliability respectively. The remaining 13 tools were rated as having very low-quality evidence (GRADE criteria). <b>Conclusions:</b> Due to low quality, the 15 dance performance quality tools cannot be confidently recommended for use at this time. Dance teachers, clinician and researchers should consider feasibility issues and use the tools with caution until adequate high-quality evidence is available.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089313X241272139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089313X241272139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言舞蹈表演质量的衡量非常重要,但也极具挑战性,目前鲜有舞蹈表演质量的衡量标准。本研究旨在(1)确定和(2)评估芭蕾舞、现代舞和当代舞的舞蹈表演质量。方法:分两步进行了系统性回顾,并分别进行了两次文献检索。第 1 步是对所有芭蕾舞、现代舞和当代舞的表演质量成果措施进行系统回顾。第 2 步是对第 1 步中确定的工具的测量特性(如有效性、可靠性)进行系统综述。从开始到 2020 年 11 月(第 1 部分)和 2021 年 2 月(第 2 部分),对 MEDLINE、SPORTSDiscus、CINHAL、Embase 和 IADMS Bibliography 进行了全面的电子检索。为了评估每项舞蹈表演结果测量的质量,我们采取了三个步骤:(1)使用 COSMIN 检查表评估方法学质量;(2)根据良好测量特性的标准评估结果;(3)使用修改后的建议评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)总结证据并对证据进行总体评级。结果:确定了 15 项舞蹈表演质量结果测量指标(步骤 1)。17 项研究报告了 15 项鉴定结果测量指标中 14 项的测量属性数据(步骤 2)。在 34 项测量属性结果中,大多数被评为可疑(COSMIN 检查表),并显示出足够的测量属性。只有一项结果测量,即 Radell 舞蹈技术评估量表 (RESDT) 的有效性和可靠性分别被评为低质量和中等质量。其余 13 种工具被评为证据质量极低(GRADE 标准)。结论:由于质量较低,15 种舞蹈表演质量工具目前还不能肯定地推荐使用。舞蹈教师、临床医生和研究人员应考虑可行性问题,并谨慎使用这些工具,直至获得足够的高质量证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance Quality Assessment in Ballet, Modern and Contemporary Dance: A Two-Step Systematic Review.

Introduction: Measurement of performance quality in dance is important but challenging and few dance performance quality measures exist. This study aims to (1) identify and (2) assess the quality of dance performance outcome measures for ballet, modern and contemporary dance. Methods: A 2-step systematic review with two separate literature searches was conducted. Step 1 involved a systematic review to identify all ballet, modern and contemporary dance performance quality outcome measures. Step 2 involved a systematic review to identify studies that reported measurement properties (eg, validity, reliability) of the tools identified in Step 1. A comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE, SPORTSDiscus, CINHAL, Embase and IADMS Bibliography was conducted from inception to November 2020 (Part 1) and February 2021 (Part 2). To evaluate the quality of each dance performance outcome measure, three steps were conducted (1) assessment of methodological quality using the COSMIN checklists, (2) evaluation of results against criteria of good measurement properties and (3) summary of the evidence and an overall rating of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Fifteen dance performance quality outcome measures were identified (Step 1). Seventeen studies reported measurement property data for 14 of 15 identified outcome measures (Step 2). The majority of the 34 measurement property outcomes were rated as doubtful (COSMIN checklists), and demonstrated sufficient measurement properties. Only one outcome measure, the Radell Evaluation Scale for Dance Technique (RESDT), was assessed as having low and moderate quality evidence for validity and reliability respectively. The remaining 13 tools were rated as having very low-quality evidence (GRADE criteria). Conclusions: Due to low quality, the 15 dance performance quality tools cannot be confidently recommended for use at this time. Dance teachers, clinician and researchers should consider feasibility issues and use the tools with caution until adequate high-quality evidence is available.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
33
期刊最新文献
Hip Range of Motion and Strength in Young Pre-Professionals Ballet Dancers Versus Non-Dancers. Performance Quality Assessment in Ballet, Modern and Contemporary Dance: A Two-Step Systematic Review. Prevalence of Mental Health Problems and their Potential Association with Sleep Disturbance, Coping Skills and Social Support in Professional Ballet Dancers. Identity Reconstruction Following Injury in Dancers. Structured, Creative Dance Classes for Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Pilot Study of Feasibility and Preliminary Effect on Motor Function.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1