带球运动协调性测验的内容效度证据

Schelyne Ribas, L. Aburachid, J. C. Morales, Gabriella Nelli Monteiro, G. Praça, H. Castro, P. Greco
{"title":"带球运动协调性测验的内容效度证据","authors":"Schelyne Ribas, L. Aburachid, J. C. Morales, Gabriella Nelli Monteiro, G. Praça, H. Castro, P. Greco","doi":"10.1590/1980-0037.2020v22e72376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The main objective of this study was to establish content validity evidences in the Motor Coordination Test with Ball (MCTB). Four Ph.D. professors and former sports coaches with academic experience in the motor coordination area took part of the validation process as experts. The experts assessed four motor tasks and graded using the Likert scale from one to five for criteria of clarity of language, practice relevance, and theoretical relevance. The content validity coefficient (CVC) has been used to determine the CVCc of each task and the CVCt for the instrument as a whole, adopting as a cutoff CVCc .70 and CVCt .80. The results showed good agreement among experts concerning “clarity of language” (CVC= .89), “practice relevance” (CVC= .81), and theoretical relevance (CVC= .86). For “practice relevance” of images and videos of task execution, there has been observed CVCt of .86 and CVCt of .95, respectively. When requested the order of relevance of coordination pressures, the agreement among experts presented the existence of at least four coordination pressures in each one of the tasks and, out of these, at least two had a higher relevance. After the calculation of the CVC, ecological validity was determined for the MCTB, accrediting it as an instrument for the assessment of motor coordination with ball in the context of sports games.","PeriodicalId":38989,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content validity evidences in the motor coordination test with ball\",\"authors\":\"Schelyne Ribas, L. Aburachid, J. C. Morales, Gabriella Nelli Monteiro, G. Praça, H. Castro, P. Greco\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1980-0037.2020v22e72376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The main objective of this study was to establish content validity evidences in the Motor Coordination Test with Ball (MCTB). Four Ph.D. professors and former sports coaches with academic experience in the motor coordination area took part of the validation process as experts. The experts assessed four motor tasks and graded using the Likert scale from one to five for criteria of clarity of language, practice relevance, and theoretical relevance. The content validity coefficient (CVC) has been used to determine the CVCc of each task and the CVCt for the instrument as a whole, adopting as a cutoff CVCc .70 and CVCt .80. The results showed good agreement among experts concerning “clarity of language” (CVC= .89), “practice relevance” (CVC= .81), and theoretical relevance (CVC= .86). For “practice relevance” of images and videos of task execution, there has been observed CVCt of .86 and CVCt of .95, respectively. When requested the order of relevance of coordination pressures, the agreement among experts presented the existence of at least four coordination pressures in each one of the tasks and, out of these, at least two had a higher relevance. After the calculation of the CVC, ecological validity was determined for the MCTB, accrediting it as an instrument for the assessment of motor coordination with ball in the context of sports games.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-0037.2020v22e72376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-0037.2020v22e72376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本研究的主要目的是建立带球运动协调测验(MCTB)的内容效度证据。在运动协调领域有学术经验的四名博士教授和前体育教练作为专家参与了验证过程。专家们评估了四项运动任务,并使用李克特量表根据语言清晰度、实践相关性和理论相关性的标准从1到5进行评分。内容效度系数(CVC)被用来确定每个任务的CVCc和整个仪器的CVCt,采用CVCc .70和CVCt .80作为截止值。结果显示,专家在“语言清晰性”(CVC= .89)、“实践相关性”(CVC= .81)和“理论相关性”(CVC= .86)三个方面的一致性较好。对于任务执行的图像和视频的“实践相关性”,观察到的CVCt分别为0.86和0.95。当被要求说明协调压力的相关性次序时,专家们一致认为,每一项任务中至少存在四种协调压力,其中至少有两种具有较高的相关性。在计算CVC后,确定了MCTB的生态效度,将其作为评估体育比赛中与球运动协调的工具。
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
Content validity evidences in the motor coordination test with ball
Abstract The main objective of this study was to establish content validity evidences in the Motor Coordination Test with Ball (MCTB). Four Ph.D. professors and former sports coaches with academic experience in the motor coordination area took part of the validation process as experts. The experts assessed four motor tasks and graded using the Likert scale from one to five for criteria of clarity of language, practice relevance, and theoretical relevance. The content validity coefficient (CVC) has been used to determine the CVCc of each task and the CVCt for the instrument as a whole, adopting as a cutoff CVCc .70 and CVCt .80. The results showed good agreement among experts concerning “clarity of language” (CVC= .89), “practice relevance” (CVC= .81), and theoretical relevance (CVC= .86). For “practice relevance” of images and videos of task execution, there has been observed CVCt of .86 and CVCt of .95, respectively. When requested the order of relevance of coordination pressures, the agreement among experts presented the existence of at least four coordination pressures in each one of the tasks and, out of these, at least two had a higher relevance. After the calculation of the CVC, ecological validity was determined for the MCTB, accrediting it as an instrument for the assessment of motor coordination with ball in the context of sports games.
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
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Kinanthropometry and Human Performance is a journal of Physical Education, Kinesiology, Sport and related areas, whose focus is human movement, being reviewed by an international panel of peers, with emphasis on the measurement of the man in its morphological and functional aspects, as well as conditioning factors of physical performance. Given the multidisciplinary nature of the journal, these areas of study are approached in several contexts, with interactions with social, behavioral, health and environmental aspects. The journal publishes original articles as well as relevant Review/Update articles and Points of View.
期刊最新文献
Talent identification and development in Olympic triathlon: a perspective from Brazilian coaches Factors associated with the practice of physical activity among university students in social isolation during the covid-19 pandemic Association of sex and training phase with physical activity and sedentary behavior in nursing students Influence of walking and running on patellofemoral pain The applicability of the Visceral Adiposity Index (VAI) for predicting visceral fat
×
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