An Updated Technical–Tactical Categorisation in Taekwondo: From General Tactical Objectives to Combat Situations

Taekwondo competition underwent enormous development with the recent introduction of electronic scoring devices and rule changes. Although the competitive model of taekwondo had been previously studied, most of the literature that analyses this model was previous to the introduction of electronic devices or not based on a prior system of categories. Not only are results of an up-to-date taxonomy essential to guarantee the sustainability of future research about taekwondo based on methodological observation, but they are also completely necessary. This article proposes and validates a new categorisation of taekwondoist technical–tactical actions in the competition after the modifications were introduced between Beijing 2008 and Tokyo 2021 qualification events. The association between environmental conditions, tactical objectives, and technical actions determines the defining parameters of the combat situations. To design the category system, a dual methodology was used: in the first stage, an in-depth review of the technical and scientific literature based on observation of combats was carried out. From that review, a synthesis document was produced, which subsequently was used as a basis for canvassing an up-to-date view of the question from expert advisers. The existing terminology and categories were rearranged and updated, establishing new parameters involved in the technical–tactical resources of contest situations. This updated categorisation was tested by using the generalisability theory, revealing excellent-to-perfect observers’ agreement and reliable data. This new categorisation will allow designing precise and sustainable tools over time for methodological observation of taekwondo in future studies.

Development and Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of the Leading and Managing Care Pre-Registration Nursing Student Assessment Tool

Background Clinical nursing leadership influences patient safety and the quality of care provided. Nurses at all levels require leadership and management skills. Despite recognition of the importance of leadership, student nurses often feel ill prepared to make the transition to Registered Nurse and struggle with prioritisation and delegation. In order to standardise student experience and promote the development of skills and attributes, a leadership and management competency assessment was developed and implemented. Aims This study aimed to identify the constructs that should be part of an assessment of student nurse competence in relation to clinical nursing leadership, and to evaluate the tool’s reliability. Method The first phase was to construct the competency assessment tool, using a mixture of deductive methods, including literature and expert review. Second, psychometric evaluation of the tool, including tests to examine its internal consistency and reliability, comparing test and retest reliability, exploratory factor analysis and generalisability theory analysis to identify reliability and sources of error. Results Five attributes were identified for inclusion in the tool alongside a scale of competence. 150 assessments were conducted with an average time between each assessment of three days. The results show that the tool was consistent over time with no significant difference in the mean scores. The Cronbach alpha was 0.84 and the tool had good internal consistency. The results of the factor analysis revealed loading onto a single construct. Generalisability theory analysis revealed 0.90 global reliability, with students accounting for the majority of the variation in scores. Conclusions The Leading and Managing Care assessment tool represents a valid and reliable assessment of student nurse competence to lead care delivery. Use of the tool during practice placement allows for a structured approach to the development of skills around prioritisation, management of resources, communication and the management of risk.

Examining reliability of WHOBARS: a tool to measure the quality of administration of WHO surgical safety checklist using generalisability theory with surgical teams from three New Zealand hospitals

ObjectivesTo extend reliability of WHO Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (WHOBARS) to measure the quality of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist administration using generalisability theory. In this context, extending reliability refers to establishing generalisability of the tool scores across populations of teams and raters by accounting for the relevant sources of measurement errors.DesignCross-sectional random effect measurement design assessing surgical teams by the five items on the three Checklist phases, and at three sites by two trained raters simultaneously.SettingThe data were collected in three tertiary hospitals in Auckland, New Zealand in 2016 and included 60 teams observed in 60 different cases with an equal number of teams (n=20) per site. All elective and acute cases (adults and children) involving surgery under general anaesthesia during normal working hours were eligible.ParticipantsThe study included 243 surgical staff members, 138 (50.12%) women.Main outcome measureAbsolute generalisability coefficient that accounts for variance due to items, phases, sites and raters for the WHOBARS measure of the quality of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist administration.ResultsThe WHOBARS in its present form has demonstrated good generalisability of scores across teams and raters (G absolute=0.83). The largest source of measurement error was the interaction between the surgical team and the rater, accounting for 16.7% (95% CI 16.4 to 16.9) of the total variance in the data. Removing any items from the WHOBARS led to a decrease in the overall reliability of the instrument.ConclusionsAssessing checklist administration quality is important for promoting improvement in its use, and WHOBARS offers a reliable approach for doing this.

Distinguishing between enduring and dynamic concussion symptoms: applying Generalisability Theory to the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ)

Background The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) is a widely-used, 16-item measure of concussion symptoms yet its ability to assess change in the symptom experience over time has come under criticism. We applied Generalisability theory to differentiate between dynamic and enduring aspects of post-concussion symptoms and to examine sources of measurement error in the RPQ. Materials and Methods Generalisability theory was applied using the longitudinal design with persons as the object of measurement. Patients with a traumatic brain injury (n = 145; aged ≥16 years) were assessed at three time occasions (1, 6 and 12 months post-injury) using the RPQ. Results The RPQ showed overall strong generalisability of scores (G = .98) across persons and occasions with a minor proportion of variance attributed to the dynamic aspect of symptoms reflected by interaction between person and occasion. Items measuring concentration, fatigue, restlessness and irritability reflected more dynamic patterns compared to more enduring patterns of sensitivity to noise, impatience, nausea and sleep disturbance. Conclusion The RPQ demonstrated strong reliability in assessing enduring post-concussion symptoms but its ability to assess dynamic symptoms is limited. Clinicians should exercise caution in use of the RPQ to track dynamic symptom change over time. Further investigation is necessary to enhance the RPQ’s ability to assess dynamic symptoms and to address measurement error associated with individual items.

From Cronbach to Brunswik: A Conceptual Framework for Personality and Individual Differences Research

Recent personality literature has proposed that Cronbach’s generalisability theory offers a substantive ground for the integration of inter-individual differences and intra¬personal process approaches to personality trait research. Generalisability theory has the advantage of maximising psychometric dependability of behavioural measurements, but does not demand reconciliation to the environment that is relevant to the life circumstances of the participant. A conceptual analysis contrasting generalisability theory with Egon Brunswik’s conceptual framework for psychology is presented. Recommendations regarding the connection between theory and methodological practice follow, in light of an evolutionary approach to personality and individual differences. An example that highlights the contrast between Cronbachian and Brunswikian approaches is presented, resulting in a recommendation to revisit the concept of ecological validity and representational research design, to better account for what is reflected in study outcomes for personality constructs.