Devia Martinez IJ1, Camargo Rojas DA1
1National University of Colombia, Bogotá D.C, Bogotá, Colombia
Background: Along the history, sport has been considered in different ways, from a body practice to a social construction and change tool. Within the processes of disability, it has allowed a perspective of the disability that included the relationship between environmental and individual factors. It has developed as a strong area of inclusion and competition, emerging and recognized as "Paralympic sport" national and internationally, with a specialized practice dedicated to competence an improvement of sports disciplines, that requires more research. Therefore the National University of Colombia in 2016 starts projects in Paralympic sport begining with the design of a protocol to measure physical fitness in athletes (Parra, Contreras, Camargo, 2017), through a literature review. However, it was necessary determinate the validity of this protocol to ensure the applicability in Colombia.
Purpose: The objective of this study is to determine the content validity of a protocol of the physical fitness of Paralympic athletes' users of wheelchair athletics.
Methods: Validation Study with a quantitative approach, which determined validation through an expert committee, under the Delphi method, and Likert scale for its qualification in three items: relevance, pertinence and sufficiency. The statistical methods Fleiss' Kappa, Kendall's W and Cohen's Kappa were applied by peer evaluators; also of a descriptive analysis for evaluator and for items of protocol.
Results: 19 tests were selected to conform the protocol. Low agreement was found in the general protocol (Fleiss' Kappa = -0.08 p-value = 0.034, Kendall's W = 0.16 p-Value = 0.985). It was found in the literature that the response heterogeneity may be due to the same heterogeneity of expert evaluators, in addition to the complexity of the anatomical and physiological adaptation of the wheelchair competitors, compared to the walking runners; One of the tests with the number of grades in disagreement was the yo-yo test (Fleiss' Kappa = -0.33 p-value = 0.05, Kendall's W = 0 p-Value = 1), corresponding to the evaluation of aerobic capacity, this result is related to the dependence of parameters not related to aerobic capacity; On the other hand, the isokinetic dynamometry test scores had a high disagreement due to the lack of control of the speed of movement or the position of the joint, mentioned by Troy, Munce and Longworth, in 2014. Another tests with qualification in disagreement in the three items, was the flexibility flow chart and the flexitest.
Conclusion(s): After the review, this study determined a low agreement between experts, and a necessary change of some test than generate the disagreement. Moreover there was sundry test with a perfect agreement. One of the limitations of this study was a number of low expert evaluators, which due to their different areas of expertise increased the heterogeneity of the evaluation, therefore, it is recommended to continue with the study phase where there are a higher number of experts who allows a sub-grouping and in this way perform a more detailed analysis. In addition it requires a piloting.
Implications: It allows the analysis, evaluation and adaptation of a consistent evaluation method to the target population.
Keywords: Paralympics, Physical Fitness, Validity of Tests
Funding acknowledgements: This work was unfunded
Purpose: The objective of this study is to determine the content validity of a protocol of the physical fitness of Paralympic athletes' users of wheelchair athletics.
Methods: Validation Study with a quantitative approach, which determined validation through an expert committee, under the Delphi method, and Likert scale for its qualification in three items: relevance, pertinence and sufficiency. The statistical methods Fleiss' Kappa, Kendall's W and Cohen's Kappa were applied by peer evaluators; also of a descriptive analysis for evaluator and for items of protocol.
Results: 19 tests were selected to conform the protocol. Low agreement was found in the general protocol (Fleiss' Kappa = -0.08 p-value = 0.034, Kendall's W = 0.16 p-Value = 0.985). It was found in the literature that the response heterogeneity may be due to the same heterogeneity of expert evaluators, in addition to the complexity of the anatomical and physiological adaptation of the wheelchair competitors, compared to the walking runners; One of the tests with the number of grades in disagreement was the yo-yo test (Fleiss' Kappa = -0.33 p-value = 0.05, Kendall's W = 0 p-Value = 1), corresponding to the evaluation of aerobic capacity, this result is related to the dependence of parameters not related to aerobic capacity; On the other hand, the isokinetic dynamometry test scores had a high disagreement due to the lack of control of the speed of movement or the position of the joint, mentioned by Troy, Munce and Longworth, in 2014. Another tests with qualification in disagreement in the three items, was the flexibility flow chart and the flexitest.
Conclusion(s): After the review, this study determined a low agreement between experts, and a necessary change of some test than generate the disagreement. Moreover there was sundry test with a perfect agreement. One of the limitations of this study was a number of low expert evaluators, which due to their different areas of expertise increased the heterogeneity of the evaluation, therefore, it is recommended to continue with the study phase where there are a higher number of experts who allows a sub-grouping and in this way perform a more detailed analysis. In addition it requires a piloting.
Implications: It allows the analysis, evaluation and adaptation of a consistent evaluation method to the target population.
Keywords: Paralympics, Physical Fitness, Validity of Tests
Funding acknowledgements: This work was unfunded
Topic: Sport & sports injuries; Disability & rehabilitation; Outcome measurement
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: National University of Colombia
Ethics committee: Career adviser committee
Reason not required: Ethics approval was not required because the experts were not exposed to any risk, the evaluation was carried out in a theoretical method
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
