No abstract

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between split times within sprint tests over 30 m and 40 m in elite Australian Rules footballers.Methods:Data were analyzed from two Australian Football League (AFL) clubs. The first club (n = 35) conducted a 40-m sprint test and recorded split times at 10 m and 20 m. The second club (n = 30) conducted a 30-m sprint test and recorded splits at 10 m and 20 m. Analyses included calculation of Pearson correlations and common variances between all the split times as well as “flying” times (20–40 m for the first club and 20 to 30 m for the second club).Results:There was a high correlation (r = 0.94) between 10-m time and 20-m time within each club, indicating these measures assessed very similar speed qualities. The correlations between 10-m time and times to 30 m and 40 m decreased, but still produced common variances of 79% and 66% respectively. However when the “flying” times (20–40 m and 20–30 m) were correlated to 10-m time, the common variances decreased substantially to 25% and 42% respectively, indicating uniqueness.Conclusions:It was concluded that 10-m time is a good refection of acceleration capabilities and either 20 to 40 m in a 40-m sprint test or 20 to 30 m in a 30-m sprint test can be used to estimate maximum speed capabilities. It was suggested that sprint tests over 30 m or 40 m can be conducted indoors to provide useful information about independent speed qualities in athletes.

BackgroundMedical revalidation decisions need to be reliable if they are to reassure on the quality and safety of professional practice. This study tested an innovative method in which general practitioners (GPs) were assessed on their reflection and response to a set of externally specified feedback.Setting and participants60 GPs and 12 GP appraisers in the Tayside region of Scotland, UK.MethodsA feedback dataset was specified as (1) GP-specific data collected by GPs themselves (patient and colleague opinion; open book self-evaluated knowledge test; complaints) and (2) Externally collected practice-level data provided to GPs (clinical quality and prescribing safety). GPs' perceptions of whether the feedback covered UK General Medical Council specified attributes of a ‘good doctor’ were examined using a mapping exercise. GPs' professionalism was examined in terms of appraiser assessment of GPs' level of insightful practice, defined as: engagement with, insight into and appropriate action on feedback data. The reliability of assessment of insightful practice and subsequent recommendations on GPs' revalidation by face-to-face and anonymous assessors were investigated using Generalisability G-theory.Main outcome measuresCoverage of General Medical Council attributes by specified feedback and reliability of assessor recommendations on doctors' suitability for revalidation.ResultsFace-to-face assessment proved unreliable. Anonymous global assessment by three appraisers of insightful practice was highly reliable (G=0.85), as were revalidation decisions using four anonymous assessors (G=0.83).ConclusionsUnlike face-to-face appraisal, anonymous assessment of insightful practice offers a valid and reliable method to decide GP revalidation. Further validity studies are needed.

No abstract

No abstract