Sports Performance Judgments - An Update From a Social Cognitive Perspective

Plessner, Henning; Ermark, Florian; Schütz, Lisa-Marie; Schweizer, Geoffrey

doi:10.1016/j.ajsep.2023.01.002

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The social cognition framework, as proposed by Greifeneder et al [27], sheds light on the processes underpinning human judgement behaviour, and may also be used to describe the principles behind judgements in a sporting context [12,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a final step, all the information gathered until that point needs to be integrated into a cohesive whole that can be expressed in a score or final judgement. As noted by Plessner et al [28], most judgements are formed on the basis of information derived from the environment as well as factors unique to the individual judge, such as accumulated knowledge, experience, or even aspects relating to personality or mood states [32]. The systematic errors commonly seen in judging in different sports may therefore be due to one or several judging biases that can occur in any (or all) of the three processing steps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging

Wolframm

2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sport performances judged subjectively often suffer from systematic errors due to biases, with the sport of equestrian dressage being no exception. This study examines whether international dressage judges display systematic errors while evaluating elite horse-rider combinations. Data from seven 5* Grand Prix dressage events between May 2022 and April 2023 were analyzed (510 judges’ scores) using Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis. Five predictor variables—Home, Same Nationality, Compatriot, FEI Ranking and Starting Order—were studied in relation to Total Dressage Score (TS). The model accounted for 44.1% of TS variance; FEI Ranking, Starting Order, Compatriot, Same Nationality, and Home were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Judges exhibited nationalistic and patriotism-by-proxy biases, awarding significantly higher scores to riders from their countries (p < 0.001). FEI Ranking and Starting Order also influenced scores significantly (p < 0.001). These biases, combined, created a cascade effect benefiting a specific group of riders. To address this, measures should be taken to develop a more objective judging system that is based on unequivocal, transparent and evidence-based criteria and supports the continuous development of a fair, sustainable, equine welfare orientated sport that fosters societal acceptance,

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging

Wolframm

2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

CheckPOINT: a simple tool to measure Surgical Safety Checklist implementation fidelity

Moyal-Smith,

Etheridge,

Turley

et al. 2023

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a communication tool that improves teamwork and patient outcomes. SSC effectiveness is dependent on implementation fidelity. Administrative audits fail to capture most aspects of SSC implementation fidelity (ie, team communication and engagement). Existing research tools assess behaviours during checklist performance, but were not designed for routine quality assurance and improvement. We aimed to create a simple tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity, and to test its reliability using video simulations, and usability in clinical practice.MethodsThe Checklist Performance Observation for Improvement (CheckPOINT) tool underwent two rounds of face validity testing with surgical safety experts, clinicians and quality improvement specialists. Four categories were developed: checklist adherence, communication effectiveness, attitude and engagement. We created a 90 min training programme, and four trained raters independently scored 37 video simulations using the tool. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess inter-rater reliability (ICC>0.75 indicating excellent reliability). We then trained two observers, who tested the tool in the operating room. We interviewed the observers to determine tool usability.ResultsThe CheckPOINT tool had excellent inter-rater reliability across SSC phases. The ICC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) for the sign-in, 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.92) for the time-out and 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.99) for the sign-out. During field testing, observers reported CheckPOINT was easy to use. In 98 operating room observations, the total median (IQR) score was 25 (23–28), checklist adherence was 7 (6–7), communication effectiveness was 6 (6–7), attitude was 6 (6–7) and engagement was 6 (5–7).ConclusionsCheckPOINT is a simple and reliable tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity and identify areas of focus for improvement efforts. Although CheckPOINT would benefit from further testing, it offers a low-resource alternative to existing research tools and captures elements of adherence and team behaviours.

show abstract

Sports Performance Judgments - An Update From a Social Cognitive Perspective

Cited by 2 publications

References 88 publications

Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging

Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging

CheckPOINT: a simple tool to measure Surgical Safety Checklist implementation fidelity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About