↓ Skip to main content

Ground condition as a risk factor in sports injury aetiology studies: the level of concordance between objective and subjective measures

Overview of attention for article published in Injury Epidemiology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ground condition as a risk factor in sports injury aetiology studies: the level of concordance between objective and subjective measures
Published in
Injury Epidemiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s40621-014-0027-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dara M Twomey, Lauren A Petrass, John W Orchard, Caroline F Finch

Abstract

It is well known that the condition and type of sporting ground influences the risk of sports injury. However, the lack of evidence on the relationship between subjective and objective sporting ground condition assessments in sports injury aetiology studies has implications for the development of effective injury prevention strategies. This paper aims to examine concordance between subjectively rated and objective ground hardness and moisture measurements to inform data collection methods for future sports injury aetiology studies. Subjective, observational assessments of ground hardness and soil moisture were recorded on 36 occasions during an Australian football season using two four-point scales of 'very soft' to 'very hard' and 'very wet' to 'very dry', respectively. Independent, objectively measured hardness and soil moisture were also undertaken at nine locations on the same grounds. The maximum and minimum ground values and the computed average of ground hardness and soil moisture were analysed. Somer's d statistic was calculated to measure the level of concordance between the subjective and objective measures. A significant, moderate to substantial level of agreement was found between the subjective ratings and the average objective hardness values (d = 0.467, p <0.001), but there was perfect agreement on just less than half of the occasions. The level of concordance between the subjective and objective moisture ratings was low to moderate or trivial for all moisture measures (0.002 < d <0.264, p >0.05). Compared to objective measures, the subjective assessments were more accurate for ground hardness than for soil moisture levels and raters were just as likely to underestimate or overestimate the condition under review. This has implications for future sports injury aetiology studies that include ground condition assessments and particularly the use of subjective measures to underpin the development of future injury prevention strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Lecturer 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 10 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,533,625
of 8,606,509 outputs
Outputs from Injury Epidemiology
#72
of 77 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,372
of 245,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury Epidemiology
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,606,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 245,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.