-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Judging Accuarcy Scores
Indications for whether a judge is objective, reliable and valid. Chief judges may use this indications to see whether this particular person is a 'good' or 'bad' judge.
- Almost all judges are in some ways affiliated or biased to specific groups or persons.
- Objective judges means he is neutral and doesn't rank specific groups or person higher or lower than the rest.
- Reliabel judges rate same movements identified across different persons the same value
- Judges rate valid, when their judgements sync with the specifications from the rulebook
| Author | Thomas Gossmann |
|---|---|
| Created | 22. November 2012 |
Statistical analysis is used to determine whether a judges is ranking within the standard deviation or is a statistical outlier.
Pro:
- Easy to calculate
Contra:
- The statistical outlier may be the most valid one and thus this indication would be wrong
| Author | Thomas Gossmann |
|---|---|
| Created | 22. November 2012 |
As almost each judge has some affiliations or biases to specific groups or persons, the scoring for these persons may be higher or lower in regards to the scoring of other riders. As such biases are the riders from the own club/county/club/continent (in that order). Some clever algorithm can check these bias and highlight them to the chief judge.
Pro:
- Indicates the objectivity of a judge
Contra:
- No algorithm yet
| Author | Thomas Gossmann |
|---|---|
| Created | 22. November 2012 |
The judges reliability is dependend on their education. Thus the most important tool for a judge is the ability to explore, identify, analyze, describe and interpret movements (Tidow, 1996, p. 242). Education courses should be available to teach judges. Second is that judges must know the movement structures in unicycling. This knowledge is required in order to interpret the movements and rate those interpretation with the specifications from the rulebook.
Note: The IUF plans to start their education programm in summer 2013.
A proprietary, non-public, non-evaluated formula is used to determine the judging accuracy and bias.
- There is a tool that is not publicly available and the formulas are not in the rules
- is seems that the calculation uses the absolute scores instead of the pacing points. (Which is wrong, because every judge can have its own score interval and only the placing points count)
- Tidow, G. (1996). Zur Optimierung des Bewegungssehens im Sport. In Bartmus, U., Heck, H., Mester, J., Schumann, H. & Tidow, G. (Hrsg.), Aspekte der Sinnes- und Neurophysiologie im Sport (S. 241 – 286). Köln: Verlag Sport und Buch Strauß GmbH.