An Examination of Judging Consistency in a Combat Sport
AbstractTwo related studies compared the consistency of two different methods of interpreting and applying scoring criteria in Muay Thai that are normally used by officials in the UK and that are used by officials in Thailand. In the first study, levels of consistency were determined by comparing judge's scores (n=270) from forty-five bouts judged by UK officials and forty-five judged by Thai officials. In the second study the original forty-five bouts judged by UK judges were compared with fortyfive bouts judged by UK officials using Thai judging criteria. Consistency was examined in both studies using two methods. The first method compared differences in the range of the highest vs. lowest points awarded by judges for each bout. The second method compared homogeneity of variance between judges' scores. Results suggested that the Thai officials were more consistent than their UK trained counterparts but also that UK judges were more consistent when adopting the Thai judging criteria. It was suggested that the use of very clearly defined criteria and concrete operationalization of otherwise subjective concepts used in applying the system used in Thailand was the main reason for the findings.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by De Gruyter in its journal Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports.
Volume (Year): 6 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.degruyter.com
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.