A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test for the National Development Category: A Construct of Content Validity and Reliability Approach

Full text

International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences 10(5): 886-893, 2022 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189/saj.2022.100503
A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test
for the National Development Category: A Construct of
Content Validity and Reliability Approach
Ratna Budiarti1,*, Siswantoyo1, Endang Rini Sukamti1, Christina Fajar Sriwahyuniati1, Ari Iswanto1,
Rozita Abdul Latif2, Sutoro3, Yulvia Miftachurochmah1
1Faculty of Sport Science, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
2Faculty of Sport Science and Recreation, University Technology MARA, Negeri Seremban Campus, Malaysia
3Faculty of Sport Science, Cenderawasih University, Indonesia
Received June 22, 2022; Revised August 30, 2022; Accepted September 19, 2022
Cite This Paper in the Following Citation Styles
(a): [1] Ratna Budiarti, Siswantoyo, Endang Rini Sukamti, Christina Fajar Sriwahyuniati, Ari Iswanto, Rozita Abdul
Latif, Sutoro, Yulvia Miftachurochmah , "A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test for the National
Development Category: A Construct of Content Validity and Reliability Approach," International Journal of Human
Movement and Sports Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 886 - 893, 2022. DOI: 10.13189/saj.2022.100503.
(b): Ratna Budiarti, Siswantoyo, Endang Rini Sukamti, Christina Fajar Sriwahyuniati, Ari Iswanto, Rozita Abdul Latif,
Sutoro, Yulvia Miftachurochmah (2022). A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test for the National
Development Category: A Construct of Content Validity and Reliability Approach. International Journal of Human
Movement and Sports Sciences, 10(5), 886 - 893. DOI: 10.13189/saj.2022.100503.
Copyright©2022 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License
Abstract Background: Test instrument for flexibility
is indispensable in several sports in the national
development category, including aerobic gymnastics.
However, the fact shows that no aerobic gymnastic
flexibility test instrument is yet in the national
development category. Purpose: This study aimed to
examine the validity and reliability of the aerobic
gymnastic flexibility test in the national development
category. Design/ methodology/ approach: This research is
a research & development supported by qualitative and
quantitative approaches. The data collection was carried
out with the Delphi technique, involving ten experts. The
data analysis used Aiken’s to test the validity and
Cronbach alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients
(ICC) to test the reliability between raters. Results: The
results show that the value of all items’ Aiken’s coefficient
was above 0.70, so it can be said that all items were valid.
With the Cronbach’s Alpha value showed 0.919 and ICC
showed 0.911, and each rater consistency was 0.507, it can
be said that the instrument was very reliable. Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded that aerobic gymnastic
flexibility test instrument in the national development
category has high content validity and an excellent
agreement between raters, with the consistency of each
rater also quite well. For the test instrument to be much
more precise, it is suggested to conduct empirical validity
tests and reliably test-retests for athletes or non-athletes of
the Age Group 1 category for 12-14 years old and Age
Group 2 for 15-17 years old.
Keywords Flexibility Test, Aerobic Gymnastics,
National Development
1. Introduction
Aerobic gymnastics is a sport with complex and
high-intensity movement skills, with patterns that refer to
music [1,2]. Aerobic gymnastics belongs to the discipline
of sports that are carried out with maximum intensity, with
a competition duration setting of 1 minute 30 seconds with
a time tolerance of ± 5 seconds [3]. Aerobic gymnastics
requires good physical abilities to achieve maximum
achievements in every appearance [4]. The physical
elements used in this sport are very complex, with almost
all components of the bio-motor involved. One of the main
physical components that support the performance of

International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences 10(5): 886-893, 2022 887
aerobic gymnastics athletes is flexibility [5–8].
Flexibility is an important issue as a parameter for
performance in aerobic gymnastics [2,9,10], and has
always been considered as the ability to perform the
broadest possible movement in the wiggle room of the
joints and is supported by and depends on the elasticity of
muscles, tendons, and ligaments without resulting in injury
[11]. Flexibility refers to the intrinsic nature of body tissues
that determine the maximum range of motion of the joints
without causing injury [12]. Muscle elasticity can be
improved through stretching exercises and training that
involves the strength component. However, this physical
component of flexibility is often ignored by coaches. The
coaches do not remind or provide an understanding of the
importance of flexibility movements, which results in
many players or athletes do not do this exercise well. This
situation is worsened by the too complicated training
model the coaches use to train their athletes.
In aerobic gymnastics, flexibility is used to perform
basic and advanced movements to embellish movements
where the flexibility and beauty factors are essential in
aerobic gymnastics assessment. It is because flexibility
plays a vital role in achieving victory in aerobic gymnastic
competitions [13]. Flexibility can be measured using
instruments with functions to identify, assess, and evaluate.
As an inseparable whole, assessment and evaluation are
critical to be carried out in sports achievements such in
aerobic gymnastics [14]. Training is said to be good if the
assessment tools are also good. Likewise, a good
assessment will encourage athletes to train more [15].
Aerobic gymnastics has three categories: National
Development for 9-11 years old, Age Group 1 for 12-14
years old, and Age Group 2 for 15-17 years old [16]. Thus,
it is necessary to have aerobic gymnastics coaching from
an early age to get optimal achievements. In this coaching,
a measuring instrument is crucial to identify children’s
talents that suit the characteristics of the sport and the
athletes or any other potential instrument users.
A flexibility test is needed to improve the flexibility
aspect of aerobic gymnastics. Based on the literature, there
are only general field-based flexibility tests such as
sit-and-reach test; hip flexion test, static flexibility test
ankle, and trunk flexion test [17–19]. The previous tests are
suitable for knowing the initial ability. Far from this point,
very few in-depth studies related to flexibility tests had
been developed, especially for aerobic gymnastics in the
national development category that suits the athlete needs
and the characteristics of aerobic gymnastic sports.
The development of an aerobic gymnastic flexibility test
in the national development category is still rare. Specific
flexibility test constructs are primarily found in rhythmic
gymnastics [20,21]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a
flexibility test with a validity and reliability approach to the
construction in the national development category
according to the athlete needs in aerobic gymnastics sports
and its characteristics. In this study, researchers developed
the flexibility test construction on aerobic gymnastics for
the national development category with children aged 9-11
years.
Validity has several types, namely, the validity of
criteria, the validity of the construct, and the validity of the
contents [22,23]. In this study, validity and reliability
measured the content validity and the aerobic gymnastic
flexibility test reliability in the national development
category that the researchers have designed. Content
validity can be used to refer to the extent to which the
content of the measuring instrument is considered capable
of measuring things that represent the entirety of the
material to be evaluated [24–27]. At the same time,
reliability is the level of accuracy of a measuring
instrument in a measurement procedure [28].
2. Materials and Methods
This research applied research and development
methods supported by qualitative and quantitative
approaches to make it able to examine further [29–31]. The
study involved nationally licensed gymnastics aerobic
coaches, three physical condition experts, and three
primary school GYM teachers. The expert sports teacher in
this study aimed to evaluate and measure athletes’ ability in
cases of the constructiveness of this flexibility test. Later,
the test can also be used as an identification tool for
non-athlete talent such as elementary school students.
The data analysis on the construct validity of the
flexibility test used the content validity. The study used
four steps to validate the content. First, the authors
gathered relevant research resources and conducted
participatory observational studies as an introduction
development. Second, the seven experts conducted a
product assessment using the Delphi technique to get a
consensus from the expert based on the questionnaire
results with an assessment scale of 1-5 [32]. The third step
is to analyze the data obtained in quantitative terms from
the assessment of ten experts using Aiken’s V formula
[33].
At the same time, the researchers used advice from 10
experts to analyze the data qualitatively. The researchers
used 10 raters, category numbers 1-5, and a 5% confidence
level to conclude from the calculation results of Aiken’s V
based on the V table. The result is declared valid if the V
count is greater than the V of the table, of which V of the
table is 0.70 [33].
Finally, the last step is the data analysis technique for the
reliability test of the flexibility test instrument developed
by the researchers using Cronbach’s Alpha [34] and
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) [35] with the help
of SPSS application version 25. The conclusion for the
reliability test using Cronbach’s Alpha is that with n=10,
the table’s R-value at a significant level of 5% is 0. 632.
The ICC is based on the categorization of the following
formula [35]:

888 A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test for the National Development Category:
A Construct of Content Validity and Reliability Approach
Table 1. ICC Val u e Category
ICC Value Interpretation
0.00 - 0.50 Poor Reliability
0.51 - 0.75 Moderate Reliability
0.76 – 0.90 Good Reliability
0.91 – 1.00 Excellent Reliability
Figure 1. Flexibility Test Construction
3. Result
Based on the literature review of several documents such
as relevant articles, journals, and textbooks, the
construction of the aerobic gymnastic flexibility test for the
national development category can be seen in figure 1.
3.1. Aerobic Gymnastic Te s t Construction in National
Development Category
Tes t Implementation Instructions
a. The athlete stands upright, positioning his/her back to
the image of the bow.
b. After the cue “yes,” the child bends down, palms stick
to the floor, and hands and feet stick as close as
possible.
c. Lift one of the legs as maximum as the athlete can.
d. Conduct the test twice.
e. Record the best degree value.
Tools needed
a. A giant image of the bow.
b. Paper and pen for taking notes.
The greater the degree obtained, the higher the score will
be. The scoring table is presented as follows:
Table 2. Range of aerobic gymnastic flexibility test scores
Range of Values
Value Degree
0 0-20
1 21-40
2 41-60
3 61-80
4 81-100
5 101-120
6 121-140
7 141-160
8 161-180

International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences 10(5): 886-893, 2022 889
Table 3. The analysis results of the Aiken Formula
Jury
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12
Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S Score S
A 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 3
B 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4
C 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 3
D 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 3
E 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4
F 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4
G 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 3
H 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4
I 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4
J 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 4
∑s 30 35 34 30 35 30 30 36 40 40 30 36
V 0.75 0.88 0.85 0.75 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.90

890 A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test for the National Development Category:
A Construct of Content Validity and Reliability Approach
3.2. Content Validity
Based on table 3, item 1 shows the value of the
Coefficient of Aiken’s V of 0.75; item 2 indicates the value
of the coefficient of Aiken’s V of 0.88; item 3 indicates the
value of the coefficient of Aiken’s V of 0.85; item 4
indicates the value of the coefficient of Aiken’s V is 0.75;
item 5 shows the value of the Aiken’s V coefficient of 0.88;
item 6 shows the value of the Aiken’s V coefficient of 0.75;
item 7 shows the value of the Aiken’s V coefficient of 0.75;
item 8 indicates the value of the coefficient Aiken’s V of
0.90; items 9 and 10 show the value of the Aiken’s
coefficient V of 1.00; item 11 indicates the value of the
Coefficient of Aiken’s V of 0.75; and item 12 indicates the
value of the coefficient of Aiken’s V of 0.90. Thus, it can
be concluded that the value of Aiken’s coefficient V in the
flexibility test on the whole item is declared valid since the
calculated V is greater than the table V (0.70)
3.3. Reliability
The results of the reliability test between raters using
Cronbach’s Alpha are presented in table 4 as follows:
Table 4. Cronbach alpha analysis result
N R-table (5%) Cronbach Alpha Status
10 0.632 0.919 Reliable
The reliability test using Cronbach’s Alpha obtained an
r-table of 0.632 and the Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.919.
Therefore, the result is reliable when the C value of
Cronbach’s Alpha is greater than the r-table. Thus, the
aerobic gymnastic flexibility test instrument for the
national development category is declared reliable.
The results of the interrater agreement test or interrater
reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC)
are presented in table 5.
Based on table 5, the average agreement between raters
is 0.911, while for each person, the rater consistency is
0.507. The results of the ICC value according to [35] fall
into the category of excellent reliability. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the agreement between the raters is very
strong, and each assessor has sufficient consistency well.
4. Discussion
This study focused on test instruments developed for
aerobic gymnastics in the national development category to
measure the flexibility of aerobic gymnastics in the
national development category. The researchers have
adjusted the instrument based on the characteristics of
sports and the athlete.
The physical component is one of the essential elements
for gymnasts to achieve maximum achievement [36].
Aerobic gymnastics is a sport that needs a good physical
condition to produce effective and efficient movements
[37]. Flexibility is one of the dominant physical aspects of
aerobic gymnastics. Flexibility is the body’s ability to
perform the broadest possible movement in the space of the
joints movement and is supported by and depends on the
elasticity of muscles, tendons, and ligaments without injury
[38].
Flexibility is the extent of movement of one joint or
several joints [39]. One of the unique characteristics of the
gymnast is that it has good flexibility in almost all its joints,
which results in a gymnast being able to perform bent,
kissing the knees, splits, and so on. The low flexibility
results in not being able to perform those movements well.
Flexibility consists of static flexibility, determined by the
size of the range of motion of one joint or several joints,
and dynamic flexibility, which is a person’s ability to move
at high speed. Therefore, the movement of flexibility is a
crucial point in aerobic gymnastics. This is supported by
several kinds of literature stating that performing
movements quickly and flexibly is a necessary multifactor
movement that serves to improve motor skills and posture
stability, not easily injured, and contributes to the
improvement of sports performance [40-42].
Gymnasts are individuals who are required to have an
excellent physical condition in order to win the
competition. A person’s success in winning a race does not
come solely from innate talent. Gymnasts should practice
hard with the right program and good evaluation.
Table 5. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis result
Intraclass
Correlationb
95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0
Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig
Single Measures .507a .303 .763 12.296 11 99 .000
Average Measures .911c .813 .970 12.296 11 99 .000

International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences 10(5): 886-893, 2022 891
Gymnasts have different characteristics, from gymnasts
at the level of children, adolescents, adults, and
professional gymnasts. The coach must apply the correct
approach to improve the achievements of his protégés to
know their characteristics. For example, for measurement
and evaluation, the coach must be able to determine the test
instruments used to evaluate the abilities of athletes and
their students correctly. In this study, it was prioritized for
gymnasts aged 9-11 years in the national development
category. Therefore, testing is needed to follow the
characteristics of the national development category to
improve their skills and motivation. Thus a test is required
that corresponds to the characteristics of each branch and
the characteristics of the child [43,44].
Based on the Aikens analysis used to measure the
validity of the contents, the following results were obtained:
item (1), gymnastic aerobic flexibility test is appropriate
for children in the national development category with a V
value of 0.75; item (2), the size has been appropriate in the
aerobic gymnastics category of national development with
a value of V 0.88; item (3), the altitude between degrees
has corresponded to the value of V 0.85; item (4), the
equipment used motivates the gymnast category national
development with a value of V 0.75; item (5), this
instrument multiplies the number of repeats of the test that
have been completed with a value of V 0.88; item (6), the
test procedure has corresponded to the value of V 0.75;
item (7), the easy test instrument understood by gymnasts
category national development with a value of V 0.75; item
(8), the test instrument can be used for the measurement of
flexibility with a value of V 0.90; item (9), the flexibility
test which has already developed fictitious speciation with
a value of V 1.00; item (10), accuracy of the concept of
measurement and appraisal with a value of V 1.00; item
(11), range of values of the designed flexibility test has
been suitable with the V value of 0.75; and item (12), this
test model can help the coaches and teachers to identify
aerobic gymnastics talents in the national development
category with a value V 0.90. According to the Aikens
table [33], if V counts greater than V, the table (0.70) is
declared valid. Thus, it can be concluded that the value of
Aiken’s coefficient V on the construct of the flexibility test
on the entire item is valid and worthy of use.
The reliability testing of every aspect of the aerobic
gymnastic flexibility test instrument was measured using
Cronbach’s Alpha, showing the results of 0.919.
Cronbach’s Alpha is a measure of reliability that ranges in
value from zero to 100. According to [45], the minimum
Cronbach’s Alpha reliability level value is 0.70. if the
value of Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.7, then the aspects of the
aerobic gymnastic flexibility test instrument of the national
development category are very reliable. The degree of
reliability can also be seen from the r-table value, for which
the value of Cronbach’s Alpha must be greater than the
value of the r-table. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha
value was 0.919, while the r-table was 0.632.
Meanwhile, to test the reliability between raters
(agreement between raters) and the consistency of each
rater, this study used Intraclass Correlation Coefficients
(ICC) analysis because the number of raters is more than
two. In other words, some raters assess the construction of
the flexibility test instrument for aerobic gymnastics
through the rating instrument. The ICC analysis has shown
that the average agreement between raters is 0.911, while
for one person, the consistency rater is 0.507. According to
Portney and Watkins [35], when the category of the value
of the agreement between the raters is above 0.00-0.50, it is
declared as poor agreement; when the value is above
0.51-0.75, it is declared as moderate agreement; when the
value is above 0.76-0.90, it is declared as good agreement;
and when the ICC value is 0.91-1.00, it is declared as very
good (excellent). Based on the ICC results (table 5), it can
be concluded that the agreement between the raters is very
strong, and each rater has a reasonably good consistency
(moderate reliability). Therefore, the construction of the
test was considered feasible to measure the aerobic
flexibility of the gymnastics of the national development
category. This developed test is an adapted or specified test
with techniques in aerobic gymnastics because this test is
similar to the movement of the technique at the time of the
race.
Lastly, from the results and discussion based on
qualitative and quantitative approaches, it can be said that
the aerobic gymnastic flexibility test instrument in the
national development category has high content validity
and the average agreement between raters is very good
with consistency of each rater is also quite good.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results and discussion, it can be concluded
that the construct of the aerobic gymnastic flexibility test in
the national development category is considered valid and
reliable. Therefore, this instrument can be used to measure
the flexibility of athletes and non-athlete aerobic
gymnastics. It is recommended to conduct empirical
validity tests and reliably retest tests for athletes or
non-athletes of the Age Group 1 category for 12-14 years
old and Age Group 2 for 15-17 years old to make this test
instrument more precise.
Acknowledgments
The researcher would like to thank all participants of this
study and Yogyakarta State University for supporting this
research so that it could run smoothly and be completed.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Aura, U. Constanta, M. Mariana, Corelative Aspects
Regarding the Functional Exertion and the Technical

892 A Development of Aerobic Gymnastics Flexibility Test for the National Development Category:
A Construct of Content Validity and Reliability Approach
Difficulty Elements in High Performance Aerobic
Gymnastics., Ovidius Univ. Ann. Ser. Phys. Educ. Sport.
Mov. Heal. 12 (2012) 120–126. http://search.ebscohost.co
m/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sph&AN=78567836&site=e
host-live.
[2] M. Mariana, C. Orlando, Performance Criteria in Aerobic
Gymnastics – Impact on the Sportive Training, Procedia -
Soc. Behav. Sci. 117 (2014) 367–373.https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.sbspro.2014.02.229.
[3] M. Tibenská, H. Medeková, “Z”-scores of anthropometric
and motor parameters of girls in aerobic gymnastics, Acta
Fac. Pharm. Univ. Comenianae. 61 (2014) 55–58.
https://doi.org/10.2478/afpuc-2014-0008.
[4] G. Raiola, Y. Giugno, I. Scassillo, P.A. Di Tore, An
experimental study on Aerobic Gymnastic: Performance
analysis as an effective evaluation for technique and
teaching of motor gestures, J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 8 (2013)
297–306. https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2012.8.Proc2.32.
[5] khaled abuwarda, The Effectiveness of Cross Training on
Mental Toughness, Development of Special Physical
Abilities, and The Degree of Skilled Performance in
Aerobic Gymnastics, Int. J. Sport. Sci. Arts. 016 (2020)
122–140. https://doi.org/10.21608/eijssa.2020.43401.1049.
[6] G. NICULESCU, E. SABĂU, D.I. LĂCĂTUŞ, Study on
the Use of Static Strength Elements in the Performance
Aerobic Gymnastics, Bull. Transilv. Univ. Braşov. 4 (2011)
149–153.
[7] R. Mohamed El-Desouky Mohamed, The Effect of some
PNF Exercises on the Development of Flexibility and the
Technical Performance of some Gymnastic Skills for
Young Women under the Age of 14, Assiut J. Sport Sci.
Arts. 2020 (2020) 173–183. https://doi.org/10.21608/ajssa.
2020.196227.
[8] M. Mezei, T. Wesselly, R.A. Pelin, C. Grigoroiu,
Optimisation of selection in aerobic gymnastics by
correlating physical and technical elements, Discobolul –
Phys. Educ. Sport Kinetotherapy J. (2019).
https://doi.org/10.35189/iphm.icpesk.2019.20.
[9] R.E. Thomas, B.C. Thomas, A systematic review of injuries
in gymnastics, Phys. Sportsmed. 47 (2019) 96–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2018.1527646.
[10] A. Bota, C. Urzeală, Correlative Aspects Regarding
Functional Stress and Neuromuscular Control in High
Performance Aerobic Gymnastics – Individual Events,
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 93 (2013) 2090–2094.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.171.
[11] D.G. Behm, A. Chaouachi, A review of the acute effects of
static and dynamic stretching on performance, Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 111 (2011) 2633–2651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0
0421-011-1879-2.
[12] J.L. Nuzzo, The Case for Retiring Flexibility as a Major
Component of Physical Fitness, Sport. Med. 50 (2020)
853–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01248-w.
[13] M.J.D. Valencia, J.B. Maming, J.H. Medina, G.D.
Macasarte, The Making of the Champions: A Case Study of
the Development of The Young Aerobic Gymnasts In
Malay, Aklan, Int. J. Multidiscip. Appl. Bus. Educ. Res. 2
(2021) 327–336. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.04.06
[14] W.B. East, A Historical Review and Analysis of Army
Physical Readiness Training and Assessment, 2013.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studie
s-institute/csi-books/APRT_WhitfieldEast.pdf.
[15] S.J. Hardcastle, M. Tye, R. Glassey, M.S. Hagger,
Exploring the perceived effectiveness of a life skills
development program for high-performance athletes,
Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16 (2015) 139–149.https://doi.org/1
0.1016/j.psychsport.2014.10.005.
[16] Code of Points Aerobic Gymnastics 2017-2020, Fédération
Internationale de Gymnastique, 2017.
[17] W. Liemohn, G.L. Sharpe, J.F. Wasserman, Criterion
related validity of the sit-and-reach test, J. Strength Cond.
Res. 8 (1994) 91–94.
[18] E. Delahunt, C. Kennelly, B.L. McEntee, G.F. Coughlan,
B.S. Green, The thigh adductor squeeze test: 45 of hip
flexion as the optimal test position for eliciting adductor
muscle activity and maximum pressure values, Man. Ther.
16 (2011) 476–480.
[19] B. Mackenzie, Performance evaluation tests, London Electr.
World Plc. 24 (2005) 57–158.
[20] B. Mkaouer, S. Hammoudi-Nassib, S. Amara, H. Chaabène,
Evaluating the physical and basic gymnastics skills
assessment for talent identification in men’s artistic
gymnastics proposed by the International Gymnastics
Federation, Biol. Sport. 35 (2018) 383–392.
https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.78059.
[21] M.D. Sleeper, L.K. Kenyon, J.M. Elliott, M.S. Cheng,
Measuring sport-specific physical abilities in male
gymnasts: the men’s gymnastics functional measurement
tool, Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 11 (2016) 1082.
[22] H.K. Mohajan, Two criteria for good measurements in
research: Validity and reliability, Ann. Spiru Haret Univ.
Econ. Ser. 17 (2017) 59–82.
[23] H. Taherdoost, Validity and Reliability of the Research
Instrument ; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire /
Survey in a Research Hamed Taherdoost to cite this version :
HAL Id : hal-02546799 Validity and Reliability of the
Research Instrument ; How to Test the, Int. J. Acad. Res.
Manag. 5 (2016) 28–36.
[24] C.B. Terwee, C.A.C. Prinsen, A. Chiarotto, M.J.
Westerman, D.L. Patrick, J. Alonso, L.M. Bouter, H.C.W.
De Vet, L.B. Mokkink, COSMIN methodology for
evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome
measures: a Delphi study, Qual. Life Res. 27 (2018) 1159–
1170.
[25] Q.N. Hong, P. Pluye, S. Fàbregues, G. Bartlett, F.
Boardman, M. Cargo, P. Dagenais, M.P. Gagnon, F.
Griffiths, B. Nicolau, A. O’Cathain, M.C. Rousseau, I.
Vedel, Improving the content validity of the mixed methods
appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study, J. Clin.
Epidemiol. 111 (2019) 49-59.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j
clinepi.2019.03.008.
[26] C.B. Terwee, C.A.C. Prinsen, A. Chiarotto, H.C.W. De Vet,
M.J. Westerman, D.L. Patrick, J. Alonso, L.M. Bouter, L.B.
Mokkink, COSMIN standards and criteria for evaluating
the content validity of health-related Patient-Reported
Outcome Measures: a Delphi study., Qual Life Res. 27
(2017) 1159–1170.

International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences 10(5): 886-893, 2022 893
[27] D. Jennings, S. Cormack, A.J. Coutts, L. Boyd, R.J. Aughey,
The validity and reliability of GPS units for measuring
distance in team sport specific running patterns, Int. J.
Sports Physiol. Perform. 5 (2010) 328–341.
[28] E.C. Pruyn, M.L. Watsford, A.J. Murphy, Validity and
reliability of three methods of stiffness assessment, J. Sport
Heal. Sci. 5 (2016) 476–483.
[29] W.A. Edmonds, T.D. Kennedy, An applied guide to
research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods, Sage Publications, 2016.
[30] A. Petrovic, V. Koprivica, B. Bokan, Quantitative,
qualitative and mixed research in sport science: a
methodological report, South African J. Res. Sport. Phys.
Educ. Recreat. 39 (2017) 181–197.
[31] N. Byshevets, O. Shynkaruk, O. Stepanenko, S.
Gerasymenko, S. Tkachenko, I. Synihovets, V. Filipov, K.
Serhiyenko, O. Iakovenko, Development skills
implementation of analysis of variance at sport-pedagogical
and biomedical researches, (2019).
[32] F. Doolan-Noble, S. Barson, M. Lyndon, F. Cullinane, J.
Gray, T. Stokes, R. Gauld, Establishing gold standards for
System-Level Measures: A modified Delphi consensus
process, Int. J. Qual. Heal. Care. 31 (2019) 205–211.
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy122.
[33] L. Aiken, Three Coefficients For Analyzing The Reliability
And Validity Of Ratings, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 45 (1985)
131–141.
[34] D.G. Bonett, T.A. Wright, Cronbach’s alpha reliability:
Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size
planning, J. Organ. Behav. 36 (2015) 3–15.
[35] L.G. Portney, M.P. Watkins, Foundations of clinical
research: applications to practice, Pearson/Prentice Hall
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009.
[36] G. Gantcheva, Y. Borysova, N. Kovalenko, Evaluation and
development of artistic abilities of 7-8-year-old rhythmic
gymnasts, Sci. Gymnast. J. 13 (2021) 59–69.
[37] M. Mehrtash, H. Rohani, E. Farzaneh, R. Nasiri, The effects
of 6 months specific aerobic gymnastic training on motor
abilities in 10 – 12 years old boys, Sci. Gymnast. J. 7 (2015)
51–60.
[38] D. V Knudson, Warm-up and Flexibility, in: Cond. Strength
Hum. Perform., Routledge, 2018: pp. 212–231.
[39] M. Hamidur Rahman, M. Shahidul Islam, European Journal
of Physical Education and Sport Science STRETCHING
AND FLEXIBILITY: A RANGE OF MOTION FOR
GAMES AND SPORTS, (2020) 22–36. https://doi.org/10.
46827/ejpe.v6i8.3380.
[40] D.A. Skelton, Effects of physical activity on postural
stability, Age Ageing. 30 (2001) 33–39. https://doi.org/10.
1093/ageing/30.suppl_3.33.
[41] M. Vernetta, E.M. Peláez-Barrios, J. López-Bedoya,
Systematic review of flexibility tests in gymnastics, J. Hum.
Sport Exerc. 17 (2020) 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14198/JHS
E.2022.171.07.
[42] R. Budiarti, S. Siswantoyo, E.R. Sukamti, Explosive Power
and Muscle Flexibility in Junior Gymnasts of Aerobic
Gymnastic Based on Different Sexes, in: Conf. Interdiscip.
Approach Sport. Conjunction with 4th Yogyakarta Int.
Semin. Heal. Phys. Educ. Sport Sci. (COIS-YISHPESS
2021), Atlantis Press, 2022: pp. 144–147.
[43] G. Qowiyyuridho, Tomoliyus, Fauzi, Validity and
reliability of agility test with dribbling and passing in soccer
games, Int. J. Hum. Mov. Sport. Sci. 9 (2021) 301–307.
https://doi.org/10.13189/saj.2021.090218.
[44] D. Yudhistira, Siswantoyo, Tomoliyus, Sumaryanti, D.
Tirtawirya, Paryadi, L.O.A. Virama, S. Naviri, Noralisa,
Development of agility test construction: Validity and
reliability of karate agility test construction in kata category,
Int. J. Hum. Mov. Sport. Sci. 9 (2021) 697–703.
https://doi.org/10.13189/saj.2021.090413.
[45] M. Tavakol, R. Dennick, Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha,
Int. J. Med. Educ. 2 (2011) 53.