Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2026
Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity
Published on: June 12, 2019
Accuracy and reliability of peer assessment of athletic training psychomotor laboratory skills
Melissa C Marty1, Jolene M Henning, John T Willse
1The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA. mmarty@ashland.edu
Context:
Peer assessment is defined as students judging the level or quality of a fellow student's understanding. No researchers have yet demonstrated the accuracy or reliability of peer assessment in athletic training education.
Objective:
To determine the accuracy and reliability of peer assessment of athletic training students' psychomotor skills.
Design:
Cross-sectional study.
Setting:
Entry-level master's athletic training education program.
Patients Or Other Participants:
First-year (n = 5) and second-year (n = 8) students.
Main Outcome Measure(S):
Participants evaluated 10 videos of a peer performing 3 psychomotor skills (middle deltoid manual muscle test, Faber test, and Slocum drawer test) on 2 separate occasions using a valid assessment tool. Accuracy of each peer-assessment score was examined through percentage correct scores. We used a generalizability study to determine how reliable athletic training students were in assessing a peer performing the aforementioned skills. Decision studies using generalizability theory demonstrated how the peer-assessment scores were affected by the number of participants and number of occasions.
Results:
Participants had a high percentage of correct scores: 96.84% for the middle deltoid manual muscle test, 94.83% for the Faber test, and 97.13% for the Slocum drawer test. They were not able to reliably assess a peer performing any of the psychomotor skills on only 1 occasion. However, the φ increased (exceeding the 0.70 minimal standard) when 2 participants assessed the skill on 3 occasions (φ = 0.79) for the Faber test, with 1 participant on 2 occasions (φ = 0.76) for the Slocum drawer test, and with 3 participants on 2 occasions for the middle deltoid manual muscle test (φ = 0.72).
Conclusions:
Although students did not detect all errors, they assessed their peers with an average of 96% accuracy. Having only 1 student assess a peer performing certain psychomotor skills was less reliable than having more than 1 student assess those skills on more than 1 occasion. Peer assessment of psychomotor skills could be an important part of the learning process and a tool to supplement instructor assessment.
