Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in Univ

Similar documents
Analysis of Judges Judging in Figure Skating Tae-Koo Lee, Han-Joo Lee, Jae-Eun Chung, & Hee-won Yang* Yonsei University

The characteristic analysis of winners and losers in curling: Focused on shot type, shot accuracy, blank end and average score SungGeon Park 1 & Soowo


Analyses the Contents of Points per a Game and the Difference among Weight Categories after the Revision of Greco-Roman Style Wrestling Rules Han-bong


Kinematic analysis of success strategy of YANG Hak Seon technique Joo-Ho Song 1, Jong-Hoon Park 2, & Jin-Sun Kim 3 * 1 Korea Institute of Sport Scienc

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Lumbar spine


09구자용(489~500)

패션 전문가 293명 대상 앙케트+전문기자단 선정 Fashionbiz CEO Managing Director Creative Director Independent Designer

확률과통계 강의자료-1.hwp

012임수진

<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

???춍??숏

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: A study on Characte

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

Theoretical foundation for the ethics of coaching sport Sungjoo Park* Kookmin University [Purpose] [Methods] [Results] [Conclusions] Key words:

서론 34 2


???? 1

03-ÀÌÁ¦Çö

2014_ pdf

03-서연옥.hwp

THE JOURNAL OF KOREAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE. vol. 29, no. 10, Oct ,,. 0.5 %.., cm mm FR4 (ε r =4.4)

878 Yu Kim, Dongjae Kim 지막 용량수준까지도 멈춤 규칙이 만족되지 않아 시행이 종료되지 않는 경우에는 MTD의 추정이 불가 능하다는 단점이 있다. 최근 이 SM방법의 단점을 보완하기 위해 O Quigley 등 (1990)이 제안한 CRM(Continu

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: An Exploratory Stud

12이문규

(

09È«¼®¿µ 5~152s

인문사회과학기술융합학회

(Exposure) Exposure (Exposure Assesment) EMF Unknown to mechanism Health Effect (Effect) Unknown to mechanism Behavior pattern (Micro- Environment) Re

γ

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

03이경미(237~248)ok

04조남훈

139~144 ¿À°ø¾àħ

Jkcs022(89-113).hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.1-16 DOI: * A Study on Good School

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: : A Study on the Ac

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

특집-5

한국체육학회지.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: NCS : * A Study on

A study on the sports educational zeal through the qualitative network analysis: Focusing on mothers of student athletes Byung-Goo Lee & Han-Joo Lee*

Research subject change trend analysis of Journal of Educational Information and Media Studies : Network text analysis of the last 20 years * The obje


?


제 출 문 한국산업안전공단 이사장 귀하 본 보고서를 2002 년도 공단 연구사업계획에 따라 수행한 산 업안전보건연구수요조사- 산업안전보건연구의 우선순위설정 과제의 최종보고서로 제출합니다. 2003년 5월 연구기관 : 산업안전보건연구원 안전경영정책연구실 정책조사연구팀 연

14.531~539(08-037).fm

PJTROHMPCJPS.hwp

jaeryomading review.pdf

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: * The

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

<352EC7E3C5C2BFB55FB1B3C5EBB5A5C0CCC5CD5FC0DABFACB0FAC7D0B4EBC7D02E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap

Microsoft Word - KSR2012A021.doc

레이아웃 1

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Research Trend

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * The Participant Expe

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * The Meaning of Pl

09권오설_ok.hwp

목차


DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

02¿ÀÇö¹Ì(5~493s

_ _ Reading and Research in Archaeology. _ Reading and Research in Korean Historical Texts,,,,,. _Reading and Research in Historical Materials from Ko

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( :

<353420B1C7B9CCB6F52DC1F5B0ADC7F6BDC7C0BB20C0CCBFEBC7D120BEC6B5BFB1B3C0B0C7C1B7CEB1D7B7A52E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: : * Research Subject

텀블러514

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

PowerPoint 프레젠테이션

Index

#Ȳ¿ë¼®

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )

Æ÷Àå½Ã¼³94š

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

: 4 2. : (KSVD) 4 3. :

<C3D6C1BE2DBDC4C7B0C0AFC5EBC7D0C8B8C1F D32C8A3292E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Mediating Eff

Microsoft Word - Westpac Korean Handouts.doc

<31342DC0CCBFEBBDC42E687770>

THE JOURNAL OF KOREAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE Nov.; 26(11),

12È«±â¼±¿Ü339~370

3. 클라우드 컴퓨팅 상호 운용성 기반의 서비스 평가 방법론 개발.hwp

ÇѸ¶´ç 32P

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: (LiD) - - * Way to

untitled


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

Transcription:

Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in University & 2 Kang Won University [Purpose] [Methods] [Results] [Conclusion] Key words: Ⅰ Ⅲ

Ⅲ Ⅲ

Ⅲ Table 1. Seasonal participants season competition method event N 25th (2009) overall 6 412 26th (2010) overall 5 371 qualifier 4 375 27th (2011) semi 2 230 2 120 qualifier 4 434 28th (2012) semi 2 224 2 128 qualifier 4 456 29th (2013) semi 2 281 2 163 qualifier 4 519 30th (2014) semi 2 293 2 164 qualifier 4 505 31st (2015) semi 2 292 2 174 qualifier 4 358 32nd (2016) semi 2 284 2 133 qualifier 4 431 33rd (2017) semi 2 279 2 142 total 6768

Fig. 1. example for scoring Table 2. events for season and competition method season 25th (2009) 26th (2010) 27th~ 28th (2011~ 2012) 29th~ 33rd (2013~ 2017) event standard parallel progressive parallel free progressive parallel middle progressive parallel combination progressive parallel Standard & Progressive parallel progressive parallel middle combination mogul combination progressive parallel qualifier progressive parallel middle Standard & Progressive parallel semi progressive parallel mogul progressive parallel combination combination progressive parallel qualifier progressive parallel middle Standard & Progressive parallel semi progressive parallel mogul Giant Slalom(gate) progressive parallel

Ⅲ Fig. 2. standard for scoring(ksia, 2017)

σ σ Table 3. analysis results 25th season combination (N=388) free (N=388) middle (N=388) carving (N=388) (N=388) (N=388) J1 89.70 1.42 J2 89.21 1.17 J3 89.18 1.58 J4 89.28 1.27 J5 89.46 1.59 J6 89.67 1.35 J7 89.69 1.30 J8 89.63 1.55 J9 89.63 1.35 J10 89.72 1.58 J11 89.93 1.33 J12 89.77 1.57 J13 89.76 1.72 J14 89.56 1.55 J15 89.54 1.48 J16 90.47 1.49 J17 89.84 1.58 J18 89.76 1.78 J19 89.35 1.49 J20 89.57 1.61 J21 89.66 1.60 J22 90.07 1.71 J23 89.66 1.58 J24 89.77 1.87 J25 90.31 1.58 J26 88.47 2.01 J27 88.26 1.77 J28 88.31 1.87 J29 88.78 1.96 J30 88.26 1.79.930.946.928.931.931.948 p 1.449 70.95 j.045 2.23 p*j.548 26.82 p 1.588 77.65 j.000 0.02 p*j.457 22.33 p 1.703 71.43 j.025 1.05 p*j.656 27.52 p 1.848 68.13 j.175 6.46 p*j.689 25.41 p 2.041 71.00 j.081 2.81 p*j.753 26.19 p 2.786 77.56 j.047 1.32 p*j.759 21.12

Table 4. analysis results 26th season J1 88.29 1.49 p 2.325 74.13 middle J2 88.50 1.92 J3 88.33 1.86.944 j.127 4.04 (N=333) J4 89.18 1.56 J5 88.55 1.80 p*j.685 21.83 J6 88.26 2.06 p 3.962 81.37 mogul (N=333) (N=333) combina tion (N=333) (N=333) J7 88.61 2.11 J8 87.88 2.34 J9 88.48 2.17 J10 88.62 2.23 J11 88.28 1.52 J12 88.35 1.67 J13 87.98 1.78 J14 88.63 1.64 J15 88.09 1.52 J16 89.41 1.57 J17 89.30 1.62 J18 89.70 1.56 J19 89.56 1.29 J20 89.27 1.65 J21 89.80 1.43 J22 90.01 1.45 J23 89.57 1.45 J24 89.08 1.47.961.936.954.939 J25 89.26 1.24 j.094 1.93 p*j.813 16.70 p 1.973 72.70 j.061 2.25 p*j.680 25.05 p 1.917 79.37 j.032 1.34 p*j.466 19.29 p 1.499 70.48 j.141 6.65 p*j.486 22.87 Table 5. analysis results 27th season J1 89.44 1.21 p 1.002 67.73 J2 89.98 1.04 J3 89.65 1.27.926 j.078 5.24 J4 89.48 1.24 J5 89.22 1.15 p*j.400 27.03 J6 88.21 1.35 p 1.279 66.88 J7 88.27 1.16 combi J8 88.90 1.31.919 j.071 3.73 nation J9 88.53 1.42 qualifier J10 88.43 1.52 p*j.562 29.40 (N=362) J11 89.02 1.46 p 1.618 70.50 J12 89.58 1.17 middle J13 89.13 1.53.930 j.070 3.06 J14 88.88 1.75 J15 89.02 1.50 p*j.607 26.43 J16 88.67 1.15 p 1.033 69.72 J17 88.54 1.10 J18 89.10 1.11.929 j.051 3.48 J19 88.90 1.30 J20 88.98 1.30 p*j.397 26.80 J21 90.30 1.30 p 1.566 79.78 J22 90.37 1.47 J23 90.17 1.40.953 j.007 0.35 J24 90.34 1.36 semi J25 90.40 1.46 p*j.390 19.87 (N=230) J26 90.19 1.81 p 3.061 86.71 J27 90.59 1.90 Mogul J28 90.85 1.85.974 j.068 1.94 J29 90.34 1.71 J30 90.67 2.02 p*j.401 11.35 J31 91.52 1.24 p 1.043 68.97 J32 91.73 1.13 combi J33 91.10 1.14.937 j.119 7.90 nation J34 90.87 1.17 J35 91.51 1.22 p*j.350 23.13 (N=120) J36 91.58 1.19 p 1.205 76.19 J37 91.33 1.22 J38 91.33 1.18.948 j.048 3.03 J39 90.97 1.32 J40 91.17 1.28 p*j.329 20.78

Table 6. analysis results 28th season J1 88.26 1.50 p 1.966 73.40 J2 88.49 1.72 J3 88.20 1.66.934 j.019 0.72 J4 88.45 1.57 J5 88.18 1.70 p*j.693 25.89 J6 89.82 1.53 p 1.755 76.97 combi J7 90.17 1.62 J8 90.28 1.47.948 j.041 1.80 nation J9 90.24 1.31 qualifier J10 90.35 1.52 p*j.484 21.23 (N=414) J11 88.25 1.59 p 1.973 75.13 middle J12 88.03 1.55 J13 88.13 1.60.939 j.015 0.55 J14 88.19 1.67 J15 87.93 1.67 p*j.639 24.32 J16 89.44 1.48 p 1.912 77.97 J17 89.56 1.58 J18 89.79 1.49.949 j.026 1.06 J19 89.81 1.71 J20 89.78 1.52 p*j.514 20.97 J21 90.61 1.34 p 1.063 63.73 J22 90.72 1.51 J23 90.67 1.16.899 j.005 0.29 semi J24 90.62 1.28 J25 90.82 1.12 p*j.600 35.98 J26 88.30 2.55 (N=216) p 6.515 88.94 J27 88.57 2.47 Mogul J28 88.84 2.82.977 j.039 0.53 J29 88.61 2.79 J30 88.43 2.84 p*j.772 10.53 J31 91.45 1.34 p 1.39 73.39 combi J32 91.54 1.31 J33 91.18 1.53.936 j.03 1.67 nation J34 91.48 1.35 J35 91.70 1.28 p*j.47 24.95 (N=121) J36 91.20 1.53 p 1.12 57.59 J37 91.29 1.31 J38 91.25 1.42.875 j.02 1.20 J39 90.89 1.09 J40 91.32 1.52 p*j.80 41.21 Table 7. analysis results 29th season J1 89.42 1.72 p 1.800 72.62 J2 89.48 1.49 J3 89.60 1.54.931 j.014 0.58 J4 89.74 1.57 p*j.664 26.80 J5 89.58 1.51 J6 89.15 1.66 p 2.105 75.42 combi J7 89.01 1.66 j.117 4.21 J8 89.13 1.68.949 nation J9 89.12 1.62 qualifier p*j.569 20.37 J10 89.86 1.55 (N=436) J11 88.91 1.96 p 2.574 78.76 middle J12 88.55 1.75 j.052 1.58 J13 88.53 1.73.952 J14 88.96 1.78 p*j.642 19.65 J15 89.00 1.74 J16 89.37 1.58 p 1.845 68.71 J17 89.68 1.74 j.153 5.69 J18 89.71 1.49.931 J19 89.68 1.75 p*j.687 25.60 J20 88.79 1.35 J21 90.60 1.25 p 1.372 69.46 J22 90.74 1.38 j.026 1.33 J23 90.60 1.22.922 semi J24 90.51 1.53 p*j.577 29.20 J25 90.28 1.57 J26 89.80 1.99 p 3.210 85.85 (N=270) J27 90.03 1.92 Mogul J28 89.79 2.00.970 j.033 0.89 J29 89.77 1.83 p*j.496 13.27 J30 90.19 1.88 J31 90.71 1.38 p 1.36 71.75 J32 91.01 1.31 j 0.08 4.03 J33 90.59 1.34.937 (N=162) J34 91.31 1.32 p*j 0.46 24.22 J35 90.85 1.39

Table 8. analysis results 30th season J1 89.87 1.26 p 1.308 71.23 J2 90.11 1.21 J3 89.93 1.68.928 j.024 1.31 J4 90.27 1.16 J5 90.07 1.35 p*j.504 27.46 J6 89.75 1.40 p 1.239 69.28 combi J7 89.63 1.25 J8 89.75 1.49.923 j.030 1.69 nation J9 89.53 1.21 qualifier J10 89.33 1.26 p*j.519 29.03 (N=475) J11 89.41 1.38 p 1.246 68.27 middle J12 89.51 1.44 J13 89.34 1.25.919 j.032 1.75 J14 89.32 1.43 J15 89.03 1.18 p*j.547 29.98 J16 90.02 1.24 p 1.127 73.64 J17 90.01 1.22 J18 90.16 1.21.924 j.004 0.25 J19 90.10 1.22 J20 90.14 1.28 p*j.400 26.11 J21 90.40 1.13 p.994 68.38 J22 90.84 1.14 J23 90.75 1.23.923 j.043 2.97 semi J24 90.70 1.37 J25 90.96 1.04 p*j.417 28.65 J26 89.89 2.48 (N=283) p 4.419 85.79 J27 89.61 2.25 Mogul J28 89.56 2.17.969 j.026 0.50 J29 89.43 2.18 J30 89.58 2.22 p*j.706 13.71 J31 91.49 1.48 p 1.715 79.26 J32 91.86 1.46 J33 91.43 1.47.941 j.029 1.35 (N=162) J34 91.45 1.42 J35 91.59 1.48 p*j.419 19.38 Table 9. analysis results 31st season J1 89.15 1.47 p 1.445 69.56 J2 89.19 1.46 J3 89.03 1.33.920 j.004 0.17 J4 89.12 1.44 J5 89.20 1.49 p*j.629 30.27 J6 89.75 1.52 p 1.614 73.67 combi J7 89.69 1.58 J8 89.90 1.48.937 j.037 1.68 nation J9 90.18 1.54 qualifier J10 89.96 1.19 p*j.540 24.65 (N=462) J11 89.46 1.45 p 1.233 53.51 middle J12 89.58 1.63 J13 89.44 1.83.854 j.017 0.75 J14 89.21 1.30 J15 89.33 1.30 p*j 1.054 45.74 J16 89.46 1.45 p 1.423 73.76 J17 89.53 1.30 J18 89.52 1.45.942 j.065 3.36 J19 89.46 1.31 J20 90.06 1.30 p*j.441 22.88 J21 89.34 1.29 p 1.185 69.23 J22 89.46 1.21 J23 89.25 1.27.921 j.021 1.23 semi J24 89.07 1.33 J25 89.39 1.40 p*j.505 29.54 J26 90.13 1.89 (N=276) p 3.282 84.82 J27 90.01 1.99 Mogul J28 90.06 2.21.967 j.020 0.52 J29 89.77 1.88 J30 89.86 1.82 p*j.567 14.66 J31 91.38 1.71 p 2.635 84.40 J32 91.38 1.72 J33 91.51 1.84.966 j.027 0.86 (N=156) J34 91.60 1.83 J35 91.14 1.69 p*j.460 14.74

Table 10. analysis results 32nd season J1 89.72 1.41 p 1.467 70.15 J2 89.83 1.35 J3 89.90 1.55.922 j.004 0.20 J4 89.74 1.34 J5 89.86 1.56 p*j.620 29.66 J6 90.69 1.13 p 1.106 72.49 combi J7 90.52 1.20 J8 90.83 1.33.943 j.084 5.53 nation J9 90.13 1.16 qualifier J10 90.24 1.17 p*j.335 21.98 (N=348) J11 89.68 1.85 p 2.762 76.93 middle J12 90.18 2.19 J13 89.79 1.91.947 j.060 1.68 J14 89.52 1.61 J15 89.68 1.79 p*j.768 21.39 J16 90.90 1.24 p 1.428 76.81 J17 90.69 1.34 J18 90.71 1.47.950 j.058 3.13 J19 90.26 1.24 J20 90.80 1.40 p*j.373 20.06 J21 91.32 1.34 p 1.430 75.99 J22 91.16 1.36 J23 91.42 1.39.945 j.036 1.94 semi J24 90.97 1.30 J25 91.00 1.41 p*j.415 22.08 J26 88.97 2.27 (N=272) p 4.551 89.76 J27 89.32 2.21 Mogul J28 89.18 2.35.979 j.031 0.62 J29 89.27 2.13 J30 88.91 2.26 p*j.488 9.62 J31 91.61 1.51 p 1.505 76.73 J32 91.73 1.30 J33 92.19 1.32.949 j.050 2.53 (N=126) J34 91.71 1.31 J35 91.70 1.47 p*j.407 20.74 Table 11. analysis results 33rd season J1 90.15 1.22 p 1.399 74.61 J2 90.01 1.38 J3 89.68 1.35.941 j.040 2.14 J4 90.19 1.54 J5 89.96 1.26 p*j.436 23.25 J6 89.91 1.41 p 1.401 73.40 combi J7 90.07 1.38 J8 90.00 1.39.933 j.005 0.27 nation J9 90.09 1.32 qualifier J10 89.93 1.41 p*j.502 26.32 (N=398) J11 89.42 1.50 p 1.685 73.81 middle J12 89.68 1.50 J13 89.59 1.51.935 j.019 0.85 J14 89.82 1.43 J15 89.69 1.55 p*j.578 25.34 J16 89.62 1.21 p.978 69.97 J17 89.47 1.25 J18 88.88 1.13.935 j.077 5.53 J19 89.27 1.10 J20 89.22 1.04 p*j.342 24.50 J21 90.73 1.52 p 1.212 66.46 J22 90.45 1.38 J23 90.04 1.23.917 j.064 3.51 semi J24 90.55 1.13 J25 90.52 1.33 p*j.548 30.03 J26 87.76 3.17 (N=299) p 8.729 93.06 J27 87.59 3.00 Mogul J28 87.91 3.07.986 j.030 0.32 J29 88.08 3.00 J30 87.85 3.05 p*j.621 6.62 J31 91.11 1.36 p 1.955 81.24 J32 91.49 1.51 J33 91.25 1.51.958 j.018 0.73 (N=134) J34 91.16 1.64 J35 91.28 1.69 p*j.434 18.03

Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅱ

Ann. K. S. (2007). Appropriateness of Dance Performance Assessment by Trimmed Mean Method, Journal of Korea Sport Research, 18(5), 709-718. Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. NY: Springer-Verlag. Bae. J. K.(2004) Fairness of Trimmed Mean Method for Assessing a Dance Performance. Korea sport research, 15(2), 275-288. Baumgartner, T. A., & Jackson, A. S. (2006). Measurement for evaluation in physical education and exercise science (8th). Dubuque, IA : WCB McGraw-Hill. Cho. J. H. (2006). An analysis of sources of error and optimal condition of generalizability coefficient in the Korean national bowling player selective match. Korea journal of physical edcuation. 45(6), 157-167. Choi. Y. S. (2010). Performance Assessment for Modern Dance Competitors of Dong-A Concours (2002 2009). The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 12(2). 1-11. Choi. Y. S. (2011). Analyzing the Judges rating in Modern Dance Competitors of Dong-A Concours through Many-Faceted Rasch Model. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 13(2). 53-62. Cho. E. H. & Choi. Y. L. (2015). Analysis of Error Sources in Results of Evaluation of Difficulty(D) and Execution(E) by Judges of Rhythmic Gymnastics Competition. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 17(3), 13-22. Cho. E. H. (2016). Analysis of error source in subjective evaluation results on Taekwondo Poomsae: Application of generalizability theory. Journal of the Korean data & information science society. 27(2), 359-407. Kim. D. Y. & Heo. J. G. (2002). Generalizability Coefficient Estimation of Subjectively Volleyball Test. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science. 4(2), 15-28. Kim. M. Y. (2003). Objectivity in the Judgement of Figure Skating Performance. Korea journal of physical education. 45(2), 745-755. Kim. Y. J. & Kim. E. J. (2005) A Study on the Degree of Perfection and the Objectivity of Judges' Scores for Women's Gymnastics. Korea Sport Research, 16(5), 1087-1096. Kim. W. K. (2007) Interjudge Objectivity of Taekwondo Poomsae Competition, Journal of Korea Sport Research, 18(4), 823-830. Kim. H. D., Woo. D. I. & Kim. E. J. (2011) Objectivity of International Aerobics Referee decision. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 13(2), 63-73. Korea Ski Instructor Association(2017) http://www.ksia.co.kr Lee. T. K., Lee. H. J., Chung. J. E. & Yang. H. W. (2016). Analysis of Judges Judging in Figure Skating, Korean Journal of Sport Science, 27(4), 756-769. Moon. C. Y. (2006). Evaluation of Holistic Methods in Judgment of Sports Performance. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 8(2), 59-74. Oh. S. H., Kim. S. J. & Lee. Y. K. (2001). An Objectivity of a Performance Assessment Instrument in Dance. The Korean Journal Of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sports Science, 3(1), 81-87. Oh, S. H. & Lee. B. Y. (2002) Introduction to Objectivity and its Usage. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 4(1), 1-12.

Shin. J. Y., Cho. E. H. & Eom. H. J. (2015). An Objective Index for Subjective Judgements of Experts: Comparison of Inter-rater Agreement Coefficients. The Korean Journal of Physical Education, 54(6), 601-616. Seok. J. S., Kang. S. K. & Lee. J. H. (2016). Objectivity Evaluation of the Ski Level II Test. The Korean Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Sport Science, 18(2), 63-76.