↓ Skip to main content

International Paralympic Committee position stand—background and scientific principles of classification in Paralympic sport

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
321 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
402 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
International Paralympic Committee position stand—background and scientific principles of classification in Paralympic sport
Published in
British Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2009
DOI 10.1136/bjsm.2009.065060
Pubmed ID
Authors

S M Tweedy, Y C Vanlandewijck

Abstract

The Classification Code of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), inter alia, mandates the development of evidence-based systems of classification. This paper provides a scientific background for classification in Paralympic sport, defines evidence-based classification and provides guidelines for how evidence-based classification may be achieved. Classification is a process in which a single group of entities (or units) are ordered into a number of smaller groups (or classes) based on observable properties that they have in common, and taxonomy is the science of how to classify. Paralympic classification is interrelated with systems of classification used in two fields: Health and functioning. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is the most widely used classification in the field of functioning and health. To enhance communication, Paralympic systems of classification should use language and concepts that are consistent with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Sport. Classification in sport reduces the likelihood of one-sided competition and in this way promotes participation. Two types of classification are used in sport-performance classification and selective classification. Paralympic sports require selective classification systems so that athletes who enhance their competitive performance through effective training will not be moved to a class with athletes who have less activity limitation, as they would in a performance classification system. Classification has a significant impact on which athletes are successful in Paralympic sport, but unfortunately issues relating to the weighting and aggregation of measures used in classification pose significant threats to the validity of current systems of classification. To improve the validity of Paralympic classification, the IPC Classification Code mandates the development of evidence-based systems of classification, an evidence-based system being one in which the purpose of the system is stated unambiguously; and empirical evidence indicates the methods used for assigning class will achieve the stated purpose. To date, one of the most significant barriers to the development of evidence-based systems of classification has been absence of an unambiguous statement of purpose. To remedy this, all Paralympic systems of classification should indicate that the purpose of the system is to promote participation in sport by people with disabilities by minimising the impact of eligible impairment types on the outcome of competition. Conceptually, in order to minimise the impact of impairment on the outcome of competition, each classification system should: describe eligibility criteria in terms of: type of impairment and severity of impairment; describe methods for classifying eligible impairments according to the extent of activity limitation they cause. To classify impairments according to the extent of activity limitation they cause requires research that develops objective, reliable measures of both impairment and activity limitation and investigates the relative strength of association between these constructs in a large, racially representative sample. The paper outlines a number of objective principles that should considered when deciding how many classes a given sport should have: the number of classes in a sport should not be driven by the number of athletes in a sport at a single time point.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 402 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 396 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 18%
Student > Bachelor 53 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 9%
Researcher 32 8%
Professor 25 6%
Other 77 19%
Unknown 104 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 147 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 5%
Social Sciences 17 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 4%
Other 46 11%
Unknown 119 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,470,016
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#3,025
of 6,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,278
of 107,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#15
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 66.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 107,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.