№ files_lp_4_process_3_062596
File format: docx
Character count: 2986
File size: 202 KB
This document is a research study examining the relationship between lower-body strength and punch impact force in professional kickboxers.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Japan
Topic:
Strength and Conditioning, Sports Science, Combat Sports
Document Type:
Research Study
Organization / Institution:
Unspecified
Author:
Yonathan Smoak
Target Audience:
Professional athletes, sports scientists, strength coaches
Period of Effect:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Japan
Theme:
Sports Science, Kickboxing, Strength Training
Document Type:
Research Article
Organization:
N/A
Author:
Yonathan Smoak
Target Audience:
Sports scientists, strength coaches, kickboxers
Action Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Methodology:
Cross-sectional correlational design
Sample Size:
14 kickboxers
Measurement Methods:
CMJ, IMTP, punch impact force
Statistical Analysis:
Pearson correlations, multiple regression
Funding Information:
No specific grant
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Data Availability:
Available upon request from the corresponding author
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Japan
Theme:
Sports Science, Kickboxing, Strength Training
Document Type:
Research Article
Organization:
N/A
Author:
Yonathan Smoak
Target Audience:
Sports scientists, strength coaches, kickboxers
Action Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Methodology:
Cross-sectional correlational design
Sample Size:
14 kickboxers
Measurement Methods:
CMJ, IMTP, punch impact force
Statistical Analysis:
Pearson correlations, multiple regression
Funding Information:
No specific grant
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Data Availability:
Available upon request from the corresponding author
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Ohio
Topic:
Local Government Fund, Budget, Public Services
Document Type:
Resolution
Organization / Institution:
(Council, Commission) of the (insert municipality name here)
Author:
(Council, Commission) of the (insert municipality name here)
Target Audience:
Ohio General Assembly, Local Governments
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2020
Type of Document:
Peer review correspondence
Journal:
Collabra: Psychology
Authors:
Joscha Stecker, Paul C. Bürkner, Jens H. Hellmann, Steffen Nestler, Mitja D. Back
Editor:
Brent Donnellan
Submission Date:
July 23, 2020
First Decision Date:
August 7, 2020
Author Response Date:
December 17, 2020
Review Focus:
Person perception, prejudice, internal validity, experimental design, effect sizes
Audience:
Academic researchers in psychology and social sciences
Document Length:
20 pages plus references
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Japan
Theme:
Sports Science, Kickboxing, Strength Training
Document Type:
Research Article
Organization:
N/A
Author:
Yonathan Smoak
Target Audience:
Sports scientists, strength coaches, kickboxers
Action Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Methodology:
Cross-sectional correlational design
Sample Size:
14 kickboxers
Measurement Methods:
CMJ, IMTP, punch impact force
Statistical Analysis:
Pearson correlations, multiple regression
Funding Information:
No specific grant
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Data Availability:
Available upon request from the corresponding author