# Reliability of [PERSON]'s Table Tennis Game Analysis Method in Authors' Own Modification
## 3 Results
The reliability of the judges' (experts') grades was checked in each of the analyzed levels of the game. At the first two levels, the agreement of the assessments was good (W > 0.78, \(p\) < 0.001), and it was moderate at the third level (W = 0.60, \(p\) < 0.001). A very high internal consistency was obtained ([PERSON]'s alpha > 0.90). At subsequent levels, the procedures for assessing the values of the reliability indicators were minor and decreasing. The number of won actions by [PERSON], classified and ordered by experts, is presented in Table 3. The proportions in the number of points scored and applied strokes by this player are very similar to the one discussed earlier, although he scored fewer points directly from the serve (only two). There were no significant differences between the judges' assessments in terms of individual observations (\(\chi^{2}\) (63.6) = 0.709, \(p\) = 0.994), while the data for each expert differed according to the three levels of the experiment (K-W (63.3) > 25.94, \(p\) with Bonferroni correction <0.001). Post hoc tests showed differences between Level 1 and Level 3 and Level 2 and Level 3 for all experts; there were no differences between Level 1 and Level 2. The reliability of the judges' grades was checked got each of the analyzed levels of the game. In the first two levels, the agreement of assessments was good (W > 0.77, \(p\) < 0.001), \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{r c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level of** & **Fragment of the Game** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **Me \(\pm\) SQ** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **[PERSON]’s** \\ **W** & **\(p\)** & **[PERSON]’s** \\ \hline
2.2.2. Ph-back-nonspin-serve+Bh-attack & 0.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
2.2.5. Ph-back-nonspin-serve+Bh-block & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
4.1.1. Ph-push+Fh-topspin & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
4.1.2. Ph-push+Bh-block & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
4.1.3. Ph-push+Bh-topspin & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
4.1.x. Ph-push+Other & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
4.2.x. Bh-push+Other & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
4.3.1. Ph-topspin+Fh-topspin & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
4.4.1. Bh-attack+Bh-attack & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
4.4.x. Bh-attack-topspin+Other & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
5.1.1. Ph-topspin+Fh-topspin & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \\
5.1.3. Ph-topspin-Fh+Fh-attack & 0.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \\
5.1.x. Ph-topspin+Other & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
5.2.3. Attack+Bh+Topspin+fh & 0.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
5.3.1. Ph-attack+Fh-attack & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
6.1.1. Bh-block+Bh-block & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
6.1.2. Bh-block+Fh-topspin & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & \\
6.1.3. Bh-block+Fh-attack & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
6.1.5. Bh-block+Bh-attack & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
6.1.x. Bh-block+Other & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
7.2.1. Ph-push+Fh-topspin & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
7.2.2. Ph-push+Bh-block & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\
7.2.x. Ph-push+Other & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: M—arithmetic mean, SD—standard deviation, Me—median, SQ—quartile deviation, Fh—forehand, Bh—backhand.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._while it was slightly lower in the third level (W = 0.46, \(p\) < 0.001). A very high internal consistency was obtained ([PERSON]'s alpha > 0.90) in the first two levels, and a relatively lower but acceptable consistency was obtained at Level 3 ([PERSON]'s alpha = 0.79).