Assessing Table Tennis Technical Proficiency in Individuals with Disabilities: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the scope of this review is to summarize current protocols used to evalutate performance od people with disabilities while playing table tennis. It is clear the need of having a scoping review on this topic specifically focused on people with motor and cognitive disabilities. The work is well done and presented. I do not have any particular comments or objection.

Minor comment

line 128: "particles" I guess this is a typo and it sould be articles

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The wording is appropriate

Author Response

The scope of this review is to summarize current protocols used to evalutate performance od people with disabilities while playing table tennis. It is clear the need of having a scoping review on this topic specifically focused on people with motor and cognitive disabilities. The work is well done and presented. I do not have any particular comments or objection.

Minor comment

line 128: "particles" I guess this is a typo and it should be articles

>> Response: Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your positive feedback and apologize for the typo. We have since corrected the spelling of “particles” as “articles”. The revised sentence now reads: “… from the reference list of the included articles…” (Line 139)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper conducts a review of current testing protocols for assessing table tennis technical proficiency in people with disabilities.

It is a review with the PICO system, which gives it sufficient credibility.

 

The conclusions are necessary for the future, as it states that future research should develop technical proficiency tests for players at all levels of competition. Skill evaluation criteria and scoring methods should be standardized and clearly explained. The validity and reliability of the tests must be established. Finally, there is great potential in the use of artificial intelligence to improve the assessment of table tennis proficiency in people with disabilities.

In short, it is an interesting review, and we need studies that determine the need to evaluate with valid tests in all people, to do evidence-based science.

Author Response

The paper conducts a review of current testing protocols for assessing table tennis technical proficiency in people with disabilities.

It is a review with the PICO system, which gives it sufficient credibility.

 >> Response: Thank you for pointing out that we should acknowledge the PICOS framework sufficiently. We have added a relevant reference [29]:

29. Saaiq, M.; Ashraf, B. Modifying “Pico” question into “Picos” model for more robust and reproducible presentation of the methodology employed in a scientific study. World J Plastic Surgery. 2017, 6(3), 390.

The conclusions are necessary for the future, as it states that future research should develop technical proficiency tests for players at all levels of competition. Skill evaluation criteria and scoring methods should be standardized and clearly explained. The validity and reliability of the tests must be established. Finally, there is great potential in the use of artificial intelligence to improve the assessment of table tennis proficiency in people with disabilities.

In short, it is an interesting review, and we need studies that determine the need to evaluate with valid tests in all people, to do evidence-based science.

>> Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and recognition of our manuscript’s contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presented a scoping review of table tennis technical proficiency in individuals with disabilities. It is an interesting study that summarizes the findings of the literature about an understudied field, with possible practical implications for researchers and coaches. I congratulate the authors on this. 

Some observations and suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Line 96- Why choose only studies from the year 2000 forward? There were many studies before this year? 

Line 137 – How many from each sex? And %?

Table 2 – In Galas’ study correct “Wheelchair”

Table 2 – In Inbal’s study (and the remaining studies), inform the sexes if you have that information. 

Table 2 – In Smits-Engelsman’s study: “50 grades 1-3 children”?

I suggest you change the table organization. Instead of presenting it all chronologically, I suggest you keep the chronologic way but divide it into three tables according to the different table tennis-specific test articles (e.g., table 1 for the studies of accuracy, table 2 for Skill and Control, Table 3 for Others). I know three studies have two types of specific tests, but you can repeat those three articles in the corresponding specific test tables. Also, in this way, you can better allocate the key findings collum to the particular tests (in the case of studies with more than one type of specific test).

Also, in this way, the tables will be easier to read, and you will have more room to fit my next suggestion:

If your goal was to “summarise the current protocols used to assess the technical proficiency of table tennis skills among individuals with disabilities,” I think you should describe those protocols better. The way you presented it is sometimes a bit superficial, and the reader can’t understand much how the test works. 

Regarding naming the specific test types, why not rename “others” for your discussion point 4.1.3, “Functional Reach and Trunk Rotation”?  It’s not mandatory, only a suggestion. 

Line 161 – “many studies”, you can cite them.

Lines 218-220 – repeated text, delete. 

I appreciate your recommendations and future directions section. However, you can further explore the practical applications of your findings. Despite the reported limitations and difficulties in standardizing the protocols, could you suggest some practical applications for coaches and/or researchers based on the existing literature and your findings?

Author Response

This study presented a scoping review of table tennis technical proficiency in individuals with disabilities. It is an interesting study that summarizes the findings of the literature about an understudied field, with possible practical implications for researchers and coaches. I congratulate the authors on this. 

Some observations and suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Line 96- Why choose only studies from the year 2000 forward? There were many studies before this year?

>> Response: In the beginning when we first explored the literature in this area, we did not limit the year from 2000 onwards but leave it open to all years. This initial search indicated that our study area is rather new and there are no relevant papers before 2000. As such, we set the inclusion criteria from 2000 forward in the formal scoping review. Indeed, our search confirmed that the oldest paper included in full-text review (n = 27) was published in 2008. Among the final 14 articles included in data extraction, the oldest one was published in 2010. Hence, we are confident that limiting the search to 2000 onwards is sufficient and does not exclude relevant studies.

Line 137 – How many from each sex? And %?

>> Response: We have calculated the overall sex distribution and included the number of males and females for each study in Tables 2 to 4. The added sentence in Results reads:

“Excluding the two studies that did not report the sex of the participants [24,30], there were more male (n = 351, 68.3%) than female (n = 163, 31.7%) participants.” (Line 143-145)

Table 2 – In Galas’ study correct “Wheelchair”

>> Response: The typo has been corrected as ‘wheelchair’. Thank you.

Table 2 – In Inbal’s study (and the remaining studies), inform the sexes if you have that information. 

>> Response: We have added the sex distribution in all studies (if available). Please refer to the new Tables 2 to 4. Thank you for the suggestion.

Table 2 – In Smits-Engelsman’s study: “50 grades 1-3 children”?

>> Response: We have amended the description to include also the sex distribution: “50 (25 boys, 25 girls) Grade 1 to Grade 3 children”.

I suggest you change the table organization. Instead of presenting it all chronologically, I suggest you keep the chronologic way but divide it into three tables according to the different table tennis-specific test articles (e.g., table 1 for the studies of accuracy, table 2 for Skill and Control, Table 3 for Others). I know three studies have two types of specific tests, but you can repeat those three articles in the corresponding specific test tables. Also, in this way, you can better allocate the key findings collum to the particular tests (in the case of studies with more than one type of specific test).

>> Response: This is a nice suggestion; thank you. We have split the original table into Table 2 (accuracy), Table 3 (skill and control) and Table 4 (functional reach and trunk rotation) accordingly, each focusing on one type of test.

Also, in this way, the tables will be easier to read, and you will have more room to fit my next suggestion:

If your goal was to “summarise the current protocols used to assess the technical proficiency of table tennis skills among individuals with disabilities,” I think you should describe those protocols better. The way you presented it is sometimes a bit superficial, and the reader can’t understand much how the test works. 

>> Response: With the new tables focusing on just one type of test, we are now able to expand the description of the test protocol with more details. Please refer to new Tables 2 to 4. We hope that readers can better understand how each test works. Thank you very much for the excellent suggestion.

Regarding naming the specific test types, why not rename “others” for your discussion point 4.1.3, “Functional Reach and Trunk Rotation”?  It’s not mandatory, only a suggestion.

>> Response: We agree that renaming “Others” to “Functional Reach and Trunk Rotation” will be more meaningful. Please refer to the new Table 4. Thank you for the great idea.

Line 161 – “many studies”, you can cite them.

>> Response: References [16-20] have been cited in the sentence (line 191). Thank you.

Lines 218-220 – repeated text, delete.

>> Response: We have re-worded the starting sentence of the Discussion to avoid repeated text. This paragraph serves to briefly remind the readers about the aim and main findings of the study before we go into deeper discussion on specific points. The revised sentence reads:

“This comprehensive overview summarised the current test protocols for assessing table tennis technical proficiency in individuals with disabilities into three categories, namely accuracy, skill and control, as well as functional reach and trunk rotation.” (Line 240-242)

I appreciate your recommendations and future directions section. However, you can further explore the practical applications of your findings. Despite the reported limitations and difficulties in standardizing the protocols, could you suggest some practical applications for coaches and/or researchers based on the existing literature and your findings?

>> Response: We have added a new sub-section “4.3 Practical Implications” under Discussion. Thank you for the suggestion.

4.3 Practical Implications

Coaches and sports scientists can consider adopting some previously developed protocol to test their players’ table tennis proficiency and monitor their training progress. Service accuracy can be easily assessed by asking players to serve using a specific technique to a pre-set target on the opposite end of the table. Simple methods such as placing a piece of paper or drawing lines on the table are sufficient to define the target area. Scoring can be done quickly based on where the ball lands on the table. A video camera of mobile phone can also be used to record the test and further quantify the magnitude of the error (i.e. how far away the ball in from the target) using software such as Dartfish and Kinovea. Return accuracy and the quality of the strokes are more difficult to assess and this require the players to return balls delivered by a table tennis robot or play against a human opponent who can serve and play consistently. The quality of table tennis skills can be evaluated by expert rating (e.g. an experienced coach) using pre-determined criteria (see examples in Table 3). This can be done via live observation or from video recordings. If access to equipment and expertise are available, comprehensive biomechanical analysis can be performed to quantify the movement characteristics at different joints. (Lines 404-419)

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is interesting and concerns a special social group of people with physical and mental disabilities and their right to participate in sports activities. This study followed the research standards of searching manuscripts in known databases. A search of these databases for relevant studies, according to the authors, resulted in only 14 manuscripts related to the research topic (physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and developmental coordination disorders). The specific number of studies (14) is considered relatively small to conduct this research and document the respective results. This fact is also emphasized by the limitations mentioned by the researchers themselves. Perhaps, searching for studies written in other languages ​​would help substantiate the results.

Moreover, the second limitation, posed by the authors themselves, is equally important. A number of studies included in this review did not report details of organizational steps and methodology, thus significantly reducing the reliability of the overall research itself. More specifically, only 3 out of a total of 14 papers included validity and reliability testing, which raises doubts about the effectiveness of the table tennis proficiency assessment protocols cited by the researchers in their study. Irregularities are also observed such as reference 22 in table 2 of the summary of studies appearing twice and citing different authors. Furthermore, only 6 papers are relatively contemporary (referring to the 2020s), a small number in relation to the research objective.

Furthermore, there is ambiguity, as far as a non-specialist reader is concerned, as to the number of studies related to the disability categories (physical and mental). A tabular representation of these data and the distribution of the resulting studies into different categories would greatly assist the reader in processing this information.

Considering all the above, and that the limitations mentioned in the paper are very important, it is proposed not to accept the paper

Author Response

The research topic is interesting and concerns a special social group of people with physical and mental disabilities and their right to participate in sports activities. This study followed the research standards of searching manuscripts in known databases. A search of these databases for relevant studies, according to the authors, resulted in only 14 manuscripts related to the research topic (physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and developmental coordination disorders). The specific number of studies (14) is considered relatively small to conduct this research and document the respective results. This fact is also emphasized by the limitations mentioned by the researchers themselves. Perhaps, searching for studies written in other languages ​​would help substantiate the results.

>> Response: Thank you for positive feedback and suggestion. We noted your concern that 14 studies are considered relatively few and we have now elaborated this limitation under Discussion. As we are unable to fully understand articles written in other languages, it is not viable for our team to include non-English studies. The revised sentences read:

 

“There are several limitations of this study. Firstly, only 14 studies were included in this review. The small number may be related the search strategy which was limited to English articles within four databased typically used for sport-related research studies. We may have missed some reports that were not published in English or academic database.” (Line 466-470)

 

Moreover, the second limitation, posed by the authors themselves, is equally important. A number of studies included in this review did not report details of organizational steps and methodology, thus significantly reducing the reliability of the overall research itself. More specifically, only 3 out of a total of 14 papers included validity and reliability testing, which raises doubts about the effectiveness of the table tennis proficiency assessment protocols cited by the researchers in their study. Irregularities are also observed such as reference 22 in table 2 of the summary of studies appearing twice and citing different authors. Furthermore, only 6 papers are relatively contemporary (referring to the 2020s), a small number in relation to the research objective.

>> Response: Thank you for pointing out the lack of methodological details and the importance of reliability and validity of the included studies. We have emphasised this point in the revised limitation. We apologise of the error in citation and referencing in the former Table 2. These errors have been corrected in the revised Tables 2 to 4. We have also added a limitation on the small number of contemporary studies.

Changes in text:

“The lack of reliability and validity check in most studies further question the robustness and effectiveness of the table tennis test protocols.” (Lines 479-481)

“Fourthly, only 6 out of 14 studies were published within the past 5 years. As such, the protocols summarised in this review may not represent the current practice and recent advancement in the field.” (Lines 481-483)

Furthermore, there is ambiguity, as far as a non-specialist reader is concerned, as to the number of studies related to the disability categories (physical and mental). A tabular representation of these data and the distribution of the resulting studies into different categories would greatly assist the reader in processing this information.

>> Response: Thank you for your feedback that our previous presentation may be difficult for non-specialist reader. We have provided a Figure (Fig 2a) to show the distribution of the different types of disabilities categorised as intellectual disability, physical disabilities (wheelchair and standing) and developmental coordination disorder (DCD). A brief sentence is also added in the main text:

“The 14 studies included in this review covered various types of disabilities, including intellectual disability, physical disabilities, and development coordination disorders (DCD) (Figure 2a).” (Lines 140-142)

Considering all the above, and that the limitations mentioned in the paper are very important, it is proposed not to accept the paper.

>> Response: We have taken your suggestions to improve our manuscript. We hope you find our revision satisfactory.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the study carried out. Below are some suggestions to improve each of the sections.

 

Title

It's correct.

 

Introduction:

The proposal to organize the information in four paragraphs is a good idea to improve clarity and structure. Following these suggestions could improve your introduction:

1. General information about table tennis and athletes with disabilities

2. What does current research say about physical motor evaluation in athletes with disabilities who play table tennis?

3. Statement of the problem, where the problematic situation is clearly identified and the importance of the study is justified.

4. Objectives of the study and hypotheses.

 

Methodology:

It's correct.

 

Results:

It's correct.

 

Discussions and conclusions:

It is positive that the debate is based on comparisons with other research, but it can be improved by specifically highlighting how coaches and sports scientists can apply the study results. That is to say, practical applications must be reinforced and the importance of applying reliable and valid tests for athletes with disabilities in table tennis must be highlighted.

 

Integrating these suggestions can strengthen the structure, presentation and publication of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the study carried out. Below are some suggestions to improve each of the sections.

 

Title

It's correct.

>> Response: Thank you.

 

 

Introduction:

The proposal to organize the information in four paragraphs is a good idea to improve clarity and structure. Following these suggestions could improve your introduction:

1. General information about table tennis and athletes with disabilities
2. What does current research say about physical motor evaluation in athletes with disabilities who play table tennis?
3. Statement of the problem, where the problematic situation is clearly identified and the importance of the study is justified.
4. Objectives of the study and hypotheses.

 

>> Response: Thank you the suggestion. We have expanded on the general information in the first paragraph about table tennis game and the rules for para-table tennis for athletes with disabilities.

 

New introductory paragraph (lines 28-41):

 

“Sport participation is vital for maintaining good health and promoting psychological well-being for individuals with disabilities [1,2]. Table tennis is a popular sport enjoyed by many, including those with physical and intellectual disabilities. Table tennis is a game played inside by two (singles) or four (doubles) players hitting a light ball over a net positioned in the middle of a 2.74 m × 1.53 m rectangular table using small bats or paddles. A game is won by the first player or pair to reach 11 points with a two-point margin. Para-table tennis is currently the third largest Paralympic sport in terms of athlete numbers and is practiced in more than 100 countries worldwide. In para-table tennis tournaments, players can compete on wheelchair (Classes 1-5), standing (Classes 6-10), or against other players with intellectual disabilities (Class 11). Para-table tennis largely follows the same rules as table tennis, with minor modifications regarding the service rules for players competing in wheelchairs. Para-players who cannot grip a bat firmly can use straps and elastic bandage to secure the bat to their hand. Some standing players with physical disabilities can use canes or crutches while playing the game.”

 

>> Response: In the third paragraph, we have summaried the current research on para-table tennis and point out the need to conduct this review (statement of problem) towards the end of the paragraph. Since this is a scoping review, hypothesis is not applicable. We explained that:

 

“As there exists a wide range of tests applied on players with different types of disabilities, it will be useful to synthesise information on the various assessment protocols via a scoping review.” (Lines 66-68)

 

“As the movement characteristics differed between able-bodied and para-table tennis players [22,23], a scoping review specifically on individuals with disabilities is warranted.” (Lines 70-72)

Methodology:

It's correct.

>> Response: Thank you.

 

 

Results:

It's correct.

>> Response: Thank you.

 

 

Discussions and conclusions:

It is positive that the debate is based on comparisons with other research, but it can be improved by specifically highlighting how coaches and sports scientists can apply the study results. That is to say, practical applications must be reinforced and the importance of applying reliable and valid tests for athletes with disabilities in table tennis must be highlighted.

 

Integrating these suggestions can strengthen the structure, presentation and publication of the article.

 

>> Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a new sub-section on the practical implications for coaches and sports scientists. We also reinformed in the conclusion the importance of applying reliable and valid tests for individuals with disabilities: “The validity and reliability of previous test protocols were inadequately addressed in the literature, calling for more robust research in this area.” (Lines 500-501)

 

4.3 Practical Implications

Coaches and sports scientists can consider adopting some previously developed protocol to test their players’ table tennis proficiency and monitor their training progress. Service accuracy can be easily assessed by asking players to serve using a specific technique to a pre-set target on the opposite end of the table. Simple methods such as placing a piece of paper or drawing lines on the table are sufficient to define the target area. Scoring can be done quickly based on where the ball lands on the table. A video camera of mobile phone can also be used to record the test and further quantify the magnitude of the error (i.e. how far away the ball in from the target) using software such as Dartfish and Kinovea. Return accuracy and the quality of the strokes are more difficult to assess and this require the players to return balls delivered by a table tennis robot or play against a human opponent who can serve and play consistently. The quality of table tennis skills can be evaluated by expert rating (e.g. an experienced coach) using pre-determined criteria (see examples in Table 3). This can be done via live observation or from video recordings. If access to equipment and expertise are available, comprehensive biomechanical analysis can be performed to quantify the movement characteristics at different joints. (Lines 404-419)

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The manuscript, “Assessing Table Tennis Technical Proficiency in Individuals With Disabilities: A Scoping Review”, addresses a very pertinent topic, with potential for development not only in the area of knowledge, but also in clinical and instrumental application. The introduction generically covers the state of the art on the topic, and methodologically the study design is adequate, structurally correct, based on the PRISMA protocol, adequately fulfilling its sequence. The presentation of the results and the organization of their discussion seem correct and scientifically supported to me.

 

In this sense, I consider that the manuscript meets the conditions to be published in the journal applied science.

Author Response

The manuscript, “Assessing Table Tennis Technical Proficiency in Individuals With Disabilities: A Scoping Review”, addresses a very pertinent topic, with potential for development not only in the area of knowledge, but also in clinical and instrumental application. The introduction generically covers the state of the art on the topic, and methodologically the study design is adequate, structurally correct, based on the PRISMA protocol, adequately fulfilling its sequence. The presentation of the results and the organization of their discussion seem correct and scientifically supported to me.

 In this sense, I consider that the manuscript meets the conditions to be published in the journal applied science.

>> Response: Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your positive feedback and recommendation.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting as mentioned in the previous review as it concerns the sports activities of a sensitive social group of people with physical and mental disabilities. Following the research standards of searching for manuscripts in known databases the authors came up with 14 manuscripts related to the research topic (physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities and developmental coordination disorders). Although this number initially seemed small, after a review by the authors, important information related to the methodology of the included manuscripts was added to the revised document, which can be understood by the common reader. The comments raised regarding the validity and reliability of the manuscripts, errors in citation and additional limitations of the research have been incorporated into the revised document and therefore the paper can be accepted for publication.