ORIGINAL PAPER
Observer repeatability and inter-rater reproducibility of DXA-derived TW3-RUS skeletal age assessment in elite youth football players: a complementary framework for evaluating measurement quality
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Sport Games, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
 
2
Department of Social Science Foundation in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
 
 
Submission date: 2026-05-29
 
 
Acceptance date: 2026-08-18
 
 
Online publication date: 2026-10-15
 
 
Corresponding author
Jakub Kokstejn   

Department of Sport Games, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Jose Martiho 269/31, 16252 Prague 6, Czech Republic
 
 
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
The purpose of the study was to evaluate observer repeatability and inter-rater reproducibility of skeletal age assessment using the Tanner–Whitehouse 3 radius, ulna, and short bones (TW3-RUS) method on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images, and to apply a complementary framework for evaluating observer-dependent measurement quality.

Methods:
Seventy-one elite male youth football players from the Czech Republic were assessed at two time points separated by one year. Skeletal age was estimated from DXA hand scans by an expert and a trained novice rater using the TW3-RUS method. Both observers repeated all assessments after two weeks. Measurement quality was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), Bland–Altman analysis with proportional bias testing, bootstrap confidence intervals, and a predefined ±0.5-year decision threshold.

Results:
Observer repeatability and inter-rater reproducibility were excellent at both annual assessments (ICC = 0.965–0.999). The expert maintained consistently low measurement error (SEM < 1 month), whereas the trained novice reduced SEM from 3.7 to 2.5 months after one year of practical experience. Bland–Altman analyses demonstrated only minor systematic differences and no meaningful proportional bias in the overall sample, whereas only a minority of observations exceeded the predefined decision threshold.

Conclusions:
DXA-derived TW3-RUS skeletal age assessment provides excellent repeatability and reproducibility under standardised conditions. Observer experience primarily improves measurement precision rather than ranking consistency. The principal contribution of this study is a complementary validation framework integrating repeatability, reproducibility, precision, agreement, and decision-oriented analyses, providing a methodological basis for evaluating observer-dependent assessment methods in sport science.
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Cumming SP, Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Eisenmann JC, Malina RM. Bio-banding in sport: applications to competition, talent identification, and strength and conditioning of youth athletes. Strength Cond J. 2017;39(2):34–47; doi: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000281.
 
2.
Lloyd RS, Cronin JB, Faigenbaum AD, Haff GG, Howard R, Kraemer WJ, Micheli LJ, Myer GD, Oli­ver JL. National Strength and Conditioning Association position statement on long-term athletic development. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(6):1491–509; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001387.
 
3.
Pichardo AW, Oliver JL, Harrison CB, Maulder PS, Lloyd RS. Integrating models of long-term athletic development to maximize the physical development of youth. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2018;13(6):1189–99; doi: 10.1177/1747954118785503.
 
4.
Moran J, Sandercock GRH, Ramírez-Campillo R, Meylan C, Collison J, Parry DA. A meta-analysis of maturation-related variation in adolescent boy athletes’ adaptations to short-term resistance training. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(11):1041–51; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1209306.
 
5.
Malina RM, Cumming SP, Rogol AD, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ, Konarski JM, Kozieł SM. Bio-banding in youth sports: background, concept, and application. Sports Med. 2019;49(11):1671–85; doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01166-x.
 
6.
Parr J, Winwood K, Hodson-Tole E, Deconinck FJA, Parry L, Hill JP, Malina RM, Cumming SP. Predicting the timing of the peak of the pubertal growth spurt in elite youth soccer players: evaluation of methods. Ann Hum Biol. 2020;47(4):400–8; doi: 10.1080/03014460.2020.1782989.
 
7.
Bchini S, Dergaa I, Dhahbi W, Ceylan Hİ, Stefanica V, Selmi T, Moussaoui D, Hammami N. Integrating biological maturity into fitness assessment and physical activity interventions in children and adolescents: a narrative review. Sports. 2026;14(5):196; doi: 10.3390/sports14050196.
 
8.
Malina RM, Coelho e Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ. Growth and maturity status of youth soccer players. In: Williams AM (ed.), Science and Soccer. Developing Elite Performers. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013; pp. 307–32; doi: 10.4324/9780203131862-27.
 
9.
Towlson C, Salter J, Ade JD, Enright K, Harper LD, Page RM, Malone JJ. Maturity-associated considerations for training load, injury risk, and physical performance in youth soccer: one size does not fit all. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(4):403–12; doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.09.003.
 
10.
Towlson C, Watson DJ, Cumming S, Salter J, Toner J. Soccer academy practitioners’ perceptions and application of bio-banding. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(1):e0274079; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274079.
 
11.
Schmeling A, Baumann U, Schmidt S, Wernecke KD, Reisinger W. Reference data for the Thiemann–Nitz method of assessing skeletal age for the purpose of forensic age estimation. Int J Legal Med. 2006;120(1):1–4; doi: 10.1007/s00414-005-0002-9.
 
12.
Cavallo F, Mohn A, Chiarelli F, Giannini C. Evaluation of bone age in children: a mini-review. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:580314; doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.580314.
 
13.
Prokop-Piotrkowska M, Marszałek-Dziuba K, Mosz­czyńska E, Szalecki M, Jurkiewicz E. Traditional and new methods of bone age assessment – an overview. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol. 2021;13(3):251–262; doi: 10.4274/jcrpe.galenos.2020.2020.0091.
 
14.
Tanner JM, Healy MJR, Goldstein H, Cameron N. Assessment of Skeletal Maturity and Prediction of Adult Height (TW3 method). 3rd ed. London: Saunders; 2001.
 
15.
Malina RM, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ, Philippaerts RM, Hirose N, Peña Reyes ME, Gilli G, Benso A, Vaeyens R, Deprez D, Guglielmo LF, Buranarugsa R. Tanner–Whitehouse skeletal ages in male youth soccer players: TW2 or TW3? Sports Med. 2018;48(4):991–1008; doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0799-7.
 
16.
Cruz-Priego GA, Guagnelli MA, Miranda-Lora AL, López-González D, Clark P. Bone age reading by DXA images should not replace bone age reading by X-ray images. J Clin Densitom. 2022;25(4):456–63; doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2022.08.004.
 
17.
Hind K, Slater G, Oldroyd B, Lees M, Thurlow S, Barlow M. Interpretation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-derived body composition change in athletes: a review and recommendations for best practice. J Clin Densitom. 2018;21(3):429–43; doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2018.01.002.
 
18.
Dallman J, Herda A, Cleary CJ, Morey T, Diede­rich A, Vopat BG, Vopat LM. A brief review of the literature for published dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry protocols for athletes. Sports Health. 2024;16(5):735–43; doi: 10.1177/19417381231208204.
 
19.
Hoyer-Kuhn H, Knoop K, Semler O, Kuhr K, Hellmich M, Schoenau E, Koerber F. Comparison of DXA scans and conventional X-rays for spine morphometry and bone age determination in children. J Clin Densitom. 2016;19(2):208–15; doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.04.006.
 
20.
Romann M, Fuchslocher J. Assessment of skeletal age on the basis of DXA-derived hand scans in elite youth soccer. Res Sports Med. 2016;24(3):185–96; doi: 10.1080/15438627.2016.1191490.
 
21.
Guss CE, McAllister A, Gordon CM. DXA in children and adolescents. J Clin Densitom. 2021;24(1):28–35; doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2020.01.006.
 
22.
Heppe DHM, Taal HR, Ernst GDS, van den Akker ELT, Lequin MMH, Hokken-Koelega ACS, Geelhoed JJM, Jaddoe VWV. Bone age assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in children: an alternative for X-ray? Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1010):114–20; doi: 10.1259/bjr/23858213.
 
23.
Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gyne­col. 2008;31(4):466–75; doi: 10.1002/uog.5256.
 
24.
Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajew­ski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):96–106; doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002.
 
25.
ISO 5725-1:2023. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of Measurement Methods and Results. Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2023.
 
26.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9; doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015.
 
27.
Keylock L, Cameron N. Reproducibility of bone age assessment from DXA hand scans: expert versus novice. Ann Hum Biol. 2021;48(4):343–5; doi: 10.1080/03014460.2021.1956586.
 
28.
Dhahbi W, Chamari K. The algorithmic athlete: a call to standardize assessment of sensor technologies and artificial intelligence. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2026;21(4):505–6; doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2025-0547.
 
29.
Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):101–10; doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::AID-SIM727>3.0.CO;2-E.
 
30.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63; doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
 
31.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
 
32.
Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation – a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219854; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219854.
 
33.
Mansournia MA, Waters R, Nazemipour M, Bland M, Altman DG. Bland–Altman methods for comparing methods of measurement and response to criticisms. Glob Epidemiol. 2021;3:100045; doi: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2020.100045.
 
34.
Giavarina D. Understanding Bland–Altman analysis. Biochem Med. 2015;25(2):141–51; doi: 10.11613/BM.2015.015.
 
35.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1994; doi: 10.1201/9780429246593.
 
36.
Ostojic SM, Castagna C, Calleja-González J, Jukic I, Idrizovic K, Stojanovic M. The biological age of 14-year-old boys and success in adult soccer: do early maturers predominate in the top-level game?. Res Sports Med. 2014;22(4):398–407; doi: 10.1080/15438627.2014.944303.
 
37.
Monasterio X, Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Larrus­kain J, Lekue JA, Diaz-Beitia G, Santisteban JM, Martin-Garetxana I, Gil SM. Relative skeletal maturity status affects injury burden in U14 elite academy football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32(9):1400–9; doi: 10.1111/sms.14204.
 
38.
Silva SP, Freitas DL, Beunen GP, Maia JAR. The relevance of training in the TW3 method for the evaluation of biological maturation. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2010;12(5):352–8; doi: 10.5007/1980-0037.2010v12n5p352.
 
39.
Martín Pérez SE, Martín Pérez IM, Molina Suárez R, Vega González JM, García Hernández AM. The validation of the Tanner–Whitehouse 3 method for radiological bone assessments in a pediatric population from the Canary Islands. Osteology. 2025;5(1):6; doi: 10.3390/osteology5010006.
 
40.
Maratova K, Zemkova D, Sedlak P, Pavlikova M, Amaratunga SA, Krasnicanova H, Soucek O, Sumnik Z. A comprehensive validation study of the latest version of BoneXpert on a large cohort of Caucasian children and adolescents. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1130580; doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1130580.
 
eISSN:1899-1955
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top