Table 6. Comparison with DeLongs nonparametric test (DeLong et al., 1988) between the AUC of the classification models.

Models for AUC comparison ‡			AUC [95% CI]	AUC [95% CI]	Z	p
Coaches’ eye model	vs.	motor performance model	.82 [.74; .90]	.71 [.58; .84]	1.50	.13
Coaches’ eye model	vs.	multidimensional model	.82 [.74; .90]	.85 [.76; .94]	-0.60	.55
Motor performance model	vs.	multidimensional model	.71 [.58; .84]	.85 [.76; .94]	-2.40	.02§
Coaches’ eye model	vs.	coaches’ eye and motor performance model	.82 [.74; .90]	.88 [.81; .95]	-1.86	.06
Motor performance model	vs.	coaches’ eye and motor performance model	.71 [.58; .84]	.88 [.81; .95]	-3.23	< .01§
Coaches’ eye model	vs.	holistic model	.82 [.74; .90]	.93 [.87; .98]	-2.97	< .01§
Multidimensional model	vs.	holistic model	.85 [.76; .94]	.93 [.87; .98]	-2.35	.02§
Coaches’ eye and motor performance model	vs.	holistic model	.88 [.81; .95]	.93 [.87; .98]	-1.69	.09

‡ Due to missing practical or theoretical relevance, two comparisons (motor performance vs. holistic, multidimensional vs. holistic) have been omitted for economic reasons.§ Significant difference between the classification models (p < .05; false discovery rate adjusted p-threshold: .031; Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).