Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment Using Standardized Rater Training.
injury risk
movement system
psychometrics
screening
Journal
International journal of sports physical therapy
ISSN: 2159-2896
Titre abrégé: Int J Sports Phys Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101553140
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Feb 2021
02 Feb 2021
Historique:
entrez:
19
2
2021
pubmed:
20
2
2021
medline:
20
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA) is a test used to assess technique flaws during a 10-second, high intensity, jumping bout. Although the TJA has broad clinical applicability, there is no standardized training to maximize the TJA measurement properties. To determine the reliability of the TJA using varied healthcare professionals following an online standardized training program. The authors hypothesized that the total score will have moderate to excellent levels of intra- and interrater reliability. Cross-sectional reliability. A website was created by a physical therapist (PT) with videos, written descriptors of the 10 TJA technique flaws, and examples of what constituted no flaw, minor flaw, or major flaw (0,1,2) using published standards. The website was then validated (both face and content) by four experts. Three raters of different professions: a PT, an AT, and a Strength and Conditioning Coach Certified (SCCC) were selected due to their expertise with injury and movement. Raters used the online standardized training, scored 41 videos of participants' TJAs, then scored them again two weeks later. Reliability estimates were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for total scores of 10 technique flaws and Krippendorff α (K α) for the individual technique flaws (ordinal). Eleven of 50 individual technique flaws were above the acceptable level (K α = 0.80). The total score had moderate interrater reliability in both sessions (Session 1: ICC All raters had at least good reliability estimates for the total score. The same level of consistency was not seen when evaluating each technique flaw. These findings suggest that the total score may not be as accurate when compared to individual technique flaws and should be used with caution. 3b.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA) is a test used to assess technique flaws during a 10-second, high intensity, jumping bout. Although the TJA has broad clinical applicability, there is no standardized training to maximize the TJA measurement properties.
HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To determine the reliability of the TJA using varied healthcare professionals following an online standardized training program. The authors hypothesized that the total score will have moderate to excellent levels of intra- and interrater reliability.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cross-sectional reliability.
METHODS
METHODS
A website was created by a physical therapist (PT) with videos, written descriptors of the 10 TJA technique flaws, and examples of what constituted no flaw, minor flaw, or major flaw (0,1,2) using published standards. The website was then validated (both face and content) by four experts. Three raters of different professions: a PT, an AT, and a Strength and Conditioning Coach Certified (SCCC) were selected due to their expertise with injury and movement. Raters used the online standardized training, scored 41 videos of participants' TJAs, then scored them again two weeks later. Reliability estimates were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for total scores of 10 technique flaws and Krippendorff α (K α) for the individual technique flaws (ordinal).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eleven of 50 individual technique flaws were above the acceptable level (K α = 0.80). The total score had moderate interrater reliability in both sessions (Session 1: ICC
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
All raters had at least good reliability estimates for the total score. The same level of consistency was not seen when evaluating each technique flaw. These findings suggest that the total score may not be as accurate when compared to individual technique flaws and should be used with caution.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
3b.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
162-168Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
Références
Clin Sports Med. 2008 Jul;27(3):425-48, ix
pubmed: 18503876
Athl Ther Today. 2008 Sep 1;13(5):39-44
pubmed: 19936042
J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Oct 16;29(4):503-508
pubmed: 31624223
Strength Cond J. 2011 Jun 1;33(3):21-35
pubmed: 21643474
Phys Ther Sport. 2019 May;37:10-14
pubmed: 30785008
J Sports Sci Med. 2017 Aug 08;16(3):440-442
pubmed: 28912664
Phys Ther Sport. 2013 Aug;14(3):152-5
pubmed: 23084318
J Sports Sci Med. 2017 Mar 01;16(1):117-124
pubmed: 28344460
J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp). 2013;2013:483503
pubmed: 26464881
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571