Recently, because of the inconsistency in scoring interpretations, a modified scoring system of the TJA was developed. 1 Previous literature reporting the intra- and interrater reliability of the TJA has yielded mixed results, ranging from poor to excellent. The original TJA assessment has 10 technique flaws, which were scored on a dichotomous scale (0-1) as either flaw present (1) or absent (0). 3 The TJA performance is scored qualitatively by a clinician based on 10 technique flaws using video recordings. 3 The TJA requires participants to jump with maximal effort over 10 seconds this may also induce fatigue, which may expose jumping or landing technique flaws not seen with other tests that use one or two jumps. The TJA may better simulate conditions faced in actual sporting activities than other anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury screening tools or jump-landing screening tests because it begins and ends from ground level while requiring maximum effort over multiple repetitive jumps. 1,2 One advantage of the TJA is that it is quick and inexpensive to administer, as it only requires athletic tape and two video cameras. One of these tests is the 10-second Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA) 1,2 which was developed as a “clinician-friendly” screening test to help identify lower extremity landing technique flaws in individuals during a high intensity, plyometric activity. Several clinical screening tests have been created to help identify individuals who are at high risk upon observation of jump-landing tasks. These findings suggest that the total score may not be as accurate when compared to individual technique flaws and should be used with caution. The same level of consistency was not seen when evaluating each technique flaw. CONCLUSIONĪll raters had at least good reliability estimates for the total score. The total score had moderate interrater reliability in both sessions (Session 1: ICC 2,2 = 0.64 95% CI (Confidence Interval) (0.34-0.81) Standard Error Measurement (SEM) = 0.66 technique flaws and Session 2: ICC 2,2 = 0.56 95% CI (0.04-0.79) SEM = 1.30). RESULTSĮleven of 50 individual technique flaws were above the acceptable level (K α = 0.80). 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). Raters used the online standardized training, scored 41 videos of participants’ TJAs, then scored them again two weeks later. 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. The website was then validated (both face and content) by four experts. STUDY DESIGNĪ 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 authors hypothesized that the total score will have moderate to excellent levels of intra- and interrater reliability. To determine the reliability of the TJA using varied healthcare professionals following an online standardized training program. Although the TJA has broad clinical applicability, there is no standardized training to maximize the TJA measurement properties. The Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA) is a test used to assess technique flaws during a 10-second, high intensity, jumping bout.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |