Reliability of a Novel Qualitative Assessment Tool for Evaluating a Run Plant Task.
Lauren Butler, Ashley Erdman, Alexa Martinez and 3 others
PMID 41777440WHAT IT FOUND
A video checklist for judging trunk and leg alignment during a run-and-plant task was not reliable enough to guide decisions about an athlete on its own.
Raters agreed moderately on two items: trunk-in-line-with-shin and the foot pointing inwards.
Key findings
01The tool's overall score was not reliable enough to use on its own: agreement between the two raters' total scores was moderate in the first round and poor in the second, and repeat scoring by the same rater was poor to moderate. The authors state the tool is not currently recommended for stand-alone clinical decision-making.
02Only two of the criteria, whether the trunk stays in line with the shin and whether the foot points inwards, reached moderate to good agreement between raters, in both rounds.
03Two criteria, dynamic valgus and preparatory deceleration steps, were marked present for every one of the 25 athletes by both raters in both rounds, while trunk lean and lateral foot position were never marked present, so their reliability could not be measured.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 25 healthy teenage female athletes took part, so the findings say nothing about males, older athletes, or athletes who have had an ACL reconstruction, the group most likely to be assessed with a tool like this. The two raters came from different backgrounds, and both had a single hour of training; the authors say this may have contributed to the lower reliability. Two of the criteria were scored the same way for every athlete, so the tool could not tell those movement faults apart and their reliability could not be measured. The authors suggest the definitions for those items were too strict. Only the left leg was filmed, because of the camera setup in the laboratory. The 6 to 8 metre approach may have been too short for taller athletes to take three or more preparatory steps, which the authors suggest may explain why that item was scored the same for everyone.
Declared interests
The authors declare no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the moderate agreement on the trunk-in-line and foot-position items as meaning the checklist is ready for return-to-sport decisions. The total score was unreliable between raters, two of the criteria were marked present in every athlete so their agreement means nothing, and the authors say the tool is not currently recommended for stand-alone clinical decision-making.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →