Daniel T Tarara1, Eric J Hegedus2, Jeffrey B Taylor2. 1. Department of Exercise Science High Point University, School of Health Sciences, High Point, NC, USA. 2. Department of Physical Therapy High Point University, School of Health Sciences, High Point, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new 16-item physical performance measure screening battery (16-PPM) was developed in order to expand on established movement based qualitatively scored functional screening batteries to encompass a broader spectrum of quantitatively scored functional constructs such as strength, endurance, and power. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was quantify the real-time tests-retest and expert versus novice interrater reliability of the 16-PPM screen on a group of physically active college-aged individuals. The authors' hypothesized that the test-retest and interrater reliability of quantitatively-scored performance measures would be highly correlated (ICC ≥ 0.75) and that qualitatively-scored movement screening tests would be moderately correlated (K w = 0.41-0.60). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort reliability study. METHODS: Nineteen (8 males, 11 females) healthy physically active college-aged students completed the 16-PPM on two days, one week apart. RESULTS: The majority of the quantitatively scored components of the 16-PPMs demonstrated good expert-novice interrater reliability (ICC > 0.75), while qualitatively scored tests had moderate (K w = 0.41-0.60) to substantial (K w = 0.61-0.80) agreement. Test-retest reliability was consistent between raters, with most quantitatively scored PPMs exhibiting superior reliability to the qualitatively scored PPMs. CONCLUSIONS: The 16-PPM test items showed good test-retest and interrater reliability. However, results indicate that expert raters may be more reliable than novice raters for qualitatively scored tests. The validity of this 16-PPM needs to be determined in future studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Physical performance screening batteries may be used to help identify individuals at risk for future athletic injury; however, current PPMs that rely on qualitatively scored movement screens have exhibited inconsistent and questionable injury prediction validity. The addition of reliable quantitatively scored PPMs may complement qualitatively scored PPMs to improve the battery's predictive ability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
BACKGROUND: A new 16-item physical performance measure screening battery (16-PPM) was developed in order to expand on established movement based qualitatively scored functional screening batteries to encompass a broader spectrum of quantitatively scored functional constructs such as strength, endurance, and power. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was quantify the real-time tests-retest and expert versus novice interrater reliability of the 16-PPM screen on a group of physically active college-aged individuals. The authors' hypothesized that the test-retest and interrater reliability of quantitatively-scored performance measures would be highly correlated (ICC ≥ 0.75) and that qualitatively-scored movement screening tests would be moderately correlated (K w = 0.41-0.60). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort reliability study. METHODS: Nineteen (8 males, 11 females) healthy physically active college-aged students completed the 16-PPM on two days, one week apart. RESULTS: The majority of the quantitatively scored components of the 16-PPMs demonstrated good expert-novice interrater reliability (ICC > 0.75), while qualitatively scored tests had moderate (K w = 0.41-0.60) to substantial (K w = 0.61-0.80) agreement. Test-retest reliability was consistent between raters, with most quantitatively scored PPMs exhibiting superior reliability to the qualitatively scored PPMs. CONCLUSIONS: The 16-PPM test items showed good test-retest and interrater reliability. However, results indicate that expert raters may be more reliable than novice raters for qualitatively scored tests. The validity of this 16-PPM needs to be determined in future studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Physical performance screening batteries may be used to help identify individuals at risk for future athletic injury; however, current PPMs that rely on qualitatively scored movement screens have exhibited inconsistent and questionable injury prediction validity. The addition of reliable quantitatively scored PPMs may complement qualitatively scored PPMs to improve the battery's predictive ability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: Phillip A Gribble; Jill Brigle; Brian G Pietrosimone; Kate R Pfile; Kathryn A Webster Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: James A Onate; Thomas Dewey; Roger O Kollock; Kathleen S Thomas; Bonnie L Van Lunen; Marlene DeMaio; Stacie I Ringleb Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Deydre S Teyhen; Scott W Shaffer; Chelsea L Lorenson; Joshua P Halfpap; Dustin F Donofry; Michael J Walker; Jessica L Dugan; John D Childs Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Lauren N Bockhorn; Angelina M Vera; David Dong; Domenica A Delgado; Kevin E Varner; Joshua D Harris Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-01-20