CONTEXT: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) can be used to identify individuals with an elevated risk of lower extremity injury. The limitation of the LESS is that raters identify movement errors from video replay, which is time-consuming and, therefore, may limit its use by clinicians. A markerless motion-capture system may be capable of automating LESS scoring, thereby removing this obstacle. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of an automated markerless motion-capture system for scoring the LESS. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: United States Military Academy. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 57 healthy, physically active individuals (47 men, 10 women; age = 18.6 ± 0.6 years, height = 174.5 ± 6.7 cm, mass = 75.9 ± 9.2 kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed 3 jump-landing trials that were recorded by standard video cameras and a depth camera. Their movement quality was evaluated by expert LESS raters (standard video recording) using the LESS rubric and by software that automates LESS scoring (depth-camera data). We recorded an error for a LESS item if it was present on at least 2 of 3 jump-landing trials. We calculated κ statistics, prevalence- and bias-adjusted κ (PABAK) statistics, and percentage agreement for each LESS item. Interrater reliability was evaluated between the 2 expert rater scores and between a consensus expert score and the markerless motion-capture system score. RESULTS: We observed reliability between the 2 expert LESS raters (average κ = 0.45 ± 0.35, average PABAK = 0.67 ± 0.34; percentage agreement = 0.83 ± 0.17). The markerless motion-capture system had similar reliability with consensus expert scores (average κ = 0.48 ± 0.40, average PABAK = 0.71 ± 0.27; percentage agreement = 0.85 ± 0.14). However, reliability was poor for 5 LESS items in both LESS score comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: A markerless motion-capture system had the same level of reliability as expert LESS raters, suggesting that an automated system can accurately assess movement. Therefore, clinicians can use the markerless motion-capture system to reliably score the LESS without being limited by the time requirements of manual LESS scoring.
CONTEXT: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) can be used to identify individuals with an elevated risk of lower extremity injury. The limitation of the LESS is that raters identify movement errors from video replay, which is time-consuming and, therefore, may limit its use by clinicians. A markerless motion-capture system may be capable of automating LESS scoring, thereby removing this obstacle. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of an automated markerless motion-capture system for scoring the LESS. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: United States Military Academy. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 57 healthy, physically active individuals (47 men, 10 women; age = 18.6 ± 0.6 years, height = 174.5 ± 6.7 cm, mass = 75.9 ± 9.2 kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed 3 jump-landing trials that were recorded by standard video cameras and a depth camera. Their movement quality was evaluated by expert LESS raters (standard video recording) using the LESS rubric and by software that automates LESS scoring (depth-camera data). We recorded an error for a LESS item if it was present on at least 2 of 3 jump-landing trials. We calculated κ statistics, prevalence- and bias-adjusted κ (PABAK) statistics, and percentage agreement for each LESS item. Interrater reliability was evaluated between the 2 expert rater scores and between a consensus expert score and the markerless motion-capture system score. RESULTS: We observed reliability between the 2 expert LESS raters (average κ = 0.45 ± 0.35, average PABAK = 0.67 ± 0.34; percentage agreement = 0.83 ± 0.17). The markerless motion-capture system had similar reliability with consensus expert scores (average κ = 0.48 ± 0.40, average PABAK = 0.71 ± 0.27; percentage agreement = 0.85 ± 0.14). However, reliability was poor for 5 LESS items in both LESS score comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: A markerless motion-capture system had the same level of reliability as expert LESS raters, suggesting that an automated system can accurately assess movement. Therefore, clinicians can use the markerless motion-capture system to reliably score the LESS without being limited by the time requirements of manual LESS scoring.
Authors: Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Stephanie L Di Stasi; Kim D Barber Foss; Lyle J Micheli; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Timothy E Hewett; Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Robert S Heidt; Angelo J Colosimo; Scott G McLean; Antonie J van den Bogert; Mark V Paterno; Paul Succop Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 6.202
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: Timothy C Mauntel; Stephen W Marshall; Anthony C Hackney; Brian G Pietrosimone; Kenneth L Cameron; Karen Y Peck; Jesse R Trump; Darin A Padua Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Timothy G Eckard; Story F P Miraldi; Karen Y Peck; Matthew A Posner; Steven J Svoboda; Lindsay J DiStefano; Darin A Padua; Stephen W Marshall; Kenneth L Cameron Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.824
Authors: Tara A Condon; Timothy G Eckard; Alain J Aguilar; Barnett S Frank; Darin A Padua; Erik A Wikstrom Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.824
Authors: Timothy C Mauntel; Kenneth L Cameron; Brian Pietrosimone; Stephen W Marshall; Anthony C Hackney; Darin A Padua Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Cpt Connor B Venrick; Story F Miraldi; Lindsay J DiStefano; Karen Y Peck; Ltc Matthew A Posner; Megan N Houston; Darin A Padua; Stephen W Marshall; Kenneth L Cameron Journal: Sports Health Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Courtney R Chaaban; Nathaniel T Berry; Cortney Armitano-Lago; Adam W Kiefer; Michael J Mazzoleni; Darin A Padua Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 3.576