Literature DB >> 30140555

INTRA-RATER TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY AND RESPONSE STABILITY OF THE FUSIONETICS™ MOVEMENT EFFICIENCY TEST.

David J Cornell1, Kyle T Ebersole1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A new functional movement assessment, known as the Fusionetics- Movement Efficiency (ME) Test, has recently been introduced in the literature. Before the potential clinical utility of the ME Test can be examined, the reliability of this assessment must be established.
PURPOSE: To examine the intra-rater test-retest reliability of the Fusionetics- ME Test. STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
METHODS: ME Test data were collected among 23 (6 males, 17 females) university students (mean ± SD, age = 25.96 ± 3.16 yrs; height = 170.70 ± 9.96 cm; weight = 66.89 ± 12.67 kg) during sessions separated by 48 hours (Day 1, Day 2). All participants completed the seven sub-tests of the ME Test: 2-Leg Squat, 2-Leg Squat with Heel Lift, 1-Leg Squat, Push-Up, Shoulder Movements, Trunk Movements, and Cervical Movements. Overall ME Test scores and ME Test scores for each individual sub-test were calculated on a scale of 0 - 100 (worst - best) based on commonly observed movement compensations associated with each sub-test.
RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) statistics indicated that the intra-rater test-retest reliability of the Overall ME Test and individual sub-tests ranged from fair-to-excellent (ICC3,1 range = 0.55 - 0.84). Statistically significant differences in ME Test scores were identified between Day 1 and Day 2 among the 2-Leg Squat with Heel Lift (p = 0.015) and Cervical Movements (p = 0.005) sub-tests. In addition, a large range in the standard error of the measure (SEM) and minimal detectable change values (MDC90% & MDC95%) were identified within individual sub-tests of the ME Test (SEM range = 7.05 - 13.44; MDC90% range = 16.40 - 31.27; MDC95% range = 19.53 - 37.25), suggesting that the response stability varies among these individual sub-tests. Prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa statistics (κPABA) suggest that 55 of the 60 (92%) individual movement compensations hold moderate-to-almost perfect intra-rater test-retest reliability (κPABA range = 0.30 - 1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: Excellent intra-rater test-retest reliability of the Overall ME Test score was identified, and thus, clinicians can reliably utilize the Fusionetics- ME Test to assess change in functional movement quality across time. However, caution should be taken if utilizing an individual sub-test to assess functional movement quality over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Functional movement quality assessment; movement screening; movement system; response stability; systematic bias

Year:  2018        PMID: 30140555      PMCID: PMC6088128     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 2159-2896


  26 in total

Review 1.  The influence of abnormal hip mechanics on knee injury: a biomechanical perspective.

Authors:  Christopher M Powers
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.751

Review 2.  How reliable are Functional Movement Screening scores? A systematic review of rater reliability.

Authors:  Robert W Moran; Anthony G Schneiders; Katherine M Major; S John Sullivan
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 13.800

3.  Physical fitness improvements and occupational low-back loading - an exercise intervention study with firefighters.

Authors:  Tyson A C Beach; David M Frost; Stuart M McGill; Jack P Callaghan
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 4.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes.

Authors:  D V Cicchetti; A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Functional vs. Strength training in adults: specific needs define the best intervention.

Authors:  Matheus Maia Pacheco; Luis Antonio Cespedes Teixeira; Emerson Franchini; Monica Yuri Takito
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2013-02

7.  Exploratory factor analysis of the functional movement screen in elite athletes.

Authors:  Yongming Li; Xiong Wang; Xiaoping Chen; Boyi Dai
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.337

8.  Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2.

Authors:  Gray Cook; Lee Burton; Barbara J Hoogenboom; Michael Voight
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2014-08

9.  Potential limitations of the functional movement screen: a clinical commentary.

Authors:  Alexis A Wright; Ben Stern; Eric J Hegedus; Daniel T Tarara; Jeffrey B Taylor; Steven L Dischiavi
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study.

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

View more
  3 in total

1.  A cross-sectional study of functional movement quality in school-aged children.

Authors:  Sajad Bagherian; Khodayar Ghasempoor
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 2.567

Review 2.  Visual assessment of movement quality in the single leg squat test: a review and meta-analysis of inter-rater and intrarater reliability.

Authors:  John Ressman; Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas Grooten; Eva Rasmussen Barr
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2019-06-14

3.  Visual assessment of movement quality: a study on intra- and interrater reliability of a multi-segmental single leg squat test.

Authors:  John Ressman; Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas Grooten; Eva Rasmussen-Barr
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-06-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.