ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2021
Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment Using Standardized Rater Training.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interrater Reliability of the Modified Tuck Jump Assessment Scored by Physical Therapy Students.Cureus · 2026Article
- Quality of Movement Assessment after ACL Reconstruction in Youth: A Clinical Framework to Guide Rehabilitation and Return-to-Sport Decision-Making.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2026Article
- The effect of pilates training on knee functional tests in youth female volleyball player.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Reliability of a Qualitative Instrument to Assess High-Risk Mechanisms during a 90° Change of Direction in Female Football Players.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA) is a test used to assess technique flaws during a 10-second, high intensity, jumping bout. Although the TJA has broad clinical applicability, there is no standardized training to maximize the TJA measurement properties. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: To determine the reliability of the TJA using varied healthcare professionals following an online standardized training program. The authors hypothesized that the total score will have moderate to excellent levels of intra- and interrater reliability. STUDY
designCross-sectional reliability.
methodsA 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 website was then validated (both face and content) by four experts. 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. Raters used the online standardized training, scored 41 videos of participants' TJAs, then scored them again two weeks later. 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).
resultsEleven of 50 individual technique flaws were above the acceptable level (K α = 0.80). The total score had moderate interrater reliability in both sessions (Session 1: ICC
conclusionAll raters had at least good reliability estimates for the total score. The same level of consistency was not seen when evaluating each technique flaw. These findings suggest that the total score may not be as accurate when compared to individual technique flaws and should be used with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33604146PMC7872439What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.