ArticlePeerJ2025
Comparing the reliability of the single leg squat test using two, three, and four category ordinal rating scales.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone-Based Interpretable Machine Learning for Classifying Single-Leg Squat Performance Using Trunk, Pelvic, and Knee Kinematics: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- A conceptual field-based framework for lower-upper body kinetic chain assessment in the tennis serve using IMUs and portable force plates: measurement coverage, new performance indices, and applied implications.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- The reliability and validity of a visual analog scale for rating the single leg squat test.PeerJ · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The single-leg squat test (SLST) is supported by evidence for reliability and validity across various visual rating methods, but the optimal number of ordinal categories for assessing movement quality remains unclear. The study aims to determine the most informative and reliable number of ordinal scoring categories for visually rating the SLST. Methods: A total of 58 subjects with lower extremity injuries participated. A single therapist rated the SLST with a 1-week interval to establish intra-rater reliability. Two therapists independently rated the SLST at the same time point to establish inter-rater reliability. Two-, three-, and four-category ordinal scales were simultaneously used to evaluate SLST performance in rating the components of trunk deviation, hip adduction, and lower extremity internal rotation. Reliability was assessed using unweighted kappa (κ) values. Results: The overall intra-rater reliability was κ = 0.60, 0.35, and 0.20, with inter-rater reliability being κ = 0.60, 0.61, and 0.33 for the two-, three-, and four-category scales, respectively. When specifically looking at the components of trunk deviation, hip adduction, and lower extremity internal rotation, intra-rater reliability was moderate to good for two-category scales (κ = 0.47-0.65), fair to good for three-category scales (κ = 0.3-0.7), and fair to good for four-category scales (κ = 0.36-0.65). Inter-rater reliability for the three components was good to excellent (κ = 0.65-0.86) for the two-category, good to excellent (κ = 0.69-0.86) for the three-category, and fair to excellent (κ = 0.55-0.76) for the four-category. Conclusion: When applied to specific movement components, the three-category ordinal scale demonstrated the best balance between detailed assessment and reliability for visually rating trunk deviation, hip adduction, and lower extremity internal rotation during the SLST in patients with lower extremity injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.