ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2026
Reliability of a Novel Qualitative Assessment Tool for Evaluating a Run Plant Task.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundYoung female athletes have a substantial risk of suffering an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, in part due to sex-specific movement patterns. Injury prevention strategies targeting movement errors during a deceleration task may help decrease the associated risk. In order to enhance preventive interventions, screening tools to identify at-risk individuals are vital. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: To assess intra- and inter-rater reliability of a qualitative assessment of trunk and lower extremity alignment during a run plant task. It was hypothesized that the tool would demonstrate good to excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability. STUDY
designRepeated measures.
methodsTwo Raters assessed videos of 25 healthy female athletes (ages 12-17 years) performing a run plant task. Female athletes were chosen due to their increased ACL injury risk. Raters used a qualitative checklist to assess trunk and lower extremity alignment, awarding one point for each observed movement fault. Item scores were then summed to generate a total score. Each video was scored twice with a two-week washout period in-between. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for each scoring item and the overall total score were calculated with a 2-way mixed-effect model and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for inter- and intra-rater reliability.
resultsIntra-rater reliability was poor to moderate (Rater 1 ICC = 0.43, 95% CI 0.12-0.73; Rater 2 ICC = 0.54, 95% CI 0.20-0.87). Inter-rater reliability was moderate in round one (ICC = 0.66, 95% CI 0.41-0.90) and poor in round two (ICC = 0.32, 95% CI 0.02-0.63). Medial foot position was the only item to achieve good intra- and inter-rater reliability. Sagittal alignment also demonstrated good inter-rater reliability. In both rounds, dynamic valgus and preparatory deceleration steps were consistently marked as present (100% agreement), and lateral foot position was consistently marked as not present (100% agreement), by both Raters for all athletes.
conclusionWhile some individual items showed good reliability, several items and the total score failed to achieve acceptable reliability. Despite lower ICC values for dynamic valgus, preparatory deceleration steps, and lateral foot position, percent agreement was high. The skew and limited variability in these items likely influenced ICC estimates, suggesting that Rater consistency may be underestimated. Refinement of scoring item definitions for these items is needed prior to clinical application of the tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, diagnosis.
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.