ArticleCureus2026
Interrater Reliability of the Modified Tuck Jump Assessment Scored by Physical Therapy Students.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Modified Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA) is a field-based, video-based tool used to evaluate movement faults relevant to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury mechanisms. Although its reliability has been examined among experienced evaluators, its reliability when scored by novice evaluators remains unclear. This study investigated the interrater reliability of the Modified TJA when scored by physical therapy students without clinical experience.
methodsThis cross-sectional reliability study included 48 female high school soccer and rugby athletes from Japan. Participants performed the 10-second Modified TJA, comprising 10 movement-quality items scored from 0 to 2. Two final-year physical therapy students without clinical experience independently evaluated frontal and sagittal video recordings. Item-level agreement was assessed primarily using linear-weighted Cohen's kappa, with 95% confidence intervals estimated using a participant-level bootstrap with 20,000 resamples. Unweighted kappa and exact percentage agreement were calculated as secondary measures. Total-score reliability was assessed using ICC(2,1), a two-way random-effects model for single measurements and absolute agreement.
resultsThe total score demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (ICC(2,1) = 0.868; 95% CI, 0.775-0.924). Linear-weighted kappa coefficients for individual items ranged from 0.30 to 0.78; four items demonstrated substantial agreement, four demonstrated moderate agreement, and two demonstrated fair agreement. Six of the 10 items did not demonstrate substantial agreement, and several confidence intervals were wide. Exact agreement occurred in 356 of 480 item-level comparisons (74.17%) and ranged from 58.33% to 85.42% across items.
conclusionsTwo physical therapy students without clinical experience demonstrated excellent interrater reliability for the total Modified TJA score, whereas item-level agreement was heterogeneous and sometimes imprecise. These findings indicate consistency between the two student raters but do not establish scoring accuracy because their ratings were not compared with those of experienced evaluators or a criterion standard. Item-level results should therefore be interpreted alongside the total score, and standardized training should be evaluated before students use the Modified TJA independently.
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.