Reliability of Upper Extremity Functional Performance Tests for Overhead Sports Activities

BACKGROUND: There is lack of consensus on which tests, particularly upper extremity functional performance tests (FPT) that should be used for clinical decision making to progress a patient through a rehabilitation program or criteria for return to sport (RTS). Consequently, there is a need for tests with good psychometric properties that can be administered with minimal equipment and time. PURPOSE: (1) To establish the intersession reliability of several open kinetic chain FPT in healthy young adults with a history of overhead sport participation. (2) To examine the intersession reliability of the limb symmetry indices (LSI) from each test. STUDY DESIGN: Test-retest reliability, single cohort study. METHODS: Forty adults (20 males, 20 females) completed four upper extremity FPT during two data collection sessions three to seven days apart: 1) prone medicine ball drop test 90°shoulder abduction (PMBDT 90°), 2) prone medicine ball drop test 90°shoulder abduction/90° elbow flexion (PMBDT 90°-90°), 3) half-kneeling medicine ball rebound test (HKMBRT), 4) seated single arm shot put test (SSASPT). Measures of systematic bias, absolute reliability and relative reliability were computed between the sessions for both the original test scores and LSI. RESULTS: Except for the SSASPT, all tests demonstrated significant (p ≤ 0.030) improvements in performance during the second session. Generally, for the medicine ball drop/rebound tests, the absolute reliability was the highest (less random error) for the HKMBRT, next the PMBDT 90°followed by PMBDT 90°-90°. Excellent relative reliability existed for the PMBDT 90°, HKMBRT, and SSASPT, whereas fair to excellent relative reliability for the PMBDT 90°-90°. The SSASPT LSI revealed the highest relative and absolute reliability. CONCLUSION: Two tests, HKMBRT and SSASPT demonstrated sufficient reliability; therefore, the authors’ recommend those tests can be used for serial assessments to advance a patient through a rehabilitation program as well as criteria for progression to RTS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3