Cargando…

Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds

Objective. The Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA), a clinical plyometric assessment, identifies 10 jumping and landing technique flaws. The study objective was to investigate TJA interrater and intrarater reliability with raters of different educational and clinical backgrounds. Methods. 40 participants wer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dudley, Lisa A., Smith, Craig A., Olson, Brandon K., Chimera, Nicole J., Schmitz, Brian, Warren, Meghan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26464881
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/483503
_version_ 1782393007252701184
author Dudley, Lisa A.
Smith, Craig A.
Olson, Brandon K.
Chimera, Nicole J.
Schmitz, Brian
Warren, Meghan
author_facet Dudley, Lisa A.
Smith, Craig A.
Olson, Brandon K.
Chimera, Nicole J.
Schmitz, Brian
Warren, Meghan
author_sort Dudley, Lisa A.
collection PubMed
description Objective. The Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA), a clinical plyometric assessment, identifies 10 jumping and landing technique flaws. The study objective was to investigate TJA interrater and intrarater reliability with raters of different educational and clinical backgrounds. Methods. 40 participants were video recorded performing the TJA using published protocol and instructions. Five raters of varied educational and clinical backgrounds scored the TJA. Each score of the 10 technique flaws was summed for the total TJA score. Approximately one month later, 3 raters scored the videos again. Intraclass correlation coefficients determined interrater (5 and 3 raters for first and second session, resp.) and intrarater (3 raters) reliability. Results. Interrater reliability with 5 raters was poor (ICC = 0.47; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.33–0.62). Interrater reliability between 3 raters who completed 2 scoring sessions improved from 0.52 (95% CI 0.35–0.68) for session one to 0.69 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) for session two. Intrarater reliability was poor to moderate, ranging from 0.44 (95% CI 0.22–0.68) to 0.72 (95% CI 0.55–0.84). Conclusion. Published protocol and training of raters were insufficient to allow consistent TJA scoring. There may be a learned effect with the TJA since interrater reliability improved with repetition. TJA instructions and training should be modified and enhanced before clinical implementation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4590911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45909112015-10-13 Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds Dudley, Lisa A. Smith, Craig A. Olson, Brandon K. Chimera, Nicole J. Schmitz, Brian Warren, Meghan J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) Research Article Objective. The Tuck Jump Assessment (TJA), a clinical plyometric assessment, identifies 10 jumping and landing technique flaws. The study objective was to investigate TJA interrater and intrarater reliability with raters of different educational and clinical backgrounds. Methods. 40 participants were video recorded performing the TJA using published protocol and instructions. Five raters of varied educational and clinical backgrounds scored the TJA. Each score of the 10 technique flaws was summed for the total TJA score. Approximately one month later, 3 raters scored the videos again. Intraclass correlation coefficients determined interrater (5 and 3 raters for first and second session, resp.) and intrarater (3 raters) reliability. Results. Interrater reliability with 5 raters was poor (ICC = 0.47; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.33–0.62). Interrater reliability between 3 raters who completed 2 scoring sessions improved from 0.52 (95% CI 0.35–0.68) for session one to 0.69 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) for session two. Intrarater reliability was poor to moderate, ranging from 0.44 (95% CI 0.22–0.68) to 0.72 (95% CI 0.55–0.84). Conclusion. Published protocol and training of raters were insufficient to allow consistent TJA scoring. There may be a learned effect with the TJA since interrater reliability improved with repetition. TJA instructions and training should be modified and enhanced before clinical implementation. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013 2013-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4590911/ /pubmed/26464881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/483503 Text en Copyright © 2013 Lisa A. Dudley et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dudley, Lisa A.
Smith, Craig A.
Olson, Brandon K.
Chimera, Nicole J.
Schmitz, Brian
Warren, Meghan
Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds
title Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds
title_full Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds
title_fullStr Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds
title_full_unstemmed Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds
title_short Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds
title_sort interrater and intrarater reliability of the tuck jump assessment by health professionals of varied educational backgrounds
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26464881
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/483503
work_keys_str_mv AT dudleylisaa interraterandintraraterreliabilityofthetuckjumpassessmentbyhealthprofessionalsofvariededucationalbackgrounds
AT smithcraiga interraterandintraraterreliabilityofthetuckjumpassessmentbyhealthprofessionalsofvariededucationalbackgrounds
AT olsonbrandonk interraterandintraraterreliabilityofthetuckjumpassessmentbyhealthprofessionalsofvariededucationalbackgrounds
AT chimeranicolej interraterandintraraterreliabilityofthetuckjumpassessmentbyhealthprofessionalsofvariededucationalbackgrounds
AT schmitzbrian interraterandintraraterreliabilityofthetuckjumpassessmentbyhealthprofessionalsofvariededucationalbackgrounds
AT warrenmeghan interraterandintraraterreliabilityofthetuckjumpassessmentbyhealthprofessionalsofvariededucationalbackgrounds