Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, 18071, Spain; FSI Sport Research Lab, Granada, Spain.
FSI Sport Research Lab, Granada, Spain.
Phys Ther Sport. 2022 Jul;56:15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.05.015. Epub 2022 Jun 3.
To investigate the relationship between the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) and Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS) to evaluate movement quality, their intra- (INTRAob) and inter-observer (INTERob) reliability, and the comparison between the two drop vertical jump (DVJ) landings (1st and 2nd).
Cross-sectional.
42 male semi-professional soccer players performed three trials of DVJ and 70° change of direction with a ball located as an external focus.
Movement quality was evaluated through 2D video footage using the CMAS and LESS, screened by two observers. Relational, comparative and reliability analyses were conducted.
Both tools showed moderate to substantial (ICC = 0.58-0.71), and substantial to almost perfect (ICC = 0.68-0.87) INTRAob and INTERob reliability, respectively. No significant associations were found among CMAS, LESS 1st and 2nd for either scores or risk profiles (r = -0.158-0.202, p > 0.05). LESS 2nd was moderately higher (ES = 0.80-0.83, p = 0.002-0.007) than 1st scores.
CMAS and LESS are reliable tools to evaluate movement quality, although evaluations should be preferably performed by the same observer; ACL injury risk profile's is task-dependent; both landings of the DVJ should be assessed as they represent different biomechanical and neuromuscular control deficits.
研究落地错误评分系统(LESS)和切割动作评估评分(CMAS)之间的关系,以评估运动质量,评估其内部(INTRAob)和观察者间(INTERob)可靠性,并比较两种垂直跳(DVJ)落地(第一和第二)的差异。
横断面研究。
42 名男性半职业足球运动员进行了三次 DVJ 和 70°带球变向的测试。
使用 CMAS 和 LESS 通过二维视频评估运动质量,由两名观察者筛选。进行了相关、比较和可靠性分析。
两种工具的观察者内和观察者间可靠性均为中等至高(ICC=0.58-0.71)和高至几乎完美(ICC=0.68-0.87)。CMAS、LESS 第一和第二之间的得分或风险特征之间没有显著相关性(r=-0.158-0.202,p>0.05)。第二着陆的 LESS 得分(ES=0.80-0.83,p=0.002-0.007)略高于第一着陆的得分。
CMAS 和 LESS 是评估运动质量的可靠工具,尽管评估最好由同一观察者进行;ACL 损伤风险特征取决于任务;应评估 DVJ 的两次着陆,因为它们代表不同的生物力学和神经肌肉控制缺陷。