Wijekulasuriya Gyan A, Woods Carl T, Kittel Aden, Larkin Paul
Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
MSA Research Centre, Maribyrnong Sports Academy, Melbourne, Australia.
Sports Med Open. 2025 Jan 23;11(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s40798-025-00813-0.
Despite their prominence in the sport and human movement sciences, to date, there is no systematic insight about the development and content of movement quality assessments in athletic populations. This is an important gap to address, as it could yield both practical and scientific implications related to the continued screening of movement quality in athletic contexts. Hence, this study aimed to systematically review the (i) developmental approach, (ii) movements included, (iii) scoring system utilised, and (iv) the reliability of movement competency assessments used in athletic populations.
Electronic databases (SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched for relevant articles up to 12 May 2023. Studies were included if they reported data about the developmental approach, movements included, scoring system utilised and reliability of assessment in an athletic population. A modified Downs and Black checklist was used to measure study quality.
From a total of 131 identified studies: (i) 26 (20%) described the developmental approach of an assessment; (ii) 113 (86%) included descriptions of the movements included; (iii) 106 (81%) included a description of scoring system and criteria; and (iv) 77 (59%) studies included reliability statistics. There were 36 assessments identified within these studies, comprising 59 movements in total. Each assessment scored movement quality through a Likert or binary classification system.
First, the results demonstrate that choosing an appropriate movement quality assessment in an athletic population may be a complex process for practitioners as the development approach, movements included and scoring criteria vary substantially between assessments. Second, academics could use these results to help design new assessments for novel applications that meet rigour and reliability requirements. Third, these results have the potential to foster guidelines of use for the reliable assessment of movement quality in athletic populations.
尽管运动质量评估在体育和人体运动科学领域备受关注，但迄今为止，对于运动员群体中运动质量评估的发展和内容仍缺乏系统性的见解。这是一个需要填补的重要空白，因为它可能对体育环境中持续的运动质量筛查产生实际和科学影响。因此，本研究旨在系统回顾（i）发展方法，（ii）所包含的动作，（iii）所采用的评分系统，以及（iv）运动员群体中运动能力评估的可靠性。
检索电子数据库（SPORTDiscus、MEDLINE、CINAHL、科学网、Scopus），查找截至2023年5月12日的相关文章。如果研究报告了关于运动员群体中评估的发展方法、所包含的动作、所采用的评分系统和评估可靠性的数据，则纳入研究。使用改良的唐斯和布莱克清单来衡量研究质量。
在总共131项确定的研究中：（i）26项（20%）描述了评估的发展方法；（ii）113项（86%）包含了所包含动作的描述；（iii）106项（81%）包含了评分系统和标准的描述；（iv）77项（59%）研究包含了可靠性统计数据。这些研究中确定了36项评估，总共包括59个动作。每项评估通过李克特或二元分类系统对运动质量进行评分。
首先，结果表明，对于从业者来说，在运动员群体中选择合适的运动质量评估可能是一个复杂的过程，因为不同评估之间的发展方法、所包含的动作和评分标准差异很大。其次，学者们可以利用这些结果来帮助设计满足严谨性和可靠性要求的新的新型应用评估。第三，这些结果有可能促进运动员群体中运动质量可靠评估的使用指南。
