Dataset Information

Is the Landing Error Scoring System Reliable and Valid? A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Context

The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a clinical tool often used in research and practice to identify athletes presenting high injury-risk biomechanical patterns during a jump-landing task.

Objective

To systematically review the literature addressing the psychometric properties of the LESS.

Data sources

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched on March 28, 2018, using the term "Landing Error Scoring System."

Study selection

All studies using the LESS as main outcome measure and addressing its reliability, validity against motion capture system, and predictive validity were included. Original English-language studies published in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed. Studies using modified versions of the LESS were excluded.

Study design

Systematic literature review.

Level of evidence

Level 4.

Data extraction

Study design, population, LESS testing procedures, LESS scores, statistical analysis, and main results were extracted from studies using a standardized template.

Results

Ten studies met inclusion criteria and were appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. The overall LESS score demonstrated good-to-excellent intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.82-0.99), interrater (ICC, 0.83-0.92), and intersession reliability (ICC, 0.81). The validity of the overall LESS score against 3-dimensional jump-landing biomechanics was good when individuals were divided into 4 quartiles based on LESS scores. The validity of individual LESS items versus 3-dimensional motion capture data was moderate-to-excellent for most of the items addressing key risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. The predictive value of the LESS for ACL and other noncontact lower-extremity injuries remains uncertain based on the current scientific evidence.

Conclusion

The LESS is a reliable screening tool. However, further work is needed to improve the LESS validity against motion capture system and confirm its predictive validity for ACL and other noncontact lower-extremity injuries.

SUBMITTER: Hanzlikova I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7040940 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar/Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is the Landing Error Scoring System Reliable and Valid? A Systematic Review.

Hanzlíková Ivana I Hébert-Losier Kim K

Sports health 20200121 2

<h4>Context</h4>The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a clinical tool often used in research and practice to identify athletes presenting high injury-risk biomechanical patterns during a jump-landing task.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review the literature addressing the psychometric properties of the LESS.<h4>Data sources</h4>Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched on March 28, 2018, using the term "Landing Error Scoring System."<h4>Study selecti ...[more]

PMID: 31961778

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLoss of arm-hand performance due to a hemiparesis as a result of stroke or cerebral palsy (CP), leads to large problems in daily life of these patients. Assessment of arm-hand performance is important in both clinical practice and research. To gain more insight in e.g. effectiveness of common therapies for different patient populations with similar clinical characteristics, consensus regarding the choice and use of outcome measures is paramount. To guide this choice, an overview of available instruments is necessary. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, evaluate and categorize instruments, reported to be valid and reliable, assessing arm-hand performance at the ICF activity level in patients with stroke or cerebral palsy.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify articles containing instruments assessing arm-hand skilled performance in patients with stroke or cerebral palsy. Instruments were identified and divided into the categories capacity, perceived performance and actual performance. A second search was performed to obtain information on their content and psychometrics.ResultsRegarding capacity, perceived performance and actual performance, 18, 9 and 3 instruments were included respectively. Only 3 of all included instruments were used and tested in both patient populations. The content of the instruments differed widely regarding the ICF levels measured, assessment of the amount of use versus the quality of use, the inclusion of unimanual and/or bimanual tasks and the inclusion of basic and/or extended tasks.ConclusionsAlthough many instruments assess capacity and perceived performance, a dearth exists of instruments assessing actual performance. In addition, instruments appropriate for more than one patient population are sparse. For actual performance, new instruments have to be developed, with specific focus on the usability in different patient populations and the assessment of quality of use as well as amount of use. Also, consensus about the choice and use of instruments within and across populations is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Regular physical activity can not only help with weight management, but also lower cardiovascular risks, cancer rates, and chronic disease burden. Yet, only approximately 20% of Americans currently meet the physical activity guidelines recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services. With the rapid development of mobile technologies, mobile apps have the potential to improve participation rates in exercise programs, particularly if they are evidence-based and are of sufficient content quality. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to develop and test an instrument, which was designed to score the content quality of exercise program apps with respect to the exercise guidelines set forth by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). METHODS:We conducted two focus groups (N=14) to elicit input for developing a preliminary 27-item scoring instruments based on the ACSM exercise prescription guidelines. Three reviewers who were no sports medicine experts independently scored 28 exercise program apps using the instrument. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was assessed among the 3 reviewers. An expert reviewer, a Fellow of the ACSM, also scored the 28 apps to create criterion scores. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing nonexpert reviewers' scores to the criterion scores. RESULTS:Overall, inter- and intra-rater reliability was high with most coefficients being greater than .7. Inter-rater reliability coefficients ranged from .59 to .99, and intra-rater reliability coefficients ranged from .47 to 1.00. All reliability coefficients were statistically significant. Criterion validity was found to be excellent, with the weighted kappa statistics ranging from .67 to .99, indicating a substantial agreement between the scores of expert and nonexpert reviewers. Finally, all apps scored poorly against the ACSM exercise prescription guidelines. None of the apps received a score greater than 35, out of a possible maximal score of 70. CONCLUSIONS:We have developed and presented valid and reliable scoring instruments for exercise program apps. Our instrument may be useful for consumers and health care providers who are looking for apps that provide safe, progressive general exercise programs for health and fitness.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate measures of health professionals' clinical practice are critically important to guide health policy decisions, as well as for professional self-evaluation and for research-based investigation of clinical practice and process of care. It is often not feasible or ethical to measure behaviour through direct observation, and rigorous behavioural measures are difficult and costly to use. The aim of this review was to identify the current evidence relating to the relationships between proxy measures and direct measures of clinical behaviour. In particular, the accuracy of medical record review, clinician self-reported and patient-reported behaviour was assessed relative to directly observed behaviour.MethodsWe searched: PsycINFO; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; science/social science citation index; Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med); ISI conference proceedings; and Index to Theses.Inclusion criteriaempirical, quantitative studies; and examining clinical behaviours. An independent, direct measure of behaviour (by standardised patient, other trained observer or by video/audio recording) was considered the 'gold standard' for comparison. Proxy measures of behaviour included: retrospective self-report; patient-report; or chart-review. All titles, abstracts, and full text articles retrieved by electronic searching were screened for inclusion and abstracted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer where necessary.ResultsFifteen reports originating from 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The method of direct measurement was by standardised patient in six reports, trained observer in three reports, and audio/video recording in six reports. Multiple proxy measures of behaviour were compared in five of 15 reports. Only four of 15 reports used appropriate statistical methods to compare measures. Some direct measures failed to meet our validity criteria. The accuracy of patient report and chart review as proxy measures varied considerably across a wide range of clinical actions. The evidence for clinician self-report was inconclusive.ConclusionValid measures of clinical behaviour are of fundamental importance to accurately identify gaps in care delivery, improve quality of care, and ultimately to improve patient care. However, the evidence base for three commonly used proxy measures of clinicians' behaviour is very limited. Further research is needed to better establish the methods of development, application, and analysis for a range of both direct and proxy measures of behaviour.

Dataset Information

Is the Landing Error Scoring System Reliable and Valid? A Systematic Review.

Context

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Study design

Level of evidence

Data extraction

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Is the Landing Error Scoring System Reliable and Valid? A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets