Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors01:17

Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors

292
A survey team is tasked with determining the elevation difference between points Point A and Point B, separated by uneven terrain. They use a leveling instrument and a leveling rod.Common MistakesMisreading the Rod: During a backsight reading at Point A, the instrumentman observes the rod partially obscured by tall grass. Instead of reading 1.135 m, they mistakenly record 1.735 m due to the misalignment of the crosshair with the wrong graduation. This error adds 0.600 m to all subsequent...
292
Impact: Problem Solving01:26

Impact: Problem Solving

404
In an experiment conducted during a Mars mission, a rover propels a projectile with an initial velocity, and the projectile rebounds after colliding with the Martian surface. To ascertain the maximum height attained by the projectile after this collision, the known restitution coefficient and acceleration due to gravity are employed.
By designating the launch point as the origin and utilizing kinematic equations, the vertical component of the projectile's velocity at the point of impact is...
404
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

6.8K
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
6.8K
Errors in Global Positioning System01:26

Errors in Global Positioning System

253
Global Positioning System (GPS) technology has revolutionized navigation and positioning, but its accuracy is often compromised by various errors. These errors, stemming from environmental, satellite, and receiver-related factors, require careful mitigation to ensure reliable performance across applications.Atmospheric ErrorsGPS signals travel through the Earth’s ionosphere and troposphere, introducing delays which affect accuracy. The ionosphere is strongly influenced by charged particles,...
253
Errors in Taping01:18

Errors in Taping

246
Errors in taping arise from multiple factors that can significantly impact measurement accuracy in surveying. Misalignment of the tape, often due to human error, is one primary source. A skilled rear tapeman, using a telescope, can help correct alignment by guiding the head tapeman; however, human limitations still lead to small inaccuracies. These errors may include misplacement of pins or inaccurate tape readings due to common visual confusions, such as mistaking a six for a nine. Such...
246
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

14.2K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
14.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Can research align with service? Lessons learned from the Big Experiment and National Biomechanics Day.

Journal of biomechanics·2019
Same author

The effect of proprioceptive knee bracing on knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Gait & posture·2018
Same author

Updated reliability and normative values for the standing heel-rise test in healthy adults.

Physiotherapy·2017
Same author

Do post-concussion-like symptom responses change following exercise or sports participation in a non-concussed cohort?

Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports·2017
Same author

The effect of proprioceptive knee bracing on knee stability during three different sport related movement tasks in healthy subjects and the implications to the management of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injuries.

Gait & posture·2016
Same author

Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns: A Novel Approach to Analyzing Human Running.

International journal of sports medicine·2015

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Eye Tracking During A Complex Aviation Task For Insights Into Information Processing
07:48

Eye Tracking During A Complex Aviation Task For Insights Into Information Processing

Published on: April 4, 2025

1.1K

Clinical implications of Landing Error Scoring System calculation methods.

I Hanzlíková1, J Athens2, K Hébert-Losier1

  • 1Division of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, Adams Centre for High Performance, University of Waikato, 52 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui, 3116, New Zealand.

Physical Therapy in Sport : Official Journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine
|May 17, 2020
PubMed
Summary

The calculation method for the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) significantly impacts injury risk assessment. Using the best jump score method, instead of the mean, can lead to lower scores and altered risk categorization for athletes.

Keywords:
Injury riskJump-landing biomechanicsMovement screen

More Related Videos

The Ladder Rung Walking Task: A Scoring System and its Practical Application.
09:38

The Ladder Rung Walking Task: A Scoring System and its Practical Application.

Published on: June 12, 2009

26.6K
Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication
14:52

Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication

Published on: December 11, 2013

11.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Eye Tracking During A Complex Aviation Task For Insights Into Information Processing
07:48

Eye Tracking During A Complex Aviation Task For Insights Into Information Processing

Published on: April 4, 2025

1.1K
The Ladder Rung Walking Task: A Scoring System and its Practical Application.
09:38

The Ladder Rung Walking Task: A Scoring System and its Practical Application.

Published on: June 12, 2009

26.6K
Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication
14:52

Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication

Published on: December 11, 2013

11.9K

Area of Science:

  • Biomechanics
  • Sports Medicine
  • Injury Prevention

Background:

  • The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is widely used to assess jump-landing biomechanics and identify injury risk.
  • Discrepancies in literature regarding LESS score calculation methods may affect research findings and clinical interpretations.
  • Standardizing LESS score calculation is crucial for consistent and reliable injury risk assessment in athletes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of different calculation methods on final Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores.
  • To determine how varying LESS calculation methods influence group and individual-level injury risk categorization.
  • To compare the 'best jump' method against other common LESS calculation techniques.

Main Methods:

  • A cross-sectional laboratory study analyzed 984 drop-jumps from 328 participants.
  • Final LESS scores were computed using five distinct methods: mean of 3 jumps, 1st jump, 3rd jump, best jump, and sum of errors in at least 2 jumps.
  • Generalized Estimating Equations and McNemar's tests were employed to compare group and individual risk categorizations against a reference method (mean of 3 jumps).

Main Results:

  • The 'best jump' method yielded significantly lower mean LESS scores (0.92 errors lower, p < 0.001) compared to the reference method.
  • Group-level risk categorization was also significantly altered when using the 'best jump' method (odds ratio: 0.50, p < 0.001).
  • Individual risk categorization showed inconsistency, with 8-15% of participants differing from the reference method, particularly with the 'best jump' score (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

  • The chosen method for calculating LESS scores substantially influences both the final score and the resulting injury risk categorization.
  • The 'best jump' method, while potentially reducing scores, leads to significant differences in risk classification compared to the mean score method.
  • Researchers and clinicians should be aware of these calculation method variations to ensure accurate interpretation of LESS data and athlete risk assessment.