Measurement Properties of Clinically Accessible Movement Assessment Tools for Analyzing Single-Leg Squats and
Context:
Poor lower-extremity biomechanics are predictive of increased risk of injury. Clinicians analyze the single-leg squat (SLS) and step-down (SD) with rubrics and 2D assessments to identify these poor lower-extremity biomechanics. However, evidence on measurement properties of movement assessment tools is not strongly outlined. Measurement properties must be established before movement assessment tools are recommended for clinical use.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence on measurement properties of rubrics and 2D assessments used to analyze an SLS and SD.
Evidence Acquisition:
The search strategy was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The search was performed in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments multiphase procedure was used to extract relevant data, evaluate methodological quality of each study, score the results of each movement assessment, and synthesize the evidence.
Evidence Synthesis:
A total of 44 studies were included after applying eligibility criteria. Reliability and construct validity of knee frontal plane projection angle was acceptable, but criterion validity was unacceptable. Reliability of the Chmielewski rubric was unacceptable. Content validity of the knee-medial-foot and pelvic drop rubrics was acceptable. The remaining rubrics and 2D measurements had inconclusive or conflicting results regarding reliability and validity.
Conclusions:
Knee frontal plane projection angle is reliable for analyzing the SLS and SD; however, it does not serve as a substitute for 3D motion analysis. The Chmielewski rubric is not recommended for assessing the SLS or SD as it may be unreliable. Most movement assessment tools yield indeterminate results. Within the literature, standardized names, procedures, and reporting of movement assessment tool reliability and validity are inconsistent.
