Reliability of Clinician Scoring of the Landing Error Scoring System to Assess Jump-Landing Movement Patterns

Markbreiter, Jessica G.; Sagon, Bronson K; McLeod, Tamara C. Valovich; Welch, Cailee E.

doi:10.1123/jsr.2013-0135

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although subjective assessments of running patterns by coaches, clinicians, and sports scientists are common practice and perceived as an essential tool for the individualization of training programs (Gindre et al., 2016) and optimization of performance (Thompson, Bezodis, & Jones, 2009), there are few studies that have validated subjective measures against gold‐standard biomechanical measures (Altman & Davis, 2012; Markbreiter, Sagon, Valovich McLeod, & Welch, 2015). The results from our study substantiate the existence of significant and meaningful relationships between subjective and objective assessment of human movement, and support the validity of the Volodalen ® method for classifying running patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjective assessment of movement patterns is widely used in field conditions and clinical settings, and has been recommended for examining jump‐landing biomechanics (Markbreiter et al., 2015) and running footstrike patterns (Altman & Davis, 2012) when technological devices or lab‐based testing are not feasible. Specifically for running, a recent investigation has confirmed that running kinematics assessed visually using 2D video recordings provided reliable intra‐ and inter‐rater results for several body posture and alignment parameters scored on a 3 to 5‐point scale, including the amount of tibial inclination or knee flexion at initial contact (Pipkin et al., 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do subjective assessments of running patterns reflect objective parameters?

Lussiana

Gindre

Mourot

et al. 2017

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running patterns are often categorized into subgroups according to common features before data analysis and interpretation. The Volodalen method is a simple field-based tool used to classify runners into aerial or terrestrial using a 5-item subjective rating scale. We aimed to validate the Volodalen method by quantifying the relationship between its subjective scores and 3D biomechanical measures. Fifty-four runners ran 30 s on a treadmill at 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 km h while their kinematics were assessed subjectively using the Volodalen method and objectively using 3D motion capture. For each runner and speed, two researchers scored the five Volodalen items on a 1-to-5 scale, which addressed vertical oscillation, upper-body motion, pelvis and foot position at ground contact, and footstrike pattern. Seven 3D biomechanical parameters reflecting the subjective items were also collected and correlated to the subjective scores. Twenty-eight runners were classified as aerial and 26 as terrestrial. Runner classification did not change with speed, but the relative contribution of the biomechanical parameters to the subjective classification was speed dependent. The magnitude of correlations between subjective and objective measures ranged from trivial to very large. Five of the seven objective parameters significantly differed between aerial and terrestrial runners, and these parameters demonstrated the strongest correlations to the subjective scores. Our results support the validity of the Volodalen method, whereby the visual appreciation of running gait reflected quantifiable objective parameters. Two minor modifications to the method are proposed to simplify its use and improve agreement between subjective and objective measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do subjective assessments of running patterns reflect objective parameters?

Lussiana

Gindre

Mourot

et al. 2017

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the LESS, lower scores should reflect a reduction in injury risk and high injury-risk movement patterns. The LESS was previously addressed in critically appraised topics 32,44,47 and literature reviews 4,7,19,34,48 ; however, no systematic review has critically appraised and summarized research on its psychometrics properties (reliability and validity). Such a systematic review is warranted to ensure the justified use of the LESS in large-scale screening initiatives, monitoring changes in risk factors, establishing the effects of injury prevention programs, and identifying athletes at high risk of injuries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hanzlíková

Hébert‐Losier

2020

Sports Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…10,20,23 The LESS evaluates lower extremity movement quality by having participants complete a jump-landing task, which has traditionally been scored by expert raters on 17 high-risk movement patterns or "errors." 19,23 A more recent study 20 has shown that a markerless motion-capture system has similar reliability as the rater reviewed LESS.…”

Section: Baseline Less Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Lower Extremity Movement Quality by Level of Sport Specialization in Cadets Entering a United States Service Academy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Sport specialization in youth athletes is associated with increased risk for musculoskeletal injury; however, little is known about whether sport specialization is associated with lower extremity movement quality. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in lower extremity movement quality by level of sport specialization in US Service Academy cadets. Hypothesis: Cadets who report an increased level of sport specialization would have a lower level of movement quality than those who are less specialized. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis from an ongoing prospective cohort study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: Cadets completed the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) and a baseline questionnaire evaluating level of sport specialization during high school. Data were analyzed using separate 1-way analysis of variance models. Results: Among all participants (n = 1950), 1045 (53.6%) reported low sport specialization, 600 (30.8%) reported moderate sport specialization, and 305 (15.6%) reported high sport specialization at the time of data collection during the first week. Ages ranged from 17 to 23 years. Men (1491) and women (459) reported comparable specialization levels ( P = 0.45). There were no statistically significant differences in lower extremity movement quality by level of specialization for all subjects combined ( P = 0.15) or when only men were included in the analyses ( P = 0.69). However, there were statistically significant differences in movement quality by level of specialization in women ( P = 0.02). Moderately specialized women had the best movement quality (mean, 4.63; SD, 2.21) followed by those with high specialization (mean, 4.90; SD, 2.08) and those with low levels of specialization (mean, 5.23; SD, 2.07). Conclusion: Women reporting moderate sport specialization had improved movement quality and significantly better LESS scores compared to those with high/low specialization. Clinical Relevance: Athletes, especially women, should be encouraged to avoid early sport specialization to optimize movement quality, which may affect injury risk.

show abstract

Reliability of Clinician Scoring of the Landing Error Scoring System to Assess Jump-Landing Movement Patterns

Cited by 8 publications

References 3 publications

Do subjective assessments of running patterns reflect objective parameters?

Do subjective assessments of running patterns reflect objective parameters?

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

Differences in Lower Extremity Movement Quality by Level of Sport Specialization in Cadets Entering a United States Service Academy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About