Validity and Reliability of the New Basic Functional Assessment Protocol (BFA)

Abstract

<jats:p>The global evaluation of motion patterns can examine the synchrony of neuromuscular control, range of motion, strength, resistance, balance and coordination needed to complete the movement. Visual assessments are commonly used to detect risk factors. However, it is essential to define standardized field-based tests that can evaluate with accuracy. The aims of the study were to design a protocol to evaluate fundamental motor patterns (FMP), and to analyze the validity and reliability of an instrument created to provide information about the quality of movement in FMP. Five tasks were selected: Overhead Squat (OHS); Hurdle Step (HS); Forward Step Down (FSD); Shoulder Mobility (SM); Active Stretching Leg Raise (ASLR). A list of variables was created for the evaluation of each task. Ten qualified judges assessed the validity of the instrument, while six external observers performed inter-intra reliability. The results show that the instrument is valid according to the experts’ opinion; however, the reliability shows values below those established. Thus, the instrument was considered unreliable, so it is recommended to repeat the reliability process by performing more training sessions for the external observers. The present study creates the basic functional assessment (BFA), a new protocol which comprises five tasks and an instrument to evaluate FMP.</jats:p>

Reliability of a Qualitative Instrument to Assess High-Risk Mechanisms during a 90° Change of Direction in Female Football Players

“…In addition, although too many instructions might alter the real cutting strategy, it is important to standardise performance somehow to obtain consistent and reliable results [ 39 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Therefore, drawing a small specific area on the field where the FFC should be performed with a particular leg but telling athletes to look straight ahead to avoid targeting this point, might be suggested as a solution [ 57 ].…”

“…For that reason, it seems that, in general, more than two training sessions for raters might be needed to explain, discuss and agree on the different observation criteria for each item of the check-list. In a recent study, which investigated the reliability of an observation tool (the Basic Functional Assessment) to evaluate fundamental movement patterns, it was outlined that more training sessions for observers might lead to better inter-rater reliability results [ 59 ]. Some reliability studies using qualitative observational screening tools have also obtained poor reliability results with only one or two training sessions for observers [ 68 , 69 ].…”

“…On the other hand, as knee flexion is not observed in a pure sagittal view due to the camera position, it might be better to ask raters if they observe a good sagittal knee absorption of forces on the whole [ 47 , 76 ], rather than giving an angular reference, which could be misinterpreted because of perspective [ 23 , 62 ]. For that reason, exploring the content validity of this tool through the judgement of a minimum of ten experts in the field is therefore recommended [ 59 , 77 , 78 ].…”

“…Content validity should be studied not only in terms of the adequacy and adaptation of the items, definitions and instructions included within the manual of the tool, but also in terms of their relevance to the instrument, as described in previous studies [ 59 , 77 , 78 ].…”

“…Future research should explore the content validity of the CMAS tool as well as give quantitative references for each criterion to create more objective observable categories. As suggested by previous studies, to complete the process of validation of an observational instrument focused on technical actions in sports, a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the content validity should be performed by at least 10 experts in the field [ 59 , 77 , 78 , 82 ]. This might help to make the items, definitions and instructions included within the manual of the CMAS tool more precise and clearer.…”