Lower extremity functional performance tests and their measurement properties in athletes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify functional performance tests (FPTs) with potential to identify athletes at risk of lower extremity injury (LEI) and assess their measurement properties. Design: Systematic review conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine and Sports Science guidance. Data sources: Two-stage systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and SPORTDiscus databases from inception to 24 November 2023, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists, key journals and grey literature. Eligibility criteria: Search 1 identified FPT predicting LEI in athletes aged >16 years competing at elite, pre-elite or collegiate levels and feasible in the field. Search 2 assessed measurement properties of identified FPT. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist and criteria for good measurement properties were applied, and evidence summarised using modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guidelines. Results: Fifty-nine studies evaluating 15 FPTs were included. Reliability (n=14), measurement error (n=11), structural validity/internal consistency (n=2), criterion validity (n=11), construct validity (n=5) and responsiveness (n=1) were assessed. No FPT demonstrated high certainty for measurement properties. Y-balance test (YBT) demonstrated moderate certainty for three properties (intrarater reliability, criterion validity and responsiveness). Knee to wall (KTW), single-leg squat (SLS), drop vertical jump (DVJ) and single hop for distance (SHFD) showed moderate certainty for two properties (reliability, intra/inter test-retest; criterion validity). Side hop, functional movement screen and landing error scoring system showed moderate certainty for one measurement property. Practicability assessment revealed poor reporting of time requirements and results production. Conclusion: CRD42020188932.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".