Inter-Professional and Methodological Agreement in Using the Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS)
2. Materials and Methods
2.2. Research Design
2.3. Experimental Procedures (Video Data Collection)
2.4. Data and Statistical Analysis for Exploring Agreement between Different Professionals
2.5. Data and Statistical Analysis for Exploring Agreement between Different Camera Combinations
- All three cameras vs. front and side.
- All three vs. angle and front.
- All three vs. angle and side.
- All three vs. side.
- All three vs. angle.
- All three vs. front.
3.1. Inter-Professional Agreement
- Significant (p ≤ 0.001) differences in total CMAS score were observed between the biomechanist and all four practitioners for the right cut, whilst significant differences were also observed between the S&C and sprint coaches and the sports rehabilitator (p = 0.016; p = 0.047, respectively) and the S&C coach and physiotherapist (p = 0.005) (Table 2).
- For the left cut, the sprint and S&C coaches revealed significantly (p < 0.001; p = 0.005 between physiotherapist and S&C coach) greater total scores than the three other practitioners (Table 2). In addition, the biomechanist showed a significantly (p = 0.046) lower total score than the physiotherapist (Table 2).
- For the right cut task, moderate to excellent agreements (Table 3) were observed for total score and all items of the CMAS. Excellent (ICC3,k = 0.941) inter-rater reliability for total score was also observed.
- For the left cut task, moderate to excellent agreements were observed for the left cut (Table 4), whilst good (ICC3,k = 0.896) inter-rater reliability for the total score was observed.
- Table 3 shows that items 3 (initial hip rotation), 6 (lateral trunk flexion toward plant leg side), and 7 (trunk upright or leaning back) of the CMAS for the right cut, whilst Table 4 shows that items 3 and 6 for the left cut revealed at least four inter-rater agreements that fell below moderate (e.g., <0.6).
3.2. Agreement between Different Camera Combinations
- Table 5 shows the agreement between different camera combinations for the total score and each item of the CMAS.
- Excellent agreement was observed for the total score between using all three camera views for evaluation vs. using different combinations of two camera views (Table 5).
- However, only fair to moderate agreement in the total score was observed between using all three camera views for evaluation vs. evaluation using a single-camera view (Table 5).
- Table 5 shows that only items 1 (clear penultimate foot contact braking strategy) and 3 (initial hip rotation) fell below moderate (K < 0.6) in exploring the agreement between three camera views and two camera views from front and angle only.
- All other agreements for individual items of the CMAS between three camera views and two camera views revealed moderate to excellent K or moderate to excellent percentage agreements (Table 5).
- Inter-rater agreements between three camera views and the sagittal view only revealed excellent agreement for items 1 (clear penultimate foot contact braking strategy), 7 (trunk upright or leaning back), and 8 (limited knee flexion) of the CMAS, with all other items revealing slight (K) or poor (%) agreement (Table 5).
- Conversely, frontal- and angle-only views revealed slight (K) or poor (%) agreement for items 1, 7, and 8 of the CMAS, with all other items revealing moderate to excellent agreement (Table 5).
4.1. Inter-Professional Agreement
4.2. Agreement between Different Camera Combinations
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Faude, O.; Junge, A.; Kindermann, W.; Dvorak, J. Injuries in female soccer players: A prospective study in the German national league. Am. J. Sports Med. 2005, 33, 1694–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brophy, R.H.; Stepan, J.G.; Silvers, H.J.; Mandelbaum, B.R. Defending puts the anterior cruciate ligament at risk during soccer: A gender-based analysis. Sports Health 2015, 7, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walden, M.; Krosshaug, T.; Bjorneboe, J.; Andersen, T.E.; Faul, O.; Hagglund, M. Three distinct mechanisms predominate in non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in male professional football players: A systematic video analysis of 39 cases. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1452–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Olsen, O.E.; Myklebust, G.; Engebretsen, L.; Bahr, R. Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in team handball: A systematic video analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2004, 32, 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montgomery, C.; Blackburn, J.; Withers, D.; Tierney, G.; Moran, C.; Simms, C. Mechanisms of ACL injury in professional rugby union: A systematic video analysis of 36 cases. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 944–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, J.T.; Mandelbaum, B.R.; Schub, D.; Rodeo, S.A.; Matava, M.J.; Silvers-Granelli, H.J.; Cole, B.J.; ElAttrache, N.S.; McAdams, T.R.; Brophy, R.H. Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament tears in professional American football athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 862–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, P.A.; Herrington, L.C.; Graham-Smith, P. Technique determinants of knee joint loads during cutting in female soccer players. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2015, 42, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donelon, T.A.; Dos’Santos, T.; Pitchers, G.; Brown, M.; Jones, P.A. Biomechanical Determinants of Knee Joint Loads Associated with Increased Anterior Cruciate Ligament Loading During Cutting: A Systematic Review and Technical Framework. Sports Med. Open 2020, 6, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, C.S.; Chaudhari, A.M.; Andriacchi, T.P. The effect of isolated valgus moments on ACL strain during single-leg landing: A simulation study. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shin, C.S.; Chaudhari, A.M.; Andriacchi, T.P. Valgus plus internal rotation moments increase anterior cruciate ligament strain more than either alone. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1484–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bahr, R. Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—And probably never will a critical review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016, 50, 776–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dos’Santos, T.; Thomas, C.; Comfort, C.; Jones, P.A. Biomechanical Effects of a 6-Week Change-of-Direction Technique Modification Intervention on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 2133–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buckthorpe, M. Recommendations for Movement Re-training After ACL Reconstruction. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 1601–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, A.R.; Lloyd, D.G.; Elliott, B.C.; Steele, J.R.; Munro, B.J. Changing sidestep cutting technique reduces knee valgus loading. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009, 37, 2194–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dos’Santos, T.; McBurnie, A.; Comfort, P.; Jones, P.A. The Effects of Six-Weeks Change of Direction Speed and Technique Modification Training on Cutting Performance and Movement Quality in Male Youth Soccer Players. Sports 2019, 7, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Jones, P.A.; Barber, O.R.; Smith, L. Changing pivoting technique reduces knee valgus moments. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, S62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos’Santos, T.; Thomas, C.; McBurnie, A.; Donelon, T.; Herrington, L.; Jones, P.A. The Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS) Qualitative Screening Tool: Application to Mitigate Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk during Cutting. Biomechanics 2021, 1, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, A.S.; Bonacci, J.; McLean, S.G.; Spittle, M.; Saunders, N. A systematic evaluation of field-based screening methods for the assessment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 715–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weir, G.; Alderson, J.; Smailes, N.; Elliott, B.; Donnelly, C. A Reliable Video-based ACL Injury Screening Tool for Female Team Sport Athletes. Int. J. Sports Med. 2019, 40, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Villa, F.; Di Paolo, S.; Santagati, D.; Della Croce, E.; Lopomo, N.F.; Grassi, A.; Zaffagnini., S. A 2D video-analysis scoring system of 90° change of direction technique identifies football players with high knee abduction moment. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2022, 30, 3616–3625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos’Santos, T.; McBurnie, A.; Thomas, C.; Comfort, P.; Jones, P.A. Biomechanical determinants of performance and injury risk during cutting: A performance-injury conflict? Sports Med. Open 2021, 51, 1983–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, P.A.; Donelon, T.; Dos’Santos, T. A preliminary investigation into a qualitative assessment tool to identify athletes with high knee abduction moments during cutting: Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS). Prof. Strength Cond. 2017, 47, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
- Dos’Santos, T.; McBurnie, A.; Donelon, T.; Thomas, C.; Comfort, P.; Jones, P.A. A qualitative screening tool to identify athletes with ‘high-risk’ movement mechanics during cutting: The cutting movement assessment score (CMAS). Phys. Ther. Sport 2019, 38, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudley, L.A.; Smith, C.A.; Olson, B.K.; Chimera, N.J.; Schmitz, B.; Warren, M. Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Tuck Jump Assessment by Health Professionals of Varied Educational Backgrounds. J. Sports Med. 2013, 2013, 483503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cortes, N.; Onate, J. Clinical assessment of drop-jump landing for determination of risk for knee injury. Int. J. Athl. Ther. Train. 2013, 18, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onate, J.; Cortes, N.; Welch, C.; Van Lunen, B. Expert versus novice interrater reliability and criterion validity of the landing error scoring system. J. Sport Rehabil. 2010, 19, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.C. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977, 33, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayhew, L.; Johnson, M.I.; Francis, P.; Snowdon, N.; Jones, G. Inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and common technique flaws of the tuck jump assessment in elite female football players. Sci. Med. Football 2017, 1, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Penultimate foot contact|
|Side/20°||Clear PFC braking strategy (at initial contact)||Y/N||Y = 0/N = 1|
|Final foot contact|
|Front/20°||Wide lateral leg plant (approx. > 0.35 m—dependent on subject anthropometrics) (at initial contact)||W/M/N||W = 2/M = 1/N = 0|
|Front/20°||Hip in an initial internally rotated position (at initial contact)||Y/N||Y = 1/N = 0|
|Front/20°||Initial knee ‘valgus’ position (at initial contact)||Y/N||Y = 1/N = 0|
|All 3||Foot not in neutral position (at initial contact)|
Inwardly rotated foot position or externally rotated foot position (relative to original direction of travel)
|Y/N||Y = 1/N = 0|
|Front/20°||Frontal plane trunk position relative to intended direction; Lateral or Trunk Rotated towards stance limb, Upright or Medial (at initial contact and over WA)||L/TR/U/M||L/TR = 2/U = 1/M = 0|
|Side/20°||Trunk upright or leaning back throughout contact (not adequate trunk flexion displacement) (at initial contact and over WA)||Y/N||Y = 1/N = 0|
|Side/20°||Limited knee flexion during final contact (stiff) ≤ 30° (over WA)||Y/N||Y = 1/N = 0|
|Front/20°||Excessive knee ‘valgus’ motion during contact (over WA)||Y/N||Y = 1/N = 0|
|Right Cut||Left Cut|
|Practitioner||Mean (SD)||95% CI||Mean (SD)||95% CI|
|Sports rehabilitator||5.00 (1.76) d||3.88–6.12||5.17 (1.40)||4.27–6.06|
|Physiotherapist||4.92 (1.73) d||3.82–6.02||5.75 (1.36)||4.89–6.61|
|Biomechanist||4.17 (1.85)||2.99–5.34||5.08 (1.44) g||4.17–6.00|
|S&C coach||6.08 (1.38) a,c,d||4.98–7.18||6.92 (1.38) c,d,e||6.04–7.79|
|Sprint coach||5.92 (1.93) b,d||4.69–7.14||6.83 (1.12) e,d,f||6.13–7.54|
|SR vs. BM||SR vs. PH||SR vs. SC||SR vs. C||BM vs. PH||BM vs. SC||BM vs. C||PH vs. SC||PH vs. C||SC vs. C|
|SR vs. BM||SR vs. PH||SR vs. SC||SR vs. C||BM vs. PH||BM vs. SC||BM vs. C||PH vs. SC||PH vs. C||SC vs. C|
|3 Cameras vs. Angle- and Front-Only Camera Views||3 Cameras vs. Angle- and Side-Only Camera Views||3 Cameras vs. Front- and Side-Only Camera Views||3 Cameras vs. Side-Only Camera View||3 Cameras vs. Front-Only Camera View||3 Cameras vs. Angle-Only Camera View|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Jones, P.A.; Rai, A.; Dos’Santos, T.; Herrington, L.C. Inter-Professional and Methodological Agreement in Using the Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS). Biomechanics 2023, 3, 181-192. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics3020016
Jones PA, Rai A, Dos’Santos T, Herrington LC. Inter-Professional and Methodological Agreement in Using the Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS). Biomechanics. 2023; 3(2):181-192. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics3020016Chicago/Turabian Style
Jones, Paul A., Ali Rai, Thomas Dos’Santos, and Lee C. Herrington. 2023. "Inter-Professional and Methodological Agreement in Using the Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS)" Biomechanics 3, no. 2: 181-192. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics3020016