↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Reliability and concurrent validity between two-dimensional and three-dimensional evaluations of knee valgus during drop jumps

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Reliability and concurrent validity between two-dimensional and three-dimensional evaluations of knee valgus during drop jumps
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s100242
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexis Ortiz, Martin Rosario-Canales, Alejandro Rodríguez, Alexie Seda, Carla Figueroa, Heidi L Venegas-Ríos

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish the concurrent validity and reliability of four different two-dimensional (2D) video-based techniques for quantifying frontal plane knee kinematics during a 40 cm double-legged drop jump. A convenience sample of 16 healthy participants (nine males and seven females; age: [mean ± standard deviation] 25.5±2 years; body mass index: 24.33±2.98 kg/m(2)) participated in this investigation. A total of five trials during a 40 cm drop jump maneuver with a countermovement jump were used as the functional task. Four knee valgus measures, such as two different frontal plane projection angle measures, knee-to-ankle separation ratio (KASR), and knee separation distance (KSD), were measured using 2D and three-dimensional (3D) systems. To generalize to the greater population of possible evaluators, the testers performing the biomechanical analyses were three novice physical therapists. Intra- and intertester intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were estimated for 2D analysis variables. ICCs were estimated for all measures between systems to determine concurrent validity of the 2D system. All four 2D measures showed good to excellent reliability (ICC: 0.89-0.99). KASR and KSD showed excellent correlation (ICC: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-0.98 and ICC: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90-0.96, respectively) with the 3D system, while both methods of frontal plane projection angle showed poor to moderate correlation (ICC: 0-0.57) with the 3D system. 2D KASR and KSD measures are cost effective, reliable, and highly correlated with the same measures using 3D techniques for the evaluation of knee valgus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 18%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 19%
Sports and Recreations 22 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Engineering 7 6%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 46 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,542,307
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#74
of 260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,114
of 311,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them