回归运动的两种视觉-认知双任务敏捷性评估的发展与可靠性。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Ava L Schwartz, Kylie A McGlone, Grant E Norte, Randi M Richardson, Moein Koohestani, Gaston Dudley, Matt S Stock, Meredith Chaput
{"title":"回归运动的两种视觉-认知双任务敏捷性评估的发展与可靠性。","authors":"Ava L Schwartz, Kylie A McGlone, Grant E Norte, Randi M Richardson, Moein Koohestani, Gaston Dudley, Matt S Stock, Meredith Chaput","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Return to sport assessments after lower-extremity injury/surgery focus on anticipated movement. However, sport requires unanticipated movements with intense visual-cognitive processing. Thus, our purpose was to test the reliability of 2 agility tests augmented with visual-cognitive dual tasks that simulate the attentional demands of sport to improve the ecological validity of return to sport assessments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six individuals (17 females, 23.1 [1.8] y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.1 [0.7]) participated in 2 study visits, 14 days apart. Each visit, participants completed a (1) Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle, (2) Reactive 5-10-5 Shuttle (RS), (3) Traditional Agility T-test (AT), and (4) Visual-Cognitive Reactive Agility T test (VCR-AT) in randomized order. Outcomes for the 5-10-5 Shuttles, included fastest reaction time (RS only), split time, and total time. Fastest total time was quantified for the Agility T-tests. Test-retest reliability was established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) using 2-way mixed effects models and 95% confidence intervals. Paired-samples t-tests assessed performance differences between traditional and visual-cognitive conditions (alpha = .05). Dual-task effect (DTE) was expressed by the percent change in performance when a cognitive challenge was added.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle split (ICC3,1 = .97 [.94 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .99 [.96 to .99]) demonstrated excellent reliability. RS split (ICC3,1 = .96 [.86 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .96 [.88 to .98]) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability. RS reaction time (ICC3,1 = .75 [.45 to .89]) demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability. The RS resulted in slower split (DTE = -24.24%, P < .001) and total time (DTE = -13.31%, P < .001) than the Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle. AT and VCR-AT total time both demonstrated excellent reliability (AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.92 to .99]; VCR-AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.95 to .99]). The VCR-AT resulted in a slower total time (DTE = -1.51%, P = .119) than the AT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Augmented agility assessments demonstrated good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for all outcomes except RS reaction time. A visual-cognitive dual-task significantly impaired physical performance for the 5-10-5 shuttle but not the Agility T-test. Augmenting agility assessments with visual-cognitive dual tasks is reliable and may improve the ecological lens of return to sport assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Reliability of 2 Visual-Cognitive Dual-Task Agility Assessments for Return to Sport.\",\"authors\":\"Ava L Schwartz, Kylie A McGlone, Grant E Norte, Randi M Richardson, Moein Koohestani, Gaston Dudley, Matt S Stock, Meredith Chaput\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/jsr.2024-0440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Return to sport assessments after lower-extremity injury/surgery focus on anticipated movement. However, sport requires unanticipated movements with intense visual-cognitive processing. Thus, our purpose was to test the reliability of 2 agility tests augmented with visual-cognitive dual tasks that simulate the attentional demands of sport to improve the ecological validity of return to sport assessments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Test-retest reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six individuals (17 females, 23.1 [1.8] y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.1 [0.7]) participated in 2 study visits, 14 days apart. Each visit, participants completed a (1) Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle, (2) Reactive 5-10-5 Shuttle (RS), (3) Traditional Agility T-test (AT), and (4) Visual-Cognitive Reactive Agility T test (VCR-AT) in randomized order. Outcomes for the 5-10-5 Shuttles, included fastest reaction time (RS only), split time, and total time. Fastest total time was quantified for the Agility T-tests. Test-retest reliability was established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) using 2-way mixed effects models and 95% confidence intervals. Paired-samples t-tests assessed performance differences between traditional and visual-cognitive conditions (alpha = .05). Dual-task effect (DTE) was expressed by the percent change in performance when a cognitive challenge was added.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle split (ICC3,1 = .97 [.94 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .99 [.96 to .99]) demonstrated excellent reliability. RS split (ICC3,1 = .96 [.86 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .96 [.88 to .98]) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability. RS reaction time (ICC3,1 = .75 [.45 to .89]) demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability. The RS resulted in slower split (DTE = -24.24%, P < .001) and total time (DTE = -13.31%, P < .001) than the Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle. AT and VCR-AT total time both demonstrated excellent reliability (AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.92 to .99]; VCR-AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.95 to .99]). The VCR-AT resulted in a slower total time (DTE = -1.51%, P = .119) than the AT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Augmented agility assessments demonstrated good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for all outcomes except RS reaction time. A visual-cognitive dual-task significantly impaired physical performance for the 5-10-5 shuttle but not the Agility T-test. Augmenting agility assessments with visual-cognitive dual tasks is reliable and may improve the ecological lens of return to sport assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0440\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0440","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:下肢损伤/手术后回归运动评估,重点关注预期运动。然而,运动需要意想不到的动作和强烈的视觉认知处理。因此,我们的目的是测试两个敏捷性测试的可靠性,增强视觉-认知双重任务,模拟运动的注意需求,以提高回归运动评估的生态效度。设计:重测信度。方法:26只个体(女性17只,23.1 [1.8]y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner活动量表5.1[0.7])参加2次研究访问,间隔14天。每次访问,参与者按随机顺序完成(1)传统5-10-5穿梭、(2)反应性5-10-5穿梭、(3)传统敏捷性T检验和(4)视觉认知反应性敏捷性T检验。5-10-5穿梭的结果包括最快反应时间(仅限RS)、分步时间和总时间。敏捷性t检验对最快总时间进行了量化。采用双向混合效应模型和95%置信区间,用类内相关系数(ICC3,1)建立重测信度。配对样本t检验评估了传统条件和视觉认知条件之间的表现差异(alpha = 0.05)。双任务效应(Dual-task effect, DTE)通过添加认知挑战时表现的百分比变化来表达。结果:传统5-10-5梭式劈裂术(ICC3,1 = .97);94对。[98])和总时间(ICC3,1 = .99]。96对。[99])表现出优异的可靠性。RS分裂(ICC3,1 = .96)。86到。[98])和总时间(ICC3,1 = .96]。88 . to。[98])证明了良好到卓越的可靠性。RS反应时间(ICC3,1 = .75)。45到。[89])表现出较差至中等的可靠性。与传统5-10-5穿梭相比,RS的劈裂速度(DTE = -24.24%, P < .001)和总时间(DTE = -13.31%, P < .001)较慢。AT和VCR-AT总时间均表现出优异的信度(AT: ic3,1 = .97)。92 ~ 0.99];[j] . Vcr-at: ic3,1 = 0.97。95 ~ 0.99])。VCR-AT的总时间比AT慢(DTE = -1.51%, P = .119)。结论:增强敏捷性评估显示,除了RS反应时间外,所有结果的重测信度都是良好到优秀的。视觉-认知双重任务显著损害5-10-5穿梭测验的物理表现,但对敏捷性t检验没有影响。增强敏捷性评估与视觉-认知双重任务是可靠的,并可能改善生态镜头的回归运动评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Reliability of 2 Visual-Cognitive Dual-Task Agility Assessments for Return to Sport.

Context: Return to sport assessments after lower-extremity injury/surgery focus on anticipated movement. However, sport requires unanticipated movements with intense visual-cognitive processing. Thus, our purpose was to test the reliability of 2 agility tests augmented with visual-cognitive dual tasks that simulate the attentional demands of sport to improve the ecological validity of return to sport assessments.

Design: Test-retest reliability.

Methods: Twenty-six individuals (17 females, 23.1 [1.8] y, 170.9 [10.2] cm, 71.4 [14.5] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.1 [0.7]) participated in 2 study visits, 14 days apart. Each visit, participants completed a (1) Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle, (2) Reactive 5-10-5 Shuttle (RS), (3) Traditional Agility T-test (AT), and (4) Visual-Cognitive Reactive Agility T test (VCR-AT) in randomized order. Outcomes for the 5-10-5 Shuttles, included fastest reaction time (RS only), split time, and total time. Fastest total time was quantified for the Agility T-tests. Test-retest reliability was established with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) using 2-way mixed effects models and 95% confidence intervals. Paired-samples t-tests assessed performance differences between traditional and visual-cognitive conditions (alpha = .05). Dual-task effect (DTE) was expressed by the percent change in performance when a cognitive challenge was added.

Results: Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle split (ICC3,1 = .97 [.94 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .99 [.96 to .99]) demonstrated excellent reliability. RS split (ICC3,1 = .96 [.86 to .98]) and total time (ICC3,1 = .96 [.88 to .98]) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability. RS reaction time (ICC3,1 = .75 [.45 to .89]) demonstrated poor-to-moderate reliability. The RS resulted in slower split (DTE = -24.24%, P < .001) and total time (DTE = -13.31%, P < .001) than the Traditional 5-10-5 Shuttle. AT and VCR-AT total time both demonstrated excellent reliability (AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.92 to .99]; VCR-AT: ICC3,1 = .97 [.95 to .99]). The VCR-AT resulted in a slower total time (DTE = -1.51%, P = .119) than the AT.

Conclusions: Augmented agility assessments demonstrated good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for all outcomes except RS reaction time. A visual-cognitive dual-task significantly impaired physical performance for the 5-10-5 shuttle but not the Agility T-test. Augmenting agility assessments with visual-cognitive dual tasks is reliable and may improve the ecological lens of return to sport assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
143
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant. JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信