Slhd Performance Agreement

Ericsson YB, Dahlberg LE, Roos EM. Effects of functional training on performance and muscle strength after mesenectomy: a randomized study. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2009;19(2):156–65. During the performance of five SLMS at a pre-defined speed of 20 squats per minute and five participants during the execution of the maximum number of SLMS for 30 seconds (p-0.063) (Table 4), ten participants were rated with a KMFP. Cohens Kappa was 0.56 (95% CI 0.251 to 0.875, p-0.001), reflecting the agreement between the two testing methods. SLHD is performed either with the arms behind the back or with the arms free during the performance of the hop, and the Limb Symmetry Index (LSI) is generally used to assess the differences between the injured legs and the unscathed legs [5]. The position of the knee relative to the foot is assessed and evaluated either at the power of five SLMS at a preset speed [12] or during the power of the maximum number of SLMS for 30 seconds [13]. The objective of the current study was to assess the consistency between the different testing methods in the SLHD or SLMS tasks and to determine whether one of them in the task procedure was more sensitive to detect people with lower functional performance than others. Almost twice as many participants had abnormal ISDs with arms behind their backs (30%) compared to the non-arming procedure (17%) during THE SLHD, suggesting that the hop test is performed with the arms in the back is better in detecting people with functional limitations than free arms.

Bland and Altman`s plots showed that the consistency between the procedures appears to be good when participants had a near-normal LSI, but worse if participants had lower ISDs. This indicates that the results of the studies should not be compared with these two different methods (arm in the back against free arms). Witchalls JB, Newman P, Waddington G, et al. Functional deficiencies related to the instability of the ankle ligaments. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16(2):89–93. For the SLHD, the average value of the three hops was used in the analysis. The analysis without the three participants who had a bilateral violation did not change the results; As a result, data is provided for all participants.

The LSI value, calculated by dividing the result of the leg injured by that of the unscathed leg and the multiplication by 100, was used for comparison between the two test methods (hands in the back against arm free arms during hop performance). The average difference and 95% here and “Bland- Altman Plots” (dispersal diagrams of the difference between methods and their average value) with compliance limits (LOA) [26, 27] were used to assess compliance between the two testing methods.