Article Summary: Development and Reliability of a Visual-Cognitive Reactive Triple Hop Test
Article Summary and Notes
DOI: 10.1123/jsr.2022-0398, PMID: 37328155
Authors:
- Byrnadeen T. Farraye
- Janet E. Simon
- Meredith Chaput
- HoWon Kim
- Scott M. Monfort
- Dustin R. Grooms
Purpose: Examine the Test-retest reliability of the Visual-Cognitive Reactive Triple Hop Test.
Demographics
- n = 21
- 11f, 10m
- 23.5 [3.7] years
- 1.73 [0.12] m
- 73.0 [16.8] kg
- Tegner Activity Scale 5.5 [1.1]pts
- “Tegner Activity Scale was used to determine the participant’s level of physical activity based on grading work and sport activities on a numerical scale (010).34”
- Demographics gathered via self-report
Exclusion Criteria:
- Lower-extremity surgery
- ligamentous damage to the kne
- lowerextremity injury that prevents physical activity in the past year
- any injury within the past 6 weeks
- medical history of nervous system dysfunction
- color blindness
Methods
For all hopping assessments, leg dominance was defined as the participant’s preferred leg to kick a ball.
2 identical testing visits were performed separated by 12-17 days (14 [1] d) in order to reduce potential learning effects.
A fixed order of tasks completed on both days with the traditional triple hop performed first, followed by the VCR triple hop to minimize probability of impaired performance due to VCR triple hop test novelty (participants first completed just the hop first without the added visual-cognitive reactive challenge).
Additional warmup was not performed. Shoes were not standardized. Examiners remained the same.
Statistical Analysis
ICC using a 2-way mixed effects model with absolute agreement with 95% confidence intervals was used to assess Test-Retest Reliability. SEM and 95% minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated for hop distance and reaction time.
Bland-altman plots were used to evaluate systematic changes in hop distance and reaction time.
2 paired sample t-tests were used to if there was a signficant difference between hop distance and physical errors between traditional triple hop test and the VCR triple hop test.
Results
The authors considered the reliability of both the triple hop test and VCR triple hop test to have “Excellent reliability”
- Triple hop test ICC: 0.96
- VCR Triple hop test: 0.92
The authors considered VCR Triple hop reaction time results to be “moderate”
- VCR triple hop test RT ICC: 0.62
| Day 1 | Day 2 | Mean difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional triple hop distance, cm | 445.24 (84.98) | 440.57 (74.77) | −5.67 (6.47) |
| Traditional triple hop physical errors, n | 0.57 (0.51) | 0.52 (0.50) | −0.05 (0.22) |
| VCR triple hop distance, cm | 408.86 (85.21) | 406.41 (62.41) | −2.45 (3.45) |
| VCR triple hop reaction time, s | 0.99 (0.15) | 1.00 (0.25) | 0.01 (0.05) |
| VCR triple hop physical error, n | 0.76 (0.54) | 0.68 (0.43) | −0.08 (0.20) |
| VCR triple hop cognitive error, n | 3.86 (2.46) | 3.14 (2.13) | −0.71 (0.49) |
| ICC (95% CI) | SEM | MDC | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional triple hop, cm | .96 (.91–.99) | 16.99 | 46.95 |
| VCR triple hop distance, cm | .92 (.82–.97) | 24.10 | 66.60 |
| VCR triple hop reaction time, s | .63 (.09–.84) | 0.09 | 0.24 |
| Traditional triple hop | VCR triple hop | Effect size | Cognitive cost | Mean difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum distance, cm | 445.24 (84.98) | 408.86 (85.21) | 0.55 | −8.17% | −36.38 (5.13)* |
| Physical errors, n | 0.57 (0.51) | 0.76 (0.54) | 0.23 | 33.33% | 0.19 (0.18) |