Inter-Professional and Methodological Agreement in Using the Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS)

Jones, Paul A, Rai, Ali, Dos'Santos, Thomas ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2715-0116 and Herrington, Lee C (2023) Inter-Professional and Methodological Agreement in Using the Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS). Biomechanics, 3 (2). pp. 181-192.

Preview

Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (439kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: The cutting movement assessment score (CMAS) provides a qualitative assessment of the side-step cutting (S-SC) technique. Previous research has been undertaken primarily by biomechanists experienced with S-SC evaluations. Little is known about the agreement between various sports science and medicine practitioners to ascertain whether the tool can be used effectively by different practitioners in the field. Currently, the CMAS uses three camera views (CVS) to undertake the evaluation, and it would be worthwhile to know whether the CMAS can be effectively conducted with fewer camera views to improve clinical utility. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine the inter-rater agreement between different sports science and medicine practitioners and agreement between using different CVS to evaluate the S-SC technique using the CMAS. Methods: Video data were collected from 12 male rugby union players performing a 45° S-SC manoeuvre toward both the left and right directions. Five different sports science and medicine practitioners evaluated footage from three cameras of one left and one right trial from each player using the CMAS. Twelve different trials were also evaluated by the sports rehabilitator using single and multiple CVS. Agreements (percentage; Kappa coefficients (K)) between different practitioners and configurations of the CVS were explored. Results: Good to excellent inter-rater agreements were found between all practitioners for total score (K = 0.63–0.84), with moderate to excellent inter-rater agreements observed across all items of the CMAS (K = 0.5–1.0). Excellent agreement was found between using three CVS vs. two CVS that included at least a sagittal view (K = 0.96–0.97). Lower agreement (K = 0.83) was found between angle-frontal views with three CVS. Conclusions: The CMAS can be used effectively by various practitioners to evaluate the movement quality of S-SC. The use of two CVS that include at least a sagittal plane view would suffice to evaluate the S-SC technique against the CMAS.