4 Rehabilitation Research and Practice Table 2: Rating criteria for dip test: good and poor stability. Good 1. Overall Impression Smooth, good-quality movement General control Controlled change-over between repetitions 2. Weight Distribution Minimal weight on back leg Back leg remains oriented in the sagittal plane (i.e. no movement in frontal plane) Upright trunk 3. Lumbar and Pelvic Alignment Minimal movement in all three planes Frontal plane: ASIS level Sagittal plane: minimal A-P tilt, rotation Lateral view: stable lordosis, minimal trunk ﬂexion 4. Leg Alignment Minimal movement out of the starting plane of movement. This takes into account the alignment of the limb, inﬂuenced by pelvic width, and Q angle at the knee 5. Foot Alignment Neutral foot position—remains stable during movement Dip Test Poor Staggered movement Increased speed to attempt to control movement Eﬀort to control movement Trunk “wobble” Excessive weight on back leg Abduction of back leg Trunk leaning forward or to side Discernible movement with pelvis tilting up or down, rotating toward or away from weightbearing leg, tilting in anterior or posterior direction Discernible movement out of the starting plane of movement Excessive pronation of foot during squat descent Externally rotated starting position of lower leg/foot 3. Results Agreement was reached by the focus group on rating criteria for the three tests (Tables 1, 2, and 3). The rating criteria included key factors important for LPS: ﬁve for SLS and DT and four for RPT. The factors were similar for SLS and DT: overall impression, weight transfer (SLS) or weight distribution (DT), lumbar spine and pelvic alignment, leg alignment, and foot alignment. The factors diﬀered only slightly for RPT with foot alignment not included and evaluation of the entire trunk included, rather than just the lumbar spine. The factors for RPT were overall impression, weight distribution, trunk alignment, and pelvic alignment. Each of the key factors for the tests had descriptive performance characteristics that represented both good and poor stability. The combination of performance charac- teristics would be used to rate an individual’s LPS on each of the tests. A clinical rating would be based on whether an individual predominantly had good performance characteristics or predominantly poor performance charac- teristics. If an individual did not clearly ﬁt into either of these two categories, then they would be rated as having neither good nor poor stability. The combined performance characteristics would identify the LPS of an individual in one of three categories: good, poor, or neither good nor poor LPS. 4. Discussion This study used qualitative methods to develop detailed rating criteria for three clinical tests of LPS: single leg squat, dip test, and runner pose test. This is the ﬁrst time that detailed rating criteria have been developed for DT and RPT. Use of a focus group to develop rating criteria for the tests of LPS was a pragmatic way to collect views of a sample of expert physiotherapists. This method was chosen for two reasons. First, it was a method that could draw on the interaction within the group to enhance the results, making them more dynamic than the results that might be gained by the use of individual interviews or questionnaires [41]. Second, it was economical in terms of time and cost. To ensure the integrity of the results of qualitative studies, it is important that the phenomenon being studied is presented accurately [40]. The deﬁnition of LPS was derived from the stability literature, and discussion to develop the rating criteria was held from this perspective. To develop rating criteria, a pool of potential variables should be considered as the ﬁrst step [42]. The rigour of this process was enhanced by using multiple sources of information [43]. The focus group used the preliminary discussion of abnormal movement patterns of the trunk, pelvis, and hip described in previous studies of single leg squat [3, 32, 39], their clinical experience, and the DVD examples of performance of the tests to identify key indicators of good or poor performance of the LPS tests. The chief investigator ensured that all potential performance characteristics from the LPS literature were discussed. The second step in the process of developing rating criteria is to decide the ﬁnal variables to be included [42]. This was accomplished by discussion of the key themes that had been identiﬁed: overall impression, weight transfer