Rehabilitation Research and Practice 3 Table 1: Rating criteria for single leg squat: good and poor stability. Single Leg Squat Poor Good 1. Overall Impression Smooth, good-quality movement General control Controlled change-over between repetitions Ease of movement 2. Weight Transfer Minimal translation of centre of mass Upright trunk 3. Lumbar Spine & 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 Staggered movement Increased speed to attempt to control movement Eﬀort to control movement Trunk “wobble” Discernible translation of centre of mass Trunk leaning forward or to side Extended time to transfer Discernible movement with pelvis tilting up or down, rotating toward or away from weightbearing leg, tilting in anterior or posterior direction Lumbar lordosis increasing or trunk ﬂexion occurring Discernible movement out of the starting plane of movement Excessive pronation of foot during squat descent Externally rotated starting position of lower leg/foot Therefore, the aim of this project was to develop clinical rating criteria for the SLS, DT, and RPT for rating LPS. 2. Methods A qualitative research method was used to develop rating criteria for the three tests. Material related to LPS was presented to a focus group of expert physiotherapists, discussion on characteristics of good and poor LPS was held, themes related to assessment of these characteristics were clariﬁed, and rating criteria were qualitatively developed. Five physiotherapists were recruited for a focus group to develop rating criteria for SLS, DT, and RPT. These inde- pendent physiotherapists had not participated in the study design and were not authors of this study. The physiother- apists were included as participants if they were accredited as expert musculoskeletal or sports physiotherapists with the national physiotherapy association and were familiar with the use of lumbopelvic stability tests. The physiotherapists were working with sports participants competing at either international or national level in the following sports: gymnastics, softball, track and ﬁeld, triathlon, or Australian football. They had been practising as physiotherapists for between 6 years and 28 years (mean 14.0 yrs). Approval for the project was obtained from the Human Ethics committee of La Trobe University (application number: 07-136) and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The focus group met for 2 hours to develop the rating criteria. A preliminary discussion schedule of factors that might be indicative of either good or poor performance was presented to the group by the chief investigator, a sports physiotherapist with 26-year experience. This sched- ule included the above deﬁnition of LPS, the protocol for performing the three tests, and abnormal movement patterns of the trunk, pelvis, and hip in all three planes. The chief investigator was familiar with the LPS literature, had developed the deﬁnition of LPS, and facilitated discussion within this framework. The focus group was asked to develop criteria that would clearly rate a performance of SLS, DT, and RPT as good or poor on a three-point rating scale with an intermediate category of neither good nor poor [35]. The group viewed video footage of sample performances on DVD and discussed the factors they considered important for performance of the tests. Key stability themes and characteristics of good and poor stability were identiﬁed. The discussion, recorded in written notes, was read back to the group immediately for further consideration and clariﬁcation of the key stability themes. Time was allowed for discussion of the themes with contributions from each member. The themes were divided by the group into separate factors important for stability with representative characteristics of both good and poor stability. The factors and characteristics were conﬁrmed by the group. To enhance rigour and trustworthiness [40], the rating criteria were sent via email within three days of the meeting to the focus group members to be checked for accuracy. Members of the group were invited to correct errors and suggest changes. All members conﬁrmed the accuracy of the criteria and no changes were suggested.