On appraisal , the MCS , M4-MS , and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base .
In addition , considering the evidence provided , these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality , proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities .
Despite popular use , there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature , the processes in which they were developed , or the underpinning rationale for their included content .
As such , the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development .
A Prospective Evaluation of the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) as a Screening Tool for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk
Background : Anterior cruciate ligament ( ACL ) injuries are immediately disabling , costly , take a significant amount of time to rehabilitate , and are associated with an increased risk of developing posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the knee . Specific multiplanar movement patterns of the lower extremity , such as those associated with the drop vertical jump ( DVJ ) test , have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of suffering noncontact ACL injuries . The  L and ing Error Scoring System ( LESS )  has been developed as a tool that can be applied to identify individuals who display at-risk movement patterns during the DVJ . Hypothesis : An increase in LESS score  is associated with an increased risk of noncontact ACL injury . Study Design : Case-control study ; Level of evidence , 3 . Methods : Over a 3-year interval , 5047 high school and college participants performed preseason DVJ tests that were recorded using commercial video cameras .  All participants were followed for ACL injury during their sports season , and video data from injured participants and matched controls were then assessed with the LESS . Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between  LESS score and ACL injury risk in all participants as well as subgroups of female , male , high school , and college participants . Results : There was no relationship between the risk of suffering ACL injury and LESS score  whether measured as a continuous or a categorical variable . This was the case for all participants combined ( odds ratio , 1.04 per unit increase in LESS score ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.80 - 1.35 ) as well as within each subgroup ( odds ratio range , 0.99 - 1.14 ) . Conclusion : The LESS did not predict ACL injury in our cohort of high school and college athletes
On appraisal , the MCS , M4-MS , and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base .
In addition , considering the evidence provided , these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality , proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities .
Despite popular use , there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature , the processes in which they were developed , or the underpinning rationale for their included content .
As such , the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development .