Tuck Jump Assessment: An Exploratory Factor Analysis in a College Age Population. Issue 3 (March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lininger, Monica R.; Smith, Craig A.; Chimera, Nicole J.; Hoog, Philipp; Warren, Meghan
• Is Part Of: Journal of strength and conditioning research. Volume 31:Issue 3(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-03
• Subjects: plyometric -- data reduction -- injury screening; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Weight training -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Physical fitness -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001186
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-8011

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Lininger, MR, Smith, CA, Chimera, NJ, Hoog, P, and Warren, M. Tuck Jump Assessment: An exploratory factor analysis in a college age population. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 653–659, 2017—Due to the high rate of noncontact lower extremity injuries that occur in the collegiate setting, medical personnel are implementing screening mechanisms to identify those athletes that may be at risk for certain injuries before starting a sports season. The tuck jump assessment (TJA) was created as a "clinician friendly" tool to identify lower extremity landing technique flaws during a plyometric activity. There are 10 technique flaws that are assessed as either having the apparent deficit or not during the TJA. Technique flaws are then summed up for an overall score. Through expert consensus, these 10 technique flaws have been grouped into 5 modifiable risk factors: ligament dominance, quadriceps dominance, leg dominance or residual injury deficits, trunk dominance ("core" dysfunction), and technique perfection. Research has not investigated the psychometric properties of the TJA technique flaws or the modifiable risk factors. The present study is a psychometric analysis of the TJA technique flaws to measure the internal structure using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using data from collegiate athletes ( n = 90) and a general college cohort ( n = 99). The EFA suggested a 3 factor model accounting for 46% of the variance. The 3 factors were defined as fatigue, distal landing pattern, and proximal control. The results differ from the 5 modifiable risk categories as previously suggested. These results may question the use of a single score, a unidimensional construct, of the TJA for injury screening.