Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the discriminative and convergent validity of visual scales for the assessment of movement quality in the single-leg squat.
METHODS: Searches performed in CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. Studies evaluating discriminative and convergent validity of movement quality visual assessments in single-leg squats were included. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist was used to assess the risk of bias, and certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE modified version.
RESULTS: Ten studies evaluating three different methods of visual assessment of the single-leg squat (Crossley scale; Whatman score and Medial knee displacement) were included. Very low certainty evidence suggests that the Crossley scale had sufficient discriminative validity for patient-centred outcomes. Very low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that the three visual methods of assessment of the single-leg squat had insufficient discriminative validity for surrogate outcomes and groups. None of the three methods had the convergent validity assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: The Crossley scale exhibited sufficient discriminative validity for patient-centred outcomes, although the evidence supporting this conclusion is of very low certainty. Visual scales for the assessment of the single-leg squat movement quality should be used with caution in clinical practice as most methods had insufficient discriminative validity and no reports of convergent validity.
METHODS: Searches performed in CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. Studies evaluating discriminative and convergent validity of movement quality visual assessments in single-leg squats were included. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist was used to assess the risk of bias, and certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE modified version.
RESULTS: Ten studies evaluating three different methods of visual assessment of the single-leg squat (Crossley scale; Whatman score and Medial knee displacement) were included. Very low certainty evidence suggests that the Crossley scale had sufficient discriminative validity for patient-centred outcomes. Very low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that the three visual methods of assessment of the single-leg squat had insufficient discriminative validity for surrogate outcomes and groups. None of the three methods had the convergent validity assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: The Crossley scale exhibited sufficient discriminative validity for patient-centred outcomes, although the evidence supporting this conclusion is of very low certainty. Visual scales for the assessment of the single-leg squat movement quality should be used with caution in clinical practice as most methods had insufficient discriminative validity and no reports of convergent validity.
摘要：
目的：评价单腿下蹲运动质量评价视觉量表的辨别力和收敛效度。
方法：在CINAHL中进行的搜索，科克伦,Embase,PubMed,SPORTDiscus和WebofScience数据库。包括评估单腿深蹲运动质量视觉评估的判别和收敛有效性的研究。使用COSMIN偏差风险检查表评估偏差风险，证据的确定性通过等级修改版本进行评估。
结果：纳入了十项研究，评估了三种不同的单腿深蹲视觉评估方法（Crossley量表；Whatman评分和内侧膝关节位移）。非常低的确定性证据表明，Crossley量表对于以患者为中心的结果具有足够的判别效度。非常低至中等的确定性证据表明，三种视觉评估单腿深蹲的方法对替代结果和小组的判别有效性不足。三种方法均未评估收敛有效性。
结论：Crossley量表对以患者为中心的结局表现出足够的辨别力，尽管支持这一结论的证据的确定性很低。在临床实践中应谨慎使用视觉量表来评估单腿深蹲运动质量，因为大多数方法的判别有效性不足，并且没有收敛有效性的报告。
方法：在CINAHL中进行的搜索，科克伦,Embase,PubMed,SPORTDiscus和WebofScience数据库。包括评估单腿深蹲运动质量视觉评估的判别和收敛有效性的研究。使用COSMIN偏差风险检查表评估偏差风险，证据的确定性通过等级修改版本进行评估。
结果：纳入了十项研究，评估了三种不同的单腿深蹲视觉评估方法（Crossley量表；Whatman评分和内侧膝关节位移）。非常低的确定性证据表明，Crossley量表对于以患者为中心的结果具有足够的判别效度。非常低至中等的确定性证据表明，三种视觉评估单腿深蹲的方法对替代结果和小组的判别有效性不足。三种方法均未评估收敛有效性。
结论：Crossley量表对以患者为中心的结局表现出足够的辨别力，尽管支持这一结论的证据的确定性很低。在临床实践中应谨慎使用视觉量表来评估单腿深蹲运动质量，因为大多数方法的判别有效性不足，并且没有收敛有效性的报告。
