CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 360Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesHip disorders and treatmentsKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques

Performance on the Single-Leg Squat Task Indicates Hip Abductor Muscle Function

Crossley, Kay M., Zhang, Wan-Jing, Schache, Anthony G., Bryant, Adam, Cowan, Sallie M.·2011·The American Journal of Sports Medicine
DOI 10.1177/0363546510395456
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Contemporary clinical expertise and emerging research in anterior knee pain indicate that treatment of hip muscle function will result in greater effects, if such treatments can be provided to those with hip muscle dysfunction. Thus, it is imperative to develop and evaluate a clinical assessment tool that is capable of identifying people with poor hip muscle function. Hypothesis: The clinical assessment of single-leg squat performance will have acceptable inter- and intrarater reliability. Furthermore, people with good performance on the single-leg squat will have better hip muscle function (earlier onset of gluteus medius activity and greater lateral trunk, hip abduction, and external rotation strength) than people with poor performance. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A consensus panel of 5 experienced clinicians developed criteria to rate the performance of a single-leg squat task as “good,” “fair,” or “poor.” The panel rated the performance of 34 asymptomatic participants (mean ± SD: age, 24 ± 5 y; height, 1.69 ± 0.10 m; weight, 65.0 ± 10.7 kg), and these ratings served as the standard. The ratings of 3 different clinicians were compared with those of the consensus panel ratings (interrater reliability) and to their own rating on 2 occasions (intrarater reliability). For the participants rated as good performers (n = 9) and poor performers (n = 12), hip muscle strength (hip abduction, external rotation, and trunk side bridge) and onset timing of anterior (AGM) and posterior gluteus medius (PGM) electromyographic activity were compared. Results: Concurrency with the consensus panel was excellent to substantial for the 3 raters (agreement 87%-73%; κ = 0.800-0.600). Similarly, intrarater agreement was excellent to substantial (agreement 87%-73%; κ = 0.800-0.613). Participants rated as good performers had significantly earlier onset timing of AGM (mean difference, –152; 95% confidence interval [CI], –258 to –48 ms) and PGM (mean difference, –115; 95% CI, –227 to –3 ms) electromyographic activity than those who were rated as poor performers. The good performers also exhibited greater hip abduction torque (mean difference, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10-0.83 N·m·Bw −1 ) and trunk side flexion force (mean difference, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.25-1.91 N·Bw −1 ). There was no difference in hip external rotation torque ( P > .05) between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Targeted treatments, although considered ideal, rely on the capacity to identify subgroups of people with chronic anterior knee pain who might respond optimally to a given treatment component. Clinical assessment of performance on the single-leg squat task is a reliable tool that may be used to identify people with hip muscle dysfunction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0363546510395456

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Crossley and colleagues reported excellent interrater agreement (80-87%, k = 0.700-0.800) for similarly qualified physiotherapists using an equivalent rating approach.

    “An equivalent approach was adopted by Crossley and colleagues, 11 who reported excellent interrater agreement (80-87% k ¼ 0.700-0.800) for similarly qualified physiotherapists.”

    From Lower-Limb Kinematics of Single-Leg Squat Performance in Young Adults (2014) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Squat depth was not standardized.

    “Commensurate with previous investigations, 1,11-13 and to most closely resemble clinical practice, squat depth was not standardized.”

    From Lower-Limb Kinematics of Single-Leg Squat Performance in Young Adults (2014) · cites this paper as [11]

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Crossley, K. M., Zhang, W.-J., Schache, A. G., Bryant, A., & Cowan, S. M.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-02-18
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
866-873
ISSN
  • 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3365
DOI
10.1177/0363546510395456
OpenAlex
W1993627110
Cited by
360
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 19
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • The American Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip disorders and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Keywords
single-leg squat, gluteus medius, hip abductor strength, hip external rotation strength, anterior knee pain, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, clinical assessment tools, electromyography, hip muscle strength, trunk lateral flexion
MeSH terms
Adult, Exercise Test, Female, Hip Joint, Humans, Male, Muscular Diseases, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review