Abstract
Background and Purpose The Expanded Cutting Alignment Scoring Tool (E-CAST) is a two-dimensional qualitative scoring system that has demonstrated moderate inter-rater and good intra-rater reliability for the assessment of trunk and lower extremity alignment during a 45-degree sidestep cut. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of the quantitative version of the E-CAST among physical therapists and to compare the reliability of the quantitative E-CAST to the original qualitative E-CAST. The hypothesis was that the quantitative version of the E-CAST would demonstrate greater inter-rater and intra-rater reliability compared to the qualitative E-CAST.Study Design Observational cohort, repeated measures reliability studyMethods Twenty-five healthy female athletes (age 13.8 & PLUSMN;1.4 years) performed three sidestep cuts with two-dimensional video capturing frontal and sagittal views. Two physical therapist raters independently scored a single trial using both views on two separate occasions. Based on the E-CAST criteria, select kinematic measurements were extracted using a motion analysis phone application. Intraclass correlation coefficients and 95% confident intervals were calculated for the total score, and kappa coefficients were calculated per kinematic variable. Correlations were converted to z-scores and compared to the six original criteria for significance (& alpha;<0.05).Results Cumulative intra-and inter-rater reliability were both good (ICC=0.821, 95% CI 0.687-0.898 and ICC=0.752, 95% CI 0.565-0.859). Cumulative intra-rater kappa coefficients ranged from moderate to almost perfect, and cumulative inter-rater kappa coefficients ranged from slight to good. No significant differences were observed between the quantitative and qualitative criteria for either inter-or intra-rater reliability (Zobs(intra)=-0.38, p=0.352 and Zobs(inter)=-0.30, p=0.382).Conclusion The quantitative E-CAST is a reliable tool to assess trunk and lower extremity alignment during a 45-degree sidestep cut. No significant differences were observed in reliability of the quantitative versus qualitative assessment.Level of evidence 3b