{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03308653401203147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.032623785284590465, 'mean_word_length': 4.323891625615763, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Test re-test reliability of the UNC Functional Performance Test

Test Re-test Reliability of the UNC Functional Performance Test N. Regina Hash, BA, ATC Context: Football is a high risk contact sport in which many injuries are sustained to the lower extremity. Functional screening tests exist for football, but it is unknown if they are specifically used as criteria for return to play. The UNC Functional Performance Test has been used as criteria for return to play but reliability for this test is unknown. Objective: The purpose of this study was to establish reliability for the UNC Functional Performance Test (UNCFPT), a battery of functional skills. Design: This study was conducted as a prospective test re-test design. Setting: One site was used with only one test administrator. Data collection occurred at the athletic facilities on the campus of a division II MidAtlantic University. Patients and Other Participants: A total of 47 participants from a D-II football program were used for this study aged 18 – 23 (19.77 ± 1.43 years), mass of 73.48 to 147.87 kg (101.38 ± 20.08 kg), and a height of 167.6 to 198.1 cm (184.45 ± 7.62 cm). All participants that volunteered for the study were current players encompassing a variety of position groups and were free of a lower extremity injury within the last six months. Interventions: The participants were asked to complete the UNC Functional Performance Test of which included the shuffle box drill, figure eight test, single leg (SL) hop test for time, carioca test, and SL triple hop for distance. There was an aerobic warm-up period followed by both static and dynamic stretches prior to testing as well as a cool down period upon completion of all tasks. Testing protocol following the warm-up consisted of a demonstration of the task, 50% effort by the subject, a thirty second rest, 75% effort by the subject, two minute break and three maximum trials. Athletes were given thirty seconds of rest between maximal trials and additional thirty seconds before the next task was demonstrated. The examiner documented the maximal attempts in seconds for all tasks except for the SL triple jump of which data was recorded in inches. The procedure remained exactly the same for each week of testing. Data was collected at the site over two separate three week periods. For each testing session, the first week consisted of a training session followed by the second week of data collection and then another data collection a week later. Main Outcome Measures: The expectations of this study will be that the UNC Functional Performance Test will be a reliable objective functional measure and similar results will be evident throughout Weeks 2 and 3. Results: The individual components of the UNCFPT had excellent ICC and low standard error of measurement (SEM) scores indicating the tasks were reliable and precise. Little variation would exist in the results if the same person repeated the tasks multiple times. The shuffle box drill had an ICC of .933 (.880 to .963, 95% CI) with a SEM of .202. The figure eight had an ICC score of .892 (.806 to .940, 95% CI) with a SEM of .329. The SL hop test had the lowest ICC score of .873 (.772 to .929, 95% CI) with a .211 SEM score. The carioca had an ICC score of .930 (.874 to .961, 95% CI) along with a SEM score of.173. The SL triple hop had the highest ICC score of .956 (.931 to .973, 95% CI) and SEM of 5.975 for the right side and a SEM on the left side of 5.890. Therefore, with these independent ICC and SEM scores, it can be speculated that the UNCFPT as a whole would have an approximate ICC score of .9168 (95% CI) and have a SEM between .173 and 5.975. Due to the fact the tasks had different forms of measure (time and distance), the actual ICC and SEM could not be calculated for the UNCFPT. Conclusion: The UNC Functional Performance Test is a reliable objective functional assessment tool that can be used to aid clinicians in the return to play decision making process. It should not be used alone but should be used in conjunction with other clinical measures such as ROM, anthropometric girth, manual muscle testing and subjective pain ratings. Further research needs to be conducted on the validity of the UNC Functional Performance Test since excellent reliability was established in this study.