Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy logoLink to International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
. 2023 Dec 2;18(6):1346–1355. doi: 10.26603/001c.89269

Evaluating Functional Performance Tests in those with Non-arthritic Intra-articular Hip Pain: An International Consensus Statement

RobRoy L Martin 1, Amir Takla 2,3,4, Ashley Disantis 1,5, David Kohlrieser 6, Keelan Enseki 7, Liran Lifshitz 8, Louise Grant 9, Mario Bizzini 10, Mike Voight 11,12, Mark Ryan 13, Ryan McGovern 14, Timothy Tyler 15, Yael Steinfeld-Mass 16, Ashley Campbell 11,17, Yongni Zhang 1,18,✉
PMCID: PMC10693491  PMID: 38050542

Abstract

Background

Non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain, caused by various pathologies, leads to impairments in range of motion, strength, balance, and neuromuscular control. Although functional performance tests offer valuable insights in evaluating these patients, no clear consensus exists regarding the optimal tests for this patient population.

Purpose

This study aimed to establish expert consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.

Study Design

A modified Delphi technique was used with fourteen physical therapy experts, all members of the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA). The panelists participated in three rounds of questions and related discussions to reach full consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests.

Results

The panel agreed that functional performance tests should be utilized at initial evaluation, re-evaluations, and discharge, as well as criterion for assessing readiness for returning to sports. Tests should be as part of a multimodal assessment of neuromuscular control, strength, range of motion, and balance, applied in a graded fashion depending on the patient’s characteristics. Clinicians should select functional performance tests with objective scoring criteria and prioritize the use of tests with supporting psychometric evidence. A list of recommended functional performance tests with varying intensity levels is provided. Low-intensity functional performance tests encompass controlled speed in a single plane with no impact. Medium-intensity functional performance tests involve controlled speed in multiple planes with low impact. High-intensity functional performance tests include higher speeds in multiple planes with higher impact and agility requirements. Sport-specific movement tests should mimic the patient’s particular activity or sport.

Conclusion

This international consensus statement provides recommendations for clinicians regarding selection and utilization of functional performance tests for those with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. These recommendations will encourage greater consistency and standardization among clinicians during a physical therapy assessment.

Keywords: functional performance test, non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain, modified Delphi, consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

Non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain can result from multiple pathologies including femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), acetabular dysplasia, and/or capsular/ligamentous laxity.1–3 These pathologies may lead to chondrolabral damage with associated pain, abnormal hip range of motion (ROM), decreased hip and lumbopelvic strength, and impaired neuromuscular control.1,3,4 As a result, individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain report decreased function and quality of life.1 During an examination, functional tests are utilized to compliment patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and assessments of strength and ROM.5–8 While a large number of functional performance tests have been proposed for the lower extremity,8–21 there is currently no agreement on which functional performance tests are optimal for use in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.

Functional performance testing may allow for a simultaneous assessment of muscle flexibility, ROM, strength, balance, and neuromuscular control.22–24 These tests may provide clinicians with valuable information regarding the impact of the impairments and allow for assessing patient progress over the course of treatment. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence and consensus supporting the use of specific functional performance tests during a physical therapy assessment of an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.

The purpose of this modified Delphi study was to present an international consensus statement that provides clinicians guidance regarding the use of functional performance tests in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. It was hypothesized that consensus could be achieved on when to utilize functional performance tests, how to determine which functional performance tests should be implemented, and which functional performance tests may be most useful for an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.

METHODS

Study Participants

Panelists were identified as experts in physical therapy management of non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain by the senior author from the physiotherapy section of International Society for Hip Preservation (ISHA) membership. Panelists were chosen to represent five continents with representation from Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Of the 14 identified individuals, 100% agreed to participate in the current study. The panelists were all specialists in sports/orthopedic physiotherapy and represented five countries with an average of 25 years (range: 9-40) experience. A summary of the panelist’s attributes can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. A Summary of Panelist Attributes.

Name Year of experience No. of hip-specific consultations per week Academic post Actively involved in research
Amir Takla 25 40 Yes Yes
Ashley Campbell 12 30 Yes Yes
Ashley Disantis 9 30 No Yes
David Kohlrieser 15 35 No Yes
Keelan Enseki 21 10 Yes Yes
Liran Lifshitz 28 30 No Yes
Louise Grant 30 50 No Yes
Mario Bizzini 35 6 Yes Yes
Mike Voight 40 10 Yes Yes
Mark Ryan 30 20 No Yes
RobRoy Martin 32 NA Yes Yes
Ryan McGovern 13 N/A No Yes
Timothy Tyler 35 11 No Yes
Yael Steinfeld 25 30 Yes Yes
Open in a new tab

Study Design

This study utilized a modified Delphi technique to establish group consensus on use of functional performance tests for individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.25,26 Methods for the current study are similar to those described in Disantis et al.27 Briefly, a list of relevant questions regarding the use of functional performance tests was determined and consensus was reached over three survey rounds. During round one, panelists were presented with list of potential topics via email. The senior author collected and organized all of the feedback to create an updated topic list. The second round included a face to face meeting with all the panelists where the updated topic list was presented with specific questions and responses being generated by the group. In the third and final round, the final question list and responses were emailed to all to panelists approval. A priori, consensus was defined as being ≥80%.

RESULTS

After the first two rounds the panelists agreed (14/14) that the following questions needed to be answered:

  1. At what time points do you utilize functional performance tests in an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain?

  2. How and why do you determine which functional performance tests should be utilized?

  3. Which functional performance tests are most useful for an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain?

A consensus statement to each question was achieved by 14/14 panelists after the third round.

DISCUSSION

At what time points do you utilize functional performance tests in an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain?

Consensus Statement

Physical therapists should utilize functional performance tests during the initial evaluation, subsequent re-evaluations, and discharge. Functional performance tests should also be utilized as criteria during return to sport testing in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.

Currently, there is a paucity of high-quality literature supporting the utilization of functional performance tests in individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. The Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapy clinical practice guidelines (CPG) recommend using functional performance tests during examination to identify activity and participation limitations in those with musculoskeletal conditions, including non-arthritic hip pain.1,28–34 Based on limited evidence, the CPG recommendations include evaluation of sitting, ambulation on level surfaces, stair negotiation, and sit-to stand performance.1 However, these activities do not represent the full spectrum of functional activity. Specifically, these tests do not assess single leg control or sport specific activities, which are common pre-injury functional demands of this patient population.

Returning to sport is a common goal of individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. Criteria to determine when an individual is ready to return to sport remains difficult. Determining readiness to return to sport should not be based solely on strength and ROM impairments.35–38 Measures of pain, strength, and ROM should be complemented with functional performance tests to help identify when individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain are ready to return to pre-injury activity.39

How and why do you determine which functional performance tests should be utilized?

Consensus Statement

Physical therapists should utilize functional performance tests as part of a multimodal assessment of neuromuscular control, strength, and ROM. They should be progressed in a graded fashion, depending on the patient’s identified impairments, level of irritability, individual characteristics, and individual goals.

Functional performance tests are a valuable tool for simultaneously evaluating strength, ROM, balance, and neuromuscular control,1 and an essential component of physical therapy evaluations. In individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain, studies have specifically supported functional performance tests as assessments of muscle strength,40–42 ROM,43,44 balance,44–48 and neuromuscular control.3,16,49 The specific functional performance tests utilized by the clinician should be dependent on current level of activity, irritability of the hip joint, and individual patient goals.

Another important consideration when selecting appropriate functional performance tests are their associated psychometric properties, including reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Reliability refers to the consistency of the test over time, while validity refers to the ability of the test to measure what it intends to measure. Responsiveness refers to the ability to identify expected clinical changes over time.50,51 Selecting functional performance tests with psychometric evidence may allow for interpretation of patients’ improvement over time.

Which functional performance tests are most useful for an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain?

Consensus Statement

Physical therapists should determine functional performance tests that challenge lumbopelvic and lower extremity neuromuscular control. Clinicians should choose functional performance tests based on intensity with low, medium, high, and sport specific tests that challenge limb support, speed, ROM, multiplanar control, and impact loading.

The panel recommends separating functional performance tests by level of intensity and classifying tests into categories of low, medium, high, and sport specific. Low intensity functional performance tests challenge neuromuscular control in a single plane, with no impact, and utilize a controlled speed. Specifically, low intensity tests should include single leg static tasks and those with double leg support and controlled ROM. Medium intensity functional performance tests should challenge neuromuscular control with multiplanar low impact movements at a controlled speed in a pain free ROM. High intensity functional performance tests progress to multiplanar, high-speed tests that incorporate greater impact and agility. Tests during this phase should mimic the activity or sport related goals of the patient. A summary of panelist recommend actions can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Examples of Functional Performance Tests.

Intensity Criteria Examples of Functional Performance Tests
Low Minimal/controlled speed Sit to Stand Test
Single plane Timed Single-Leg Stance Test
No impact Pain Free Double Leg Squat
Double leg support with movement or single leg static
Medium Controlled speed Y-Balance and SEBT
Low impact The Timed Stairs Ascent Test
Limited/ Controlled ROM Timed Walking Test
Deep Squat Test
Single Leg Squat and Step-Down Test
High Fast speed Hop Lunge Test
Multi planar Medial/ lateral triple hop
High impact Modified Agility T-test
Sport Specific Activity 3-4 clinician-selected sport specific activities
Open in a new tab

In addition to providing criteria to define low, medium, high, and sport specific functional performance tests, the panelists agreed upon examples of specific tests for each level of intensity. These example tests and available psychometric evidence are provided below. Note the function performance tests listed in Table 2 are meant to serve as example tests that meet the criteria at each intensity. Other tests that meet each criteria may be selected at a clinician’s discretion.

Low Intensity Functional Performance Tests

Sit to Stand Test

The Sit to Stand Test (STS) is performed by having the individual standing up and sitting down five times as quickly as possible while keeping the arms crossed over the chest.52 Individuals with FAIS and acetabular dysplasia have been shown to demonstrate poor performance on sit-to-stand tests compared to asymptomatic controls.52,53 Deficits on the STS test are also strongly associated with scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System(PROMIS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33), and Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).53 The psychometric properties of the STS test in individuals with hip dysplasia have also been explored, with Scott et al.52 reporting excellent inter-rater (MDC=0.36 seconds) and intra-rater reliability (MDC=4.71 seconds).

Timed Single-Leg Stance Test

The Timed Single-Leg Stance Test requires individuals to place their hands on their hips and stand on one leg for a duration of up to 30 seconds.54 In individuals with FAIS, hip abductor strength has been shown to be reduced in those who perform the timed single-leg stance test with poor pelvic control compared to those who performed the activity with good pelvic control.40 Additionally, those who perform poorly also scored lower on the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscale.40 The timed single-leg stance test demonstrated good inter-ratter and intra-rater reliability in individuals presenting with hip osteoarthritis and FAIS.40,54

Medium Intensity Functional Performance Tests

Star Excursion Balance Test and Y-Balance Test

The SEBT requires subjects to maintain a single-leg stance on the test leg while reaching the opposite leg in eight directions. The star excursion balance test (SEBT) and the Y-Balance test (YBT) are utilized to assess dynamic control of the lower extremity.45 Individuals with FAIS demonstrate lower reach distances in the posteromedial and posterolateral directions of the SEBT on the symptomatic lower extremity when compared the asymptomatic lower extremity.46 Additionally, reach distance in the posteromedial and posterolateral direction highly correlate with Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) symptom and pain intensity subscale scores.46 Similarly, Palsson et al.47 found patients with hip-related pain demonstrate decreased reach distance on the SEBT in the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions compared to healthy controls. The YBT was found to have high intra-rater reliability in all three directions in individuals with non-arthritic hip related groin pain.46 Furthermore, hip strength as well as hip internal rotation and flexion ROM contributed to reach distance in all directions on the YBT.44,48

Single Leg Squat Test and Step-down Test

The single-leg squat and step-down tests assess an individual’s ability to squat and step down on one leg, respectively, with the rater monitoring for lower extremity deviations.16 The single leg squat test (SLST) and step-down test (SDT) are utilized to assess single leg lumbopelvic and lower extremity neuromuscular control. A literature review by McGovern et al.3 found moderate-to-excellent inter-rater reliability for both tests in assessing neuromuscular control for the trunk, pelvis, hip and knee. Crossley et al.42 reported individuals who passed the SLST and SDT exhibited strong hip abduction strength and earlier onset timing activation than those who fail the SLST and SDT. Furthermore, a study by McGovern et al.16 found the tests to be reliable and valid, as there were significant differences in pain VAS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-sport scores between those that passed and failed the SLST and SDT on initial assessment. Also, patients with non-arthritic hip pain who demonstrate improvements on the SLST and SDT after undergoing a rehabilitation program demonstrated lower pain VAS scores and higher scores on the HOS-ADL and HOS-Sport than those who did not improve on the SLST and SDT.49

The Timed Stairs Ascent Test

The Timed Stairs Ascent Test (TSA) measures the time for the individual to ascend 12 of stairs as quickly as possible.52 Individuals with FAIS and acetabular dysplasia demonstrated poorer performance on the TSA test compared to asymptomatic controls.52,53 Performance on the TSA test has been shown to have a strong correlation with the PROMIS, HOOS, iHOT-33, and mHSS and a moderate correlation with the iHOT-12.52,53 Scott et al.52 found excellent inter-rater reliability with MDC value of 0.87 seconds and intra-rater reliability with MDC value of 1.81 seconds for the TSA test, when used to assess individuals with acetabular dysplasia.

Timed Walking Test

In the Timed Walking Test, individuals walk a 20-meter distance at a comfortable speed, and the time taken to cover the central 10 meters is recorded.52,53 Individuals with FAIS and acetabular dysplasia performed worse speed on the timed walking test compared to asymptomatic controls.52,53 In individuals with acetabular dysplasia, Scott et al.52 found excellent inter-rater reliability (MDC=0.09 m/s) and intra-rater reliability (MDC=0.35 m/s)

Deep Squat Test

Deep squat test requires individual to squat down as deeply as possible. The deep squat test is a measure of both lumbopelvic and lower extremity neuromuscular control. Ayeni et al.55 found a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 41%, respectively, in identifying individuals with a CAM-type deformity using the deep squat test. Those with FAIS display altered biomechanics during the deep squat test, including reduced hip internal rotation ROM, a posterior pelvic tilt, and hip extensor muscle activity during decent.56 Additionally, individuals with FAIS demonstrated reduced squat depth and altered lumbopelvic kinematics compared to healthy controls.57–59

High Level Functional Performance Tests

Hop Tests

The hop lunge test assesses lower body strength, power, and control by requiring participants to hop forward and lunge deeply. The hop lunge test has demonstrated good inter and intra-ratter reliability when used to assess individuals with FAIS, based on visual aseesment.40 Poor performance on this test has been associated with reduced hip abductor strength in patients with FAIS.40 The medial and lateral triple hop tests evaluate the individual’s ability to consecutively perform three hops on a single leg, with the total distance covered being recorded. A systematic review has shown good reliability of hop tests including the medial triple hop and lateral triple hop tests performed on dancers with FAI.8 Another study found dancers with FAI perform worse during medial and lateral hop triple tests compared to healthy dancers.60 Additionally, healthy women with weak hip muscles have been found to have altered coordination between the hip, knee, trunk and pelvis during hopping when compared to individuals with strong hip muscles.41

Modified Agility T-test

The modified agility T-test assesses an individual’s capacity for rapid change in direction and may be an important assessment tool for those returning to sports requiring agility, quickness, and speed.61 Males with FAIS demonstrated significantly lower speeds during the modified agility T-test compared to healthy controls.62 Sassi et al.63 found excellent test-retest reliability of the modified agility T-test in healthy athletes.

Sport Specific Testing

Sport specific testing should be individualized to the patient’s goals and required demands of their chosen sport(s). Specifically, sport specific testing should be tailored to mimic movements that pertain to the patient’s activity or sport.64 Sport-specific retraining represents a crucial final phase in the rehabilitation process to determine an athlete’s readiness for return to sport.64–66 Sport specific tests can have a positive impact on the athlete’s psychological readiness for return to their sport. Psychological readiness has become increasingly recognized as an important component of optimal performance and timely return to pre-injury performance levels.37,67 Jochimsen et al.2 found low self-efficacy and high kinesiophobia were associated with increased pain and decreased function in individuals with FAIS. The panel in this current study recommended utilization of 3-4 sport specific activities coupled with a PROM to assess fear of physical activity and fear avoidance, such as the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and Hip-Return to Sport after Injury Scale, when assessing for readiness for return to sport.68,69

LIMITATIONS

There are several limitations to this study. First, there is a paucity of high-quality literature supporting the use of functional performance tests in individuals with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. Initial study questions may be biased as they were generated by the panel of selected experts. To minimize bias, the senior author selected an international panel of experts in the management of these disorders. This panel of experts may not encompass all international opinions.

CONCLUSION

This international consensus statement provides recommendations for clinicians regarding selection and utilization of functional performance tests for use in this population. These recommendations will encourage greater consistency and standardization among clinicians during a physical therapy evaluation of an individual presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. Further research is needed to validate the categorization of tests and offer psychometric evidence to allow better interpretation of test results in subjects with non-arthritic intraarticular hip pathology.

Conflicts of interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

There is no financial support for the research.

References

  1. Nonarthritic hip joint pain. Enseki Keelan, Harris-Hayes Marcie, White Douglas M., Cibulka Michael T., Woehrle Judith, Fagerson Timothy L., Clohisy John C., Altman Roy D., Davenport Todd E., Delitto Anthony, DeWitt John, Fearon Helene, Ferland Amanda, Flynn Timothy L., Kusnell Jennifer, MacDermid Joy, Martin RobRoy L., Matheson James W., McClure Philip, Meyer John, Philippon Marc, Torburn Leslie. Jun;2014 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 44(6):A1–A32. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.0302. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.0302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anxiety and depression are associated with lower preoperative quality of life and function but not duration of symptoms in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Jochimsen Kate N, Magnuson Justin A, Kocan Kelsea R, Mattacola Carl G, Noehren Brian, Duncan Stephen T, Jacobs Cale A. Jul 13;2019 Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery. 6(3):207–213. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnz027. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnz027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Non-operative management of individuals with non-arthritic hip pain: A literature review. McGovern Ryan P., Martin RobRoy L., Kivlan Benjamin R., Christoforetti John J. Feb;2019 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 14(1):135–147. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20190135. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20190135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Physiotherapy as an initial treatment option for femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials. Hoit Graeme, Whelan Daniel B., Dwyer Tim, Ajrawat Prabjit, Chahal Jaskarndip. 2020The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 48(8):2042–2050. doi: 10.1177/0363546519882668. doi: 10.1177/0363546519882668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. The assessment of function: How is it measured? A clinical perspective. Reiman Michael P, Manske Robert C. May;2011 Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 19(2):91–99. doi: 10.1179/106698111x12973307659546. doi: 10.1179/106698111x12973307659546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kinematic and kinetic reliability of two jumping and landing physical performance tasks in young adult women. Ortiz A., Olson S., Libby C. L., Kwon Y. H., Trudelle-Jackson E. 2007N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2(2):104–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Preparticipation physical examination using a box drop vertical jump test in young athletes: the effects of puberty and sex. Hewett Timothy E., Myer Gregory D., Ford Kevin R., Slauterbeck James R. Jul;2006 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 16(4):298–304. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200607000-00003. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200607000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Functional performance testing of the hip in athletes: a systematic review for reliability and validity. Kivlan B. R., Martin R. L. 2012Int J Sports Phys Ther. 7(4):402–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Balance- and strength-training protocols to improve chronic ankle instability deficits, Part I: Assessing clinical outcome measures. Hall Emily A., Chomistek Andrea K., Kingma Jackie J., Docherty Carrie L. Jun 1;2018 Journal of Athletic Training. 53(6):568–577. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-385-16. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-385-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. The single leg squat test: A "Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up" functional performance test? Carroll Lindsay A, Kivlan Benjamin R, Martin RobRoy L, Phelps Amy L, Carcia Christopher R. Apr 1;2021 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 16(2):360–370. doi: 10.26603/001c.21317. doi: 10.26603/001c.21317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ability of functional performance tests to identify individuals with chronic ankle instability: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Rosen Adam B., Needle Alan R., Ko Jupil. Nov;2019 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 29(6):509–522. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000535. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Correlation between joint-position sense, peroneal strength, postural control, and functional performance ability in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability. Cho Byung-Ki, Park Ji-Kang. Apr 25;2019 Foot & Ankle International. 40(8):961–968. doi: 10.1177/1071100719846114. doi: 10.1177/1071100719846114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Functional performance deficits in patients with CAI: validity of the multiple hop test. Eechaute Christophe, Vaes Peter, Duquet William. Mar;2008 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 18(2):124–129. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0b013e31816148d2. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0b013e31816148d2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. The ability of 4 single-limb hopping tests to detect functional performance deficits in individuals with functional ankle instability. Caffrey Erin, Docherty Carrie L., Schrader John, Klossnner Joanne. Nov;2009 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 39(11):799–806. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.3042. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.3042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Reliability and validity of functional performance tests in dancers with hip dysfunction. Kivlan B. R., Carcia C. R., Clemente F. R., Phelps A. L., Martin R. L. 2013Int J Sports Phys Ther. 8(4):360–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Evidence for reliability and validity of functional performance testing in the evaluation of nonarthritic hip pain. McGovern Ryan P., Christoforetti John J., Martin RobRoy L., Phelps Amy L., Kivlan Benjamin R. Mar 1;2019 Journal of Athletic Training. 54(3):276–282. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-33-18. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-33-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Carryover effect of hip and knee exercises program on functional performance in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Ahmed Hamada Hamada, Hussein Draz Amira, Koura Ghada Mohamed, Saab Ibtissam M. 2017Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 29(8):1341–1347. doi: 10.1589/jpts.29.1341. doi: 10.1589/jpts.29.1341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Correlation between Y-Balance test and balance, functional performance, and outcome measures in patients following ACL reconstruction. Kim Jin Seong, Hwang Ui Jae, Choi Moon Young, Kong Doo Hwan, Chung Kyu Sung, Ha Jeong Ku, Kwon Oh Yun. Feb 1;2022 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 17(2):193–200. doi: 10.26603/001c.31873. doi: 10.26603/001c.31873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. What tests should be used to assess functional performance in youth and young adults following anterior cruciate ligament or meniscal injury? A systematic review of measurement properties for the OPTIKNEE consensus. Berg Bjørnar, Urhausen Anouk P, Øiestad Britt Elin, Whittaker Jackie L, Culvenor Adam G, Roos Ewa M, Crossley Kay M, Juhl Carsten B, Risberg May Arna. Jun 13;2022 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 56(24):1454–1464. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105510. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Forward lunge as a functional performance test in ACL deficient subjects: test–retest reliability. Alkjaer Tine, Henriksen Marius, Dyhre-Poulsen Poul, Simonsen Erik B. Jun;2009 The Knee. 16(3):176–182. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2008.11.011. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2008.11.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Validation of functional performance tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Kong Doo Hwan, Yang Sang Jin, Ha Jeong Ku, Jang Seok Hwan, Seo Jung Gook, Kim Jin Goo. Mar 30;2012 Knee Surgery & Related Research. 24(1):40–45. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.2012.24.1.40. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.2012.24.1.40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance. Okada Tomoko, Huxel Kellie C, Nesser Thomas W. Jan;2011 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 25(1):252–261. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181b22b3e. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181b22b3e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. The effect of a 10-week training regimen on lumbo-pelvic stability and athletic performance in female athletes: A randomized-controlled trial. Mills Jonathan D., Taunton Jack E., Mills William A. May;2005 Physical Therapy in Sport. 6(2):60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.02.006. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. Cook G., Burton L., Hoogenboom B. 2006N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 1(2):62–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities in HPB surgery across the United Kingdom. Knight Stephen R., Pathak Samir, Christie Alan, Jones Louise, Rees Jonathan, Davies Hayley, Wilson Michael S.J., Vaughan-Shaw Peter, Roberts Keith, Toogood Giles, Harrison Ewen M., Taylor Mark A. Nov;2019 HPB. 21(11):1446–1452. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.03.352. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.03.352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery. Wilson Michael S., Blencowe Natalie S., Boyle Christopher, Knight Stephen R., Petty Russell, Vohra Ravi S., Underwood Tim J. Dec;2020 The Surgeon. 18(6):321–326. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2019.11.003. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2019.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rehabilitation guidelines for use following a periacetabular osteotomy (PAO): A North American based Delphi Consensus. Disantis Ashley E., Ruh Ethan, Martin RobRoy, Enseki Keelan, McClincy Michael. Oct 2;2022 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 17(6):1002–1015. doi: 10.26603/001c.38043. doi: 10.26603/001c.38043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hip pain and mobility deficits-hip osteoarthritis: Revision 2017. Cibulka Michael T., Bloom Nancy J., Enseki Keelan R., Macdonald Cameron W., Woehrle Judith, McDonough Christine M. Jun;2017 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 47(6):A1–A37. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.0301. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.0301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heel pain-plantar fasciitis: Revision 2014. Martin Robroy L., Davenport Todd E., Reischl Stephen F., McPoil Thomas G., Matheson James W., Wukich Dane K., McDonough Christine M., Altman Roy D., Beattie Paul, Cornwall Mark, Davis Irene, DeWitt John, Elliott James, Irrgang James J., Kaplan Sandra, Paulseth Stephen, Torburn Leslie, Zachazewski James, Godges Joseph J. Nov;2014 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 44(11):A1–A33. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.0303. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.0303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Knee stability and movement coordination impairments: knee ligament sprain. Logerstedt David S., Snyder-Mackler Lynn, Ritter Richard C., Axe Michael J., Godges Joseph J. Apr;2010 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 40(4):A1–A37. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2010.0303. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2010.0303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ankle stability and movement coordination impairments: Lateral ankle ligament sprains Revision 2021. Martin Robroy L., Davenport Todd E., Fraser John J., Sawdon-Bea Jenna, Carcia Christopher R., Carroll Lindsay A., Kivlan Benjamin R., Carreira Dominic. Apr;2021 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 51(4):CPG1–CPG80. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2021.0302. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2021.0302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Knee pain and mobility impairments: Meniscal and articular cartilage lesions revision 2018. Logerstedt David S., Scalzitti David A., Bennell Kim L., Hinman Rana S., Silvers-Granelli Holly, Ebert Jay, Hambly Karen, Carey James L., Snyder-Mackler Lynn, Axe Michael J., McDonough Christine M. Feb;2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 48(2):A1–A50. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.0301. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.0301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Patellofemoral pain. Willy Richard W., Hoglund Lisa T., Barton Christian J., Bolgla Lori A., Scalzitti David A., Logerstedt David S., Lynch Andrew D., Snyder-Mackler Lynn, McDonough Christine M. Sep;2019 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 49(9):CPG1–CPG95. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.0302. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.0302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hamstring strain injury in athletes. Martin Robroy L., Cibulka Michael T., Bolgla Lori A., Koc Thomas A. Jr., Loudon Janice K., Manske Robert C., Weiss Leigh, Christoforetti John J., Heiderscheit Bryan C. Mar;2022 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 52(3):CPG1–CPG44. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.0301. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.0301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Muscle strength and functional performance is markedly impaired at the recommended time point for sport return after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in recreational athletes. Larsen Jesper Bie, Farup Jean, Lind Martin, Dalgas Ulrik. Feb;2015 Human Movement Science. 39:73–87. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.10.008. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Muscle strength and functional performance in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury treated with training and surgical reconstruction or training only: a two to five-year followup. Ageberg Eva, Thomeé Roland, Neeter Camille, Silbernagel Karin Grävare, Roos Ewa M. Nov 26;2008 Arthritis Care & Research. 59(12):1773–1779. doi: 10.1002/art.24066. doi: 10.1002/art.24066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Ardern C. L., Webster K. E., Taylor N. F., Feller J. A. Mar 11;2011 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 45(7):596–606. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Development of a strength test battery for evaluating leg muscle power after anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Neeter Camille, Gustavsson Alexander, Thomeé Pia, Augustsson Jesper, Thomeé Roland, Karlsson Jon. Feb 14;2006 Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 14(6):571–580. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0040-y. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0040-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Return to play after hip arthroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. O’Connor Michaela, Minkara Anas A., Westermann Robert W., Rosneck James, Lynch T. Sean. Mar 29;2018 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 46(11):2780–2788. doi: 10.1177/0363546518759731. doi: 10.1177/0363546518759731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Clinical rating of movement-pattern quality in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A methodological study. Casartelli Nicola C., Maffiuletti Nicola A., Brunner Romana, Büchi Marcel, Sutter Reto, Pfirrmann Christian W., Naal Florian D., Leunig Michael, Bizzini Mario. Apr;2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 48(4):260–269. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7840. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. The influence of hip strength on lower-limb, pelvis, and trunk kinematics and coordination patterns during walking and hopping in healthy women. Smith Jo Armour, Popovich John M., Jr., Kulig Kornelia. Jul;2014 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 44(7):525–531. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.5028. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.5028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. Feb 18;2011 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 39(4):866–873. doi: 10.1177/0363546510395456. doi: 10.1177/0363546510395456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. The effect of hip joint mobilizations using a mobilization belt on hip range of motion and functional outcomes. Brun Alex, Sandrey Michelle A. 2020Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 30(4):559–567. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0544. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hip Strength and range of movement are associated with dynamic postural control performance in individuals scheduled for arthroscopic hip surgery. Freke Matthew, Kemp Joanne, Semciw Adam, Sims Kevin, Russell Trevor, Singh Parminder, Crossley Kay. Apr;2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 48(4):280–288. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7946. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Support for a reduction in the number of trials needed for the star excursion balance test. Robinson Richard H., Gribble Phillip A. Feb;2008 Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 89(2):364–370. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.139. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. The Star Excursion Balance Test: Criterion and divergent validity on patients with femoral acetabular impingement. Johansson Ann-Christin, Karlsson Hillevi. Dec;2016 Manual Therapy. 26:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2016.07.015. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2016.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Physical impairments in longstanding hip and groin pain: Cross-sectional comparison of patients with hip-related pain or non-hip-related groin pain and healthy controls. Pålsson Anders, Kostogiannis Ioannis, Ageberg Eva. Nov;2021 Physical Therapy in Sport. 52:224–233. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.09.011. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kinematic predictors of performance on the Star Excursion Balance Test. Robinson Richard, Gribble Phillip. Nov;2008 Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 17(4):347–357. doi: 10.1123/jsr.17.4.347. doi: 10.1123/jsr.17.4.347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Conservative management acutely improves functional movement and clinical outcomes in patients with pre-arthritic hip pain. McGovern Ryan P, Martin RobRoy L, Phelps Amy L, Kivlan Benjamin R, Nickel Beth, Christoforetti John J. Jan 1;2020 Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery. 7(1):95–102. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnz075. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnz075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. Martin Robroy L., Irrgang James J. Feb;2007 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 37(2):72–84. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinically important outcome values in hip arthroscopy: A systematic review. Ueland Thomas E., Disantis Ashley, Carreira Dominic S., Martin RobRoy L. Jan;2021 JBJS Reviews. 9(1):e20.00084. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.20.00084. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.20.00084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Assessment of disability related to hip dysplasia using objective measures of physical performance. Scott Elizabeth J., Willey Michael C., Mercado Arthur, Davison John, Wilken Jason M. Feb 1;2020 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 8(2):2325967120903290. doi: 10.1177/2325967120903290. doi: 10.1177/2325967120903290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Assessment of disability related to femoroacetabular impingement syndrome by use of the patient-reported outcome measure information system (PROMIS) and objective measures of physical performance. Sheean Andrew J., Schmitz Matthew R., Ward Catherine L., Barrow Aaron E., Tennent David J., Roach Christopher J., Burns Travis C., Wilken Jason M. Jun 13;2017 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 45(11):2476–2482. doi: 10.1177/0363546517708793. doi: 10.1177/0363546517708793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Interrater and intrarater reliability of common clinical standing balance tests for people with hip osteoarthritis. Choi Yik Ming, Dobson Fiona, Martin Joel, Bennell Kim L., Hinman Rana S. May 1;2014 Physical Therapy. 94(5):696–704. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130266. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. A painful squat test provides limited diagnostic utility in CAM-type femoroacetabular impingement. Ayeni Olufemi, Chu Raymond, Hetaimish Bandar, Nur Liin, Simunovic Nicole, Farrokhyar Forough, Bedi Asheesh, Bhandari Mohit. 2014Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 22(4):806–811. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2668-8. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2668-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Hip kinematics and kinetics in persons with and without cam femoroacetabular impingement during a deep squat task. Bagwell Jennifer J., Snibbe Jason, Gerhardt Michael, Powers Christopher M. Jan;2016 Clinical Biomechanics. 31:87–92. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.016. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Asymptomatic participants with a femoroacetabular deformity demonstrate stronger hip extensors and greater pelvis mobility during the deep squat task. Catelli Danilo S., Kowalski Erik, Beaulé Paul E., Smit Kevin, Lamontagne Mario. Jul;2018 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 6(7):2325967118782484. doi: 10.1177/2325967118782484. doi: 10.1177/2325967118782484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Increased pelvic mobility and altered hip muscles contraction patterns: two-year follow-up cam-FAIS corrective surgery. Catelli Danilo S, Kowalski Erik, Beaulé Paul E, Lamontagne Mario. Jun 10;2019 Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery. 6(2):140–148. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnz019. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnz019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. The effect of cam FAI on hip and pelvic motion during maximum squat. Lamontagne Mario, Kennedy Matthew J., Beaulé Paul E. Mar;2009 Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 467(3):645–650. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0620-x. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0620-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Comparison of range of motion, strength, and hop test performance of dancers with and without femoroacetabular impingement. Kivlan B. R., Carcia C. R., Christoforetti J. J., Martin R. L. 2016Int J Sports Phys Ther. 11(4):527–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Test-retest reliability, criterion-related validity, and minimal detectable change of the Illinois agility test in male team sport athletes. Hachana Younes, Chaabène Helmi, Nabli Mohamed A., Attia Ahmed, Moualhi Jamel, Farhat Najiba, Elloumi Mohamed. Oct;2013 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 27(10):2752–2759. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182890ac3. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182890ac3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Differences in athletic performance between sportsmen with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement and healthy controls. Mullins Karen, Hanlon Michael, Carton Patrick. Jul;2018 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 28(4):370–376. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000460. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Relative and absolute reliability of a modified agility T-test and its relationship with vertical jump and straight sprint. Sassi Radhouane Haj, Dardouri Wajdi, Yahmed Mohamed Haj, Gmada Nabil, Mahfoudhi Mohamed Elhedi, Gharbi Zied. Sep;2009 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 23(6):1644–1651. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181b425d2. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181b425d2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Optimising the late-stage rehabilitation and return-to-sport training and testing process after ACL reconstruction. Buckthorpe Matthew. Apr 19;2019 Sports Medicine. 49(7):1043–1058. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01102-z. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01102-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Lack of consensus on return-to-sport criteria following lateral ankle sprain: A systematic review of expert opinions. Wikstrom Erik A., Mueller Cole, Cain Mary Spencer. Feb 1;2020 Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 29(2):231–237. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0038. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Ardern Clare L, Glasgow Philip, Schneiders Anthony, Witvrouw Erik, Clarsen Benjamin, Cools Ann, Gojanovic Boris, Griffin Steffan, Khan Karim M, Moksnes Håvard, Mutch Stephen A, Phillips Nicola, Reurink Gustaaf, Sadler Robin, Grävare Silbernagel Karin, Thorborg Kristian, Wangensteen Arnlaug, Wilk Kevin E, Bizzini Mario. May 25;2016 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 50(14):853–864. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. A prospective longitudinal study to assess psychological changes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Langford J L, Webster K E, Feller J A. 2009British Journal of Sports Medicine. 43(5):377–381. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044818. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Psychological readiness is related to return to sport following hip arthroscopy and can be assessed by the Hip-Return to Sport after Injury scale (Hip-RSI) Wörner Tobias, Thorborg Kristian, Webster Kate E., Stålman Anders, Eek Frida. 2021Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 29(5):1353–1361. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06157-4. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06157-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: a psychometric assessment of the original English version of the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia (TSK) French Douglas J., France Christopher R., Vigneau François, French Julie A., Evans Thomas R. Jan;2007 Pain. 127(1-2):42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.07.016. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy are provided here courtesy of North American Sports Medicine Institute

RESOURCES