Ground condition as a risk factor in sports injury aetiology studies : the level of concordance between objective and subjective measures
- Twomey, Dara, Petrass, Lauren, Orchard, John, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Petrass, Lauren , Orchard, John , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Injury Epidemiology Vol. 1, no. 1 (2014), p.1-7
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description:
BACKGROUND:It is well known that the condition and type of sporting ground influences the risk of sports injury. However, the lack of evidence on the relationship between subjective and objective sporting ground condition assessments in sports injury aetiology studies has implications for the development of effective injury prevention strategies. This paper aims to examine concordance between subjectively rated and objective ground hardness and moisture measurements to inform data collection methods for future sports injury aetiology studies. METHODS:Subjective, observational assessments of ground hardness and soil moisture were recorded on 36 occasions during an Australian football season using two four-point scales of 'very soft' to 'very hard' and 'very wet' to 'very dry', respectively. Independent, objectively measured hardness and soil moisture were also undertaken at nine locations on the same grounds. The maximum and minimum ground values and the computed average of ground hardness and soil moisture were analysed. Somer's d statistic was calculated to measure the level of concordance between the subjective and objective measures. RESULTS:A significant, moderate to substantial level of agreement was found between the subjective ratings and the average objective hardness values (d = 0.467, p <0.001), but there was perfect agreement on just less than half of the occasions. The level of concordance between the subjective and objective moisture ratings was low to moderate or trivial for all moisture measures (0.002
0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to objective measures, the subjective assessments were more accurate for ground hardness than for soil moisture levels and raters were just as likely to underestimate or overestimate the condition under review. This has implications for future sports injury aetiology studies that include ground condition assessments and particularly the use of subjective measures to underpin the development of future injury prevention strategies.
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Petrass, Lauren , Orchard, John , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Injury Epidemiology Vol. 1, no. 1 (2014), p.1-7
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description:
BACKGROUND:It is well known that the condition and type of sporting ground influences the risk of sports injury. However, the lack of evidence on the relationship between subjective and objective sporting ground condition assessments in sports injury aetiology studies has implications for the development of effective injury prevention strategies. This paper aims to examine concordance between subjectively rated and objective ground hardness and moisture measurements to inform data collection methods for future sports injury aetiology studies. METHODS:Subjective, observational assessments of ground hardness and soil moisture were recorded on 36 occasions during an Australian football season using two four-point scales of 'very soft' to 'very hard' and 'very wet' to 'very dry', respectively. Independent, objectively measured hardness and soil moisture were also undertaken at nine locations on the same grounds. The maximum and minimum ground values and the computed average of ground hardness and soil moisture were analysed. Somer's d statistic was calculated to measure the level of concordance between the subjective and objective measures. RESULTS:A significant, moderate to substantial level of agreement was found between the subjective ratings and the average objective hardness values (d = 0.467, p <0.001), but there was perfect agreement on just less than half of the occasions. The level of concordance between the subjective and objective moisture ratings was low to moderate or trivial for all moisture measures (0.002
0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to objective measures, the subjective assessments were more accurate for ground hardness than for soil moisture levels and raters were just as likely to underestimate or overestimate the condition under review. This has implications for future sports injury aetiology studies that include ground condition assessments and particularly the use of subjective measures to underpin the development of future injury prevention strategies.
Ground hardness and injury in community level Australian football
- Twomey, Dara, Finch, Caroline, Lloyd, David, Elliott, Bruce, Doyle, Tim
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Finch, Caroline , Lloyd, David , Elliott, Bruce , Doyle, Tim
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol.15, no. (4), p.305-310
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective: To describe the risk and details of injuries associated with ground hardness in community level Australian football (AF). Design: Prospective injury surveillance with periodic objective ground hardness measurement. Methods: 112 ground hardness assessments were undertaken using a Clegg hammer at nine locations across 20 grounds, over the 2007 and 2008 AF seasons. Details of 352 injuries sustained by community level players on those grounds were prospectively collected as part of a large randomised controlled trial. The ground location of the injury was matched to the nearest corresponding ground hardness Clegg hammer readings, in gravities (g), which were classified from unacceptably low (<30 g) to unacceptably high hardness (>120 g). Results: Clegg hammer readings ranged from 25 to 301 g. Clegg hammer hardness categories from low/normal to high/normal were associated with the majority of injuries, with only 3.7% (13 injuries) on unacceptably high hardness and 0.3% (1 injury) on the unacceptably low hardness locations. Relative to the preferred range of hardness, the risk of sustaining an injury on low/normal hardness locations was 1.31 (95%CI: 1.06-1.62) times higher and 1.82 (95%CI: 1.17-2.85) times higher on locations with unacceptably high hardness. The more severe injuries occurred with low/normal ground hardness. Conclusions: Despite the low number of injuries, the risk of sustaining an injury on low/normal and unacceptably hard grounds was significantly greater than on the preferred range of hardness. Notably, the severity of the injuries sustained on unacceptably hard grounds was lower than for other categories of hardness. © 2012 Sports Medicine Australia.
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Finch, Caroline , Lloyd, David , Elliott, Bruce , Doyle, Tim
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol.15, no. (4), p.305-310
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective: To describe the risk and details of injuries associated with ground hardness in community level Australian football (AF). Design: Prospective injury surveillance with periodic objective ground hardness measurement. Methods: 112 ground hardness assessments were undertaken using a Clegg hammer at nine locations across 20 grounds, over the 2007 and 2008 AF seasons. Details of 352 injuries sustained by community level players on those grounds were prospectively collected as part of a large randomised controlled trial. The ground location of the injury was matched to the nearest corresponding ground hardness Clegg hammer readings, in gravities (g), which were classified from unacceptably low (<30 g) to unacceptably high hardness (>120 g). Results: Clegg hammer readings ranged from 25 to 301 g. Clegg hammer hardness categories from low/normal to high/normal were associated with the majority of injuries, with only 3.7% (13 injuries) on unacceptably high hardness and 0.3% (1 injury) on the unacceptably low hardness locations. Relative to the preferred range of hardness, the risk of sustaining an injury on low/normal hardness locations was 1.31 (95%CI: 1.06-1.62) times higher and 1.82 (95%CI: 1.17-2.85) times higher on locations with unacceptably high hardness. The more severe injuries occurred with low/normal ground hardness. Conclusions: Despite the low number of injuries, the risk of sustaining an injury on low/normal and unacceptably hard grounds was significantly greater than on the preferred range of hardness. Notably, the severity of the injuries sustained on unacceptably hard grounds was lower than for other categories of hardness. © 2012 Sports Medicine Australia.
Injury risk associated with ground hardness in junior cricket
- Twomey, Dara, White, Peta, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , White, Peta , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2011
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol.15 , no.2 (2011), p.110-115
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: To establish if there is an association between ground hardness and injury risk in junior cricket. Nested case-series of players who played matches on specific grounds with objective ground hardness measures, within a prospective cohort study of junior community club cricket players. Monitoring of injuries and playing exposure occurred during 434 matches over the 2007/2008 playing season. Objective assessment of the hardness of 38 grounds was undertaken using a Clegg hammer at 13 sites on 19 different junior cricket grounds on the match eve across the season. Hardness readings were classified from unacceptably low (<30 g) to unacceptably high (>120 g) and two independent raters assessed the likelihood of each injury being related to ground hardness. Injuries sustained on tested grounds were related to the ground hardness measures. Overall, 31 match injuries were reported; 6.5% were rated as likely to be related to ground hardness, 16.1% as possibly related and 74.2% as unlikely to be related and 3.2% unknown. The two injuries likely to be related to ground hardness were sustained while diving to catch a ball resulting, in a graze/laceration from contact with hard ground. Overall, 31/38 (82%) ground assessments were rated as having 'unacceptably high' hardness and all others as 'high/normal' hardness. Only one injury occurred on an objectively tested ground. It remains unclear if ground hardness is a contributing factor to the most common injury mechanism of being struck by the ball, and needs to be confirmed in future larger-scale studies. © 2011 Sports Medicine Australia.
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , White, Peta , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2011
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol.15 , no.2 (2011), p.110-115
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: To establish if there is an association between ground hardness and injury risk in junior cricket. Nested case-series of players who played matches on specific grounds with objective ground hardness measures, within a prospective cohort study of junior community club cricket players. Monitoring of injuries and playing exposure occurred during 434 matches over the 2007/2008 playing season. Objective assessment of the hardness of 38 grounds was undertaken using a Clegg hammer at 13 sites on 19 different junior cricket grounds on the match eve across the season. Hardness readings were classified from unacceptably low (<30 g) to unacceptably high (>120 g) and two independent raters assessed the likelihood of each injury being related to ground hardness. Injuries sustained on tested grounds were related to the ground hardness measures. Overall, 31 match injuries were reported; 6.5% were rated as likely to be related to ground hardness, 16.1% as possibly related and 74.2% as unlikely to be related and 3.2% unknown. The two injuries likely to be related to ground hardness were sustained while diving to catch a ball resulting, in a graze/laceration from contact with hard ground. Overall, 31/38 (82%) ground assessments were rated as having 'unacceptably high' hardness and all others as 'high/normal' hardness. Only one injury occurred on an objectively tested ground. It remains unclear if ground hardness is a contributing factor to the most common injury mechanism of being struck by the ball, and needs to be confirmed in future larger-scale studies. © 2011 Sports Medicine Australia.
- Twomey, Dara, Ullah, Shahid, Petrass, Lauren
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Ullah, Shahid , Petrass, Lauren
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology Vol. 228, no. 1 (2014), p. 33-39
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: The Clegg hammer is currently used to measure hardness of natural turf surfaces to inform performance and safety decisions. However, the number of Clegg hammer drops reported in natural grass testing varies from one to four drops, and the impact of the choice of the number of drops is unknown. The aim of this article is to determine whether significant differences exist between the four Clegg hammer drops on natural grass across a variety of conditions. Hardness readings (using a 2.25 kg Clegg hammer), soil moisture and botanical composition were recorded at nine different sites on seven football fields during an 18-week playing season. A total of 1255 hardness readings were collected for each of four consecutive Clegg hammer drops. Overall, there were significant differences between drop 1 and the other three consecutive drops, on all fields and on all sites. Deep soil moisture was the only factor that significantly influenced the hardness readings. The results of this study demonstrate that the decision regarding the number of drops recorded needs careful consideration as conclusions drawn on playability of a ground or the association with injury risk may vary considerably depending on the number of drops. © 2013 IMechE.
Reliability of equipment for measuring the ground hardness and traction
- Twomey, Dara, Otago, Leonie, Ullah, Shahid, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Otago, Leonie , Ullah, Shahid , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2011
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology Vol. 225, no. 3 (2011), p. 131-137
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: The aim of this paper is to report the inter-rater reliabilities and intra-rater reliabilities of the Clegg hammer, penetrometer, and studded-boot apparatus used for measuring the mechanical properties of natural turf, and to determine whether the level of experience influences the reliability. Three experienced and three novice testers measured the surface hardness and rotational traction at nine locations on a community-level Australian football oval. A repeated-measures analysis of variance tested for significant differences between the six testers for all equipment, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to determine the inter-rater reliabilities and intra-rater reliabilities. The ICCs for the reliability between the six testers ranged between 0.77 and 0.87 for the Clegg hammer, ranged between 0.55 and 0.73 for the penetrometer, and equalled 0.51 for the studded-boot apparatus. The inter-rater reliabilities and intra-rater reliabilities were greater for the experienced testers than for the novice testers for the Clegg hammer and penetrometer but the novice testers produced greater inter-rater reliabilities for the studded-boot apparatus. This study highlights the potential variability that can exist between testers using the ground hardness and traction equipment, which has implications for future research involving multiple testers both in agronomic-based studies and in linking the surface properties to the injury risk across multiple venues. © Authors 2011.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »