Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Selecting outcome measures in sports medicine: a guide for practitioners using the example of anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation
  1. N P Bent1,
  2. C C Wright1,
  3. A B Rushton1,
  4. M E Batt2
  1. 1
    School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2
    Centre for Sports Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr N P Bent, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, 52 Pritchatts Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; n.p.bent{at}


Using examples from the field of anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation, this review provides sports and health practitioners with a comprehensive, user-friendly, guide to selecting outcome measures for use with active populations. A series of questions are presented for consideration when selecting a measure: is the measure appropriate for the intended use? (appropriateness); is the measure acceptable to patients? (acceptability); is it feasible to use the measure? (feasibility); does the measure provide meaningful results? (interpretability); does the measure provide reproducible values? (reliability); does the measure assess what it is supposed to assess? (validity); can the measure detect change? (responsiveness); do substantial proportions of patients achieve the worst or best scores? (floor and ceiling effects); is the measure structured and scored correctly? (dimensionality and internal consistency); has the measure been tested with the types of patients with whom it will be used? (sample characteristics). Evaluation of the measure using these questions will assist practitioners in making their judgements.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.