Objectives: 1) Determine the concurrent validity of using automated 2D video analysis relative to 3D motion capture for assessing frontal and sagittal-plane knee kinematics during landing, 2) compare the accuracy of visually estimating joint center locations (2D Manual) with computing joint center locations using anatomical markers (2D Automatic), and 3) compare landing kinematics between a controlled laboratory setting and a non-laboratory setting.
Design: Validity/repeatability study.
Settings: Biomechanics research laboratory and non-laboratory athletic facility.
Participants: Thirty uninjured recreational athletes.
Main outcome measures: Peak knee flexion, knee flexion range of motion, peak knee frontal plane projection angle, and knee frontal plane projection angle range of motion during bilateral and unilateral landing were measured simultaneously in 3D using motion capture and in 2D using two low-cost video cameras during the first study session (biomechanics research laboratory), and in 2D only during the second study session (non-laboratory athletic facility).
Results: There was good to excellent agreement between 3D motion capture and both 2D Manual (ICC = 0.86-0.99) and 2D Automatic (ICC = 0.89-0.99) video analysis methods. There was good to excellent agreement between data collected in a laboratory and non-laboratory setting (ICC = 0.75-0.95).
Conclusion: The methods introduced in this study are inexpensive, reliable, and feasible for use in non-laboratory settings.
Keywords: Biomechanics; Injury prevention; Rehabilitation; Video analysis.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.