Publication Cover
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
An International Journal of Physical Therapy
Volume 37, 2021 - Issue 8
365
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Report

Athletes with a clinical rating of good and poor lumbopelvic stability have different kinematic variables during single leg squat and dip test

, M Sports Physio, PTORCID Icon, , PhD, PTORCID Icon, , B Physio (Hons), PT & , PhD, PT
Pages 906-915 | Received 15 Jun 2018, Accepted 11 Jul 2019, Published online: 22 Aug 2019
 

ABSTRACT

Objectives

To examine the kinematics of athletes with good and poor lumbopelvic stability (LPS) based on clinical rating criteria of single leg squat (SLS) and dip test (DT) The aim was to establish if good and poor LPS categorization is supported by differences in kinematic variables.

Methods

Sixty-two recreational athletes had their LPS categorized using clinical rating criteria for SLS and DT as good, poor or neither good nor poor. Kinematic measures were examined in those with good (N = 8) or poor (N = 14) LPS and results compared to the rating criteria.

Results

Multiple clinical rating criteria for good and poor LPS groups were distinguished by kinematic measures. Smoothness of motion for both SLS and DT distinguished good and poor LPS. Minimal (good) or discernible movement (poor) out of the starting plane was confirmed with kinematic measures. For SLS these movements were: weight-bearing hip adduction, non-weightbearing hip abduction, pelvic rotation, and trunk sideflexion, and for DT: weightbearing hip adduction, non-weightbearing hip abduction and pelvic obliquity. Additionally, hip dissociation (SLS) distinguished good and poor LPS.

Conclusion

Athletes with good and poor LPS have different kinematic measures in single leg squat and dip test. Multiple clinical rating criteria of LPS that distinguish good and poor stability were confirmed by kinematic measures.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Supplemental material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website

Additional information

Funding

Funding for the project was provided by La Trobe University

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.