Injury Risk Estimation Expertise

Interdisciplinary Differences in Performance on the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz

Erich J. Petushek, Paul Ward, Edward T. Cokely, Gregory D. Myer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background:
Simple observational assessment of movement is a potentially low-cost method for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury screening and prevention. Although many individuals utilize some form of observational assessment of movement, there are currently no substantial data on group skill differences in observational screening of ACL injury risk.

Purpose/Hypothesis:
The purpose of this study was to compare various groups’ abilities to visually assess ACL injury risk as well as the associated strategies and ACL knowledge levels. The hypothesis was that sports medicine professionals would perform better than coaches and exercise science academics/students and that these subgroups would all perform better than parents and other general population members.

Study Design:
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:
A total of 428 individuals, including physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, exercise science researchers/students, athletes, parents, and members of the general public participated in the study. Participants completed the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz (ACL-IQ) and answered questions related to assessment strategy and ACL knowledge.

Results:
Strength and conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, physical therapists, and exercise science students exhibited consistently superior ACL injury risk estimation ability (+2 SD) as compared with sport coaches, parents of athletes, and members of the general public. The performance of a substantial number of individuals in the exercise sciences/sports medicines (approximately 40%) was similar to or exceeded clinical instrument-based biomechanical assessment methods (eg, ACL nomogram). Parents, sport coaches, and the general public had lower ACL-IQ, likely due to their lower ACL knowledge and to rating the importance of knee/thigh motion lower and weight and jump height higher.

Conclusion:
Substantial cross-professional/group differences in visual ACL injury risk estimation exist. The relatively profound differences in injury risk estimation accuracy and their potential implications for risk screening suggest the need for additional training and outreach (see http://www.ACL-IQ.org).

Clinical Relevance:
Parents and sport coaches would likely benefit from training or use of decision support tools such as the ACL nomogram to assess ACL injury risk. In addition, physicians and other sports medicine professionals may also benefit from improving risk estimation performance to reach clinical biomechanical standards.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages7
JournalOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume3
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Nov 2015

Fingerprint

Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Sports
Wounds and Injuries
Parents
Sports Medicine
Exercise
Nomograms
Aptitude
Physical Therapists
Students
Athletes
Physicians
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
Thigh
Mentoring
Knee
Cross-Sectional Studies
Research Personnel
Weights and Measures
Costs and Cost Analysis

Cite this

@article{d75bb30f14e845a08c64bc7432382494,
title = "Injury Risk Estimation Expertise: Interdisciplinary Differences in Performance on the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz",
abstract = "Background:Simple observational assessment of movement is a potentially low-cost method for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury screening and prevention. Although many individuals utilize some form of observational assessment of movement, there are currently no substantial data on group skill differences in observational screening of ACL injury risk.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare various groups’ abilities to visually assess ACL injury risk as well as the associated strategies and ACL knowledge levels. The hypothesis was that sports medicine professionals would perform better than coaches and exercise science academics/students and that these subgroups would all perform better than parents and other general population members.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A total of 428 individuals, including physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, exercise science researchers/students, athletes, parents, and members of the general public participated in the study. Participants completed the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz (ACL-IQ) and answered questions related to assessment strategy and ACL knowledge.Results:Strength and conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, physical therapists, and exercise science students exhibited consistently superior ACL injury risk estimation ability (+2 SD) as compared with sport coaches, parents of athletes, and members of the general public. The performance of a substantial number of individuals in the exercise sciences/sports medicines (approximately 40{\%}) was similar to or exceeded clinical instrument-based biomechanical assessment methods (eg, ACL nomogram). Parents, sport coaches, and the general public had lower ACL-IQ, likely due to their lower ACL knowledge and to rating the importance of knee/thigh motion lower and weight and jump height higher.Conclusion:Substantial cross-professional/group differences in visual ACL injury risk estimation exist. The relatively profound differences in injury risk estimation accuracy and their potential implications for risk screening suggest the need for additional training and outreach (see http://www.ACL-IQ.org).Clinical Relevance:Parents and sport coaches would likely benefit from training or use of decision support tools such as the ACL nomogram to assess ACL injury risk. In addition, physicians and other sports medicine professionals may also benefit from improving risk estimation performance to reach clinical biomechanical standards.",
keywords = "movement analysis, injury prevention, observational screening, visual inspection, knee biomechanics",
author = "Petushek, {Erich J.} and Paul Ward and Cokely, {Edward T.} and Myer, {Gregory D.}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1177/2325967115614799",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
journal = "Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "2325-9671",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "11",

}

Injury Risk Estimation Expertise : Interdisciplinary Differences in Performance on the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz. / Petushek, Erich J.; Ward, Paul; Cokely, Edward T.; Myer, Gregory D.

In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 11, 16.11.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Injury Risk Estimation Expertise

T2 - Interdisciplinary Differences in Performance on the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz

AU - Petushek, Erich J.

AU - Ward, Paul

AU - Cokely, Edward T.

AU - Myer, Gregory D.

PY - 2015/11/16

Y1 - 2015/11/16

N2 - Background:Simple observational assessment of movement is a potentially low-cost method for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury screening and prevention. Although many individuals utilize some form of observational assessment of movement, there are currently no substantial data on group skill differences in observational screening of ACL injury risk.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare various groups’ abilities to visually assess ACL injury risk as well as the associated strategies and ACL knowledge levels. The hypothesis was that sports medicine professionals would perform better than coaches and exercise science academics/students and that these subgroups would all perform better than parents and other general population members.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A total of 428 individuals, including physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, exercise science researchers/students, athletes, parents, and members of the general public participated in the study. Participants completed the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz (ACL-IQ) and answered questions related to assessment strategy and ACL knowledge.Results:Strength and conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, physical therapists, and exercise science students exhibited consistently superior ACL injury risk estimation ability (+2 SD) as compared with sport coaches, parents of athletes, and members of the general public. The performance of a substantial number of individuals in the exercise sciences/sports medicines (approximately 40%) was similar to or exceeded clinical instrument-based biomechanical assessment methods (eg, ACL nomogram). Parents, sport coaches, and the general public had lower ACL-IQ, likely due to their lower ACL knowledge and to rating the importance of knee/thigh motion lower and weight and jump height higher.Conclusion:Substantial cross-professional/group differences in visual ACL injury risk estimation exist. The relatively profound differences in injury risk estimation accuracy and their potential implications for risk screening suggest the need for additional training and outreach (see http://www.ACL-IQ.org).Clinical Relevance:Parents and sport coaches would likely benefit from training or use of decision support tools such as the ACL nomogram to assess ACL injury risk. In addition, physicians and other sports medicine professionals may also benefit from improving risk estimation performance to reach clinical biomechanical standards.

AB - Background:Simple observational assessment of movement is a potentially low-cost method for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury screening and prevention. Although many individuals utilize some form of observational assessment of movement, there are currently no substantial data on group skill differences in observational screening of ACL injury risk.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare various groups’ abilities to visually assess ACL injury risk as well as the associated strategies and ACL knowledge levels. The hypothesis was that sports medicine professionals would perform better than coaches and exercise science academics/students and that these subgroups would all perform better than parents and other general population members.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A total of 428 individuals, including physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, exercise science researchers/students, athletes, parents, and members of the general public participated in the study. Participants completed the ACL Injury Risk Estimation Quiz (ACL-IQ) and answered questions related to assessment strategy and ACL knowledge.Results:Strength and conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, physical therapists, and exercise science students exhibited consistently superior ACL injury risk estimation ability (+2 SD) as compared with sport coaches, parents of athletes, and members of the general public. The performance of a substantial number of individuals in the exercise sciences/sports medicines (approximately 40%) was similar to or exceeded clinical instrument-based biomechanical assessment methods (eg, ACL nomogram). Parents, sport coaches, and the general public had lower ACL-IQ, likely due to their lower ACL knowledge and to rating the importance of knee/thigh motion lower and weight and jump height higher.Conclusion:Substantial cross-professional/group differences in visual ACL injury risk estimation exist. The relatively profound differences in injury risk estimation accuracy and their potential implications for risk screening suggest the need for additional training and outreach (see http://www.ACL-IQ.org).Clinical Relevance:Parents and sport coaches would likely benefit from training or use of decision support tools such as the ACL nomogram to assess ACL injury risk. In addition, physicians and other sports medicine professionals may also benefit from improving risk estimation performance to reach clinical biomechanical standards.

KW - movement analysis

KW - injury prevention

KW - observational screening

KW - visual inspection

KW - knee biomechanics

U2 - 10.1177/2325967115614799

DO - 10.1177/2325967115614799

M3 - Article

VL - 3

JO - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 2325-9671

IS - 11

ER -