Athletic Trainer's Use of Gradable Movement Screens

Abstract

Background: Injuries related to physical activity contribute to rising annual medical costs in the Gradable movement screens (GMS) United States. have been developed to identify the presence of contributing factors associated with injury in order to target dysfunctional movements. There is little evidence available to determine how clinicians use GMS in their practices. Some GMS employ a non-weighted squat based gradable movement screen (SBGMS) rather than other movements or tasks. Incorporation of SBGMS has not been widely researched in the field of athletic training.

Objectives: To discover the current use, popularity of, and exposure to squat based gradable movement screens (SBGMS) by athletic trainers (AT) in the university and collegiate setting. A suitable tool was not available, and thus an additional aim was to develop and validate a tool to measure this concept.

Methods: Participants, athletic trainers that practice in the collegiate and university setting, completed a descriptive cross-sectional survey. Participants answered an electronically delivered questionnaire concerning their use of squat based gradable movement screens (SBGMS). The primary questions utilized include; are ATs using SBGMS, and if so, how are ATs utilizing SBGMS? Data was analyzed using Chi-Square tests for the majority of the data, while Scheffe and ANOVA were used in select analyses.

Results: Statistically significant differences exist when comparing participants’ clinical use of SBGMS and the participant’s gender (c² = 6.344, p = 0.012, Phi = 0.158) with more males using SBGMS and athletic division (c² = 11.128, p = 0.011, Phi = 0.208) with Division I athletic trainers reporting more clinical use of SBGMS. Participants with previous instruction of GMS (c² = 56.718, p < 0.001, Phi = 0.471) or credentialing of GMS (c² = 16.920, p < 0.001, Phi = 0.384) used SBGMS more than participants that did not have previous instruction or credentialing in SBGMS. The majority of participants that have not earned an additional professional credential also did not use SBGMs clinically (c² = 7.943, p = 0.005, Phi = 0.176).

Conclusions: Athletic trainers that work at the collegiate and university setting are more like to use SBGMS in their clinical practice if they are male, work at the NCAA Division I level, have previously learned or are credentialed in a specific SBGMS, and have previously earned another professional credential. Positive responses from participants suggest that SBGMS use should be considered by all athletic trainers.