Title

Athletic Trainer's Use of Gradable Movement Screens

Presenter Information

Ryan HippFollow

Academic Title

Doctorate of Science

College

Education

Department

Kinesiology

Primary Campus

Dahlonega

Keywords

gradable movement screening, injury prevention, athletic training, musculoskeletal injury, survey

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.

Biography

Dr. Ryan Hipp is an assistant professor in the Kinesiology Department at the University of North Georgia. Before moving to high education, Dr. Hipp was employed as a clinical athletic trainer at various sites, including high school and college settings. Currently Dr. Hipp serves as co-coordinator of clinical education for the Masters of Athletic Training program and as the Sports Medicine Coordinator for the Bachelors of Kinesiology program. The focus of Dr. Hipp’s dissertation was on the use of squat based movement screening techniques by certified athletic trainers at the collegiate and university setting. He hopes to further uncover how movement screening is being used to make clinical and return to activity decisions. Dr. Hipp is married to Rachel and when he is not teaching or preparing courses on campus, he enjoys spending time with his three children (all boys) and his wife. Education and Credentials D.Sc., Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, 2019 M.S., James Madison University, 2004 B.S., Georgia Southern University, 2002 NATABOC Certified Athletic Trainer (certification number: 050202072, certification date: May 31, 2002) Georgia State License number: AT001149

Proposal Type

Poster

Additional Presenter Information

Doctorate of Science, College of Education, Kinesiology Department, Dahlonega

Presentation Option

yes

Subject Area

Physical Education

Start Date

15-11-2019 12:00 PM

End Date

15-11-2019 1:00 PM

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 15th, 12:00 PM Nov 15th, 1:00 PM

Athletic Trainer's Use of Gradable Movement Screens

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.