Association of Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test with lower extremity injury in NCAA Division 1 athletes: an independent validation study. Issue 2 (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wright, Alexis A.; Dischiavi, Steven L.; Smoliga, James M.; Taylor, Jeffrey B.; Hegedus, Eric J.
• Is Part Of: Physiotherapy. Volume 103:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 231
• Page End: 236
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Athletic injuries -- Screening -- Risk of injury -- Epidemiology; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Therapeutics, Physiological -- Periodicals; 615.8205
• DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2016.06.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9406

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To determine if the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (LQYBT) is predictive of lower extremity injury in NCAA Division 1 athletes. Design: Prospective cohort, therapy. Participants: One hundred eighty-nine NCAA Division 1 athletes participated in the study and underwent a preparticipation screen that included the LQYBT. Maximal reach distances were recorded in each direction and normalized to leg length. A composite score was calculated by summing the three normalized reach distances and dividing by three times leg length. Side to side asymmetry was calculated as the lesser of the two composite scores, divided by the greater of the two composite scores, multiplied by 100. Injuries for the following season were tracked and recorded; LQYBT scores were compared between injured and non-injured athletes. Results: In our sample, 90 [59 female, 31 male] of the 189 athletes participating suffered a lower extremity injury. No significant differences were found between injured and non-injured athletes for reach distance, normalized reach distance, normalized composite reach distance, or normalized composite percent score ( P > 0.05). Conclusions: The LQYBT does not appear to predict general lower extremity injury in a diverse population of NCAA D1 athletes. These results are in direct conflict with previous findings suggesting the LQYBT is predictive of injury suggesting its utility as an injury risk screening tool in a general collegiate athletic population should continue to be questioned.