Principal Component Analysis of the Associations Between Kinetic Variables in Cutting and Jumping, and Cutting Performance Outcome

Abstract

Welch, N, Richter, C, Moran, K, and Franklyn-Miller, A. Principal component analysis of the associations between kinetic variables in cutting and jumping, and cutting performance outcome.

Rehabilitation interventions need more than methodological standardisation: an individualised approach

“…The physical performance characteristics selected can be seen in table 1. These were selected as they have been associated with high levels of performance in the tasks themselves [20][21][22] or associated with cutting performance. 18 23 24 Three trials were performed on each leg by each participant.…”

The effect of angle on change of direction biomechanics: Comparison and inter-task relationships

“…Correlations were evaluated as follows: trivial (0.00-0.09), small (0.10-0.29), moderate (0.30-0.49), large (0.50-0.69), very large (0.70-0.89), nearly perfect (0.90-0.99), and perfect (1.00) (Hopkins, 2002). A correlation cut-off value of ≥ 0.40 was considered relevant (Welch et al, 2021).…”

“…This absence is important because ACL strain is amplified when a combination of high frontal and transverse knee moments at extended knee postures are generated, in comparison to uniplanar loading (Bates et al, 2015;Kiapour et al, 2016;Shin et al, 2011). Furthermore, previous research (Schreurs et al, 2017) only examined knee flexion angles, moments, KAMs, and vertical GRF between tasks, failing to examine hip, ankle, and trunk kinematics and kinetics which have been reported to play a pivotal role in terms of performance (Marshall et al, 2014;Sasaki et al, 2011;Welch et al, 2021) and knee joint loads (Dos'Santos, McBurnie et al, 2019;Fox, 2018;Weir et al, 2019).…”

How early should you brake during a 180° turn? A kinetic comparison of the antepenultimate, penultimate, and final foot contacts during a 505 change of direction speed test

“…Correlations were evaluated as follows: trivial (0.00 -0.09), small (0.10 -0.29), moderate (0.30 -0.49), large (0.50 -0.69), very large (0.70 -0.89), nearly perfect (0.90 -0.99), and perfect (1.00) (25). A correlation cut-off value of ≥ 0.40 was considered relevant according to Welch et al (39). 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for ICCs, CV%, effect sizes, and correlations.…”