Skip to main content

Table 2 Mean coupling angles (SD) between thigh-shank, thigh-trunk and trunk-pelvis during DVJ

From: Altered trunk and lower extremity movement coordination after neuromuscular training with and without external focus instruction: a randomized controlled trial

Variables (coupling) Group Baseline
Mean ± SD
Six weeks
Mean ± SD
Δ relative to baseline (%) ES (η2p)b P valuea, F
Thigh (flexion/extension)—Shank (flexion/extension) (°) NMT plus EF − 26.95 ± 9.62 − 19.12 ± 7.74 ‡d 29.05 ↑ 0.391e  < 0.001, 13.48
NMT − 26.57 ± 9.08 − 22.56 ± 7.23 15.09 ↑   
Control − 27.35 ± 7.84 − 26.90 ± 7.72 1.65 ↑   
Thigh (abduction/adduction)—Shank (flexion/extension) (°) NMT plus EF 23.27 ± 9.20 11.34 ± 7.46 ‡d 51.27 ↓ 0.484e  < 0.001, 19.73
NMT 23.47 ± 9.42 17.40 ± 6.91 25.86 ↓   
Control 22.13 ± 8.21 25.33 ± 5.44 14.46 ↑   
Thigh (abduction/adduction)—Trunk (flexion/extension) (°) NMT plus EF 29.84 ± 11.09 19.30 ± 9.59 ‡d 35.32 ↓ 0.441e  < 0.001, 16.58
NMT 34.59 ± 12.08 28.07 ± 9.57 18.85 ↓   
Control 30.72 ± 12.51 31.18 ± 11.61 1.50 ↑   
Trunk (flexion/extension)—pelvis (posterior tilt/anterior tilt) (°) NMT plus EF 19.20 ± 7.80 9.41 ± 5.18 50.99 ↓ 0.500e  < 0.001, 21.03
NMT 18.10 ± 7.56 11.65 ± 6.82c 35.64 ↓   
Control 17.21 ± 6.36 17.39 ± 6.80 1.05↑   
  1. NMT plus EF neuromuscular training plus external focus, NMT neuromuscular training, Δ percent change (↓ decrease, ↑ increase)
  2. aP value of ANCOVA
  3. bEffect size
  4. cDenotes significantly different than control group (P < 0.05)
  5. dDenotes significantly different than NMT group (P < 0.05)
  6. eLarge effect size (0.14) based on the study of Cohen (1992)