Skip to main content

Table 4 Coaches’ (n = 35) risk perceptions, outcome expectancies, action self-efficacy and appraisal of Knee Control

From: Perceptions, facilitators, and barriers regarding use of the injury prevention exercise programme Knee Control among players and coaches in youth floorball: a cross-sectional survey study

 Questions

Pre-intervention

Post-season

P-value

Risk perceptions

   

What is your opinion about the overall risk of injury in floorball? (1 low–7 high)

4 (2)

  

Outcome expectancies

   

In general, how preventable do you think floorball injuries are? (1 not preventable–7 preventable)

6 (1)

6 (1)

0.472

In your opinion, what would/has happen/ed to a floorball player’s overall risk of injury if he/she participated in injury prevention training? (1 increase–7 decrease)

5 (4)

5 (3)

0.796

What do you think would/has happen/ed to a floorball player's performance if he/she did injury prevention training regularly? (1 decrease–7 increase)

5 (1)

5 (2)

0.226

Action self-efficacy

   

My knowledge about preventing injuries in floorball is…(1 poor–7 good)

4 (2)

5 (1)

0.008

My practical ability to use Knee Control with my team is…(1 poor–7 good)

 

5 (1)

 

Appraisal of Knee Control

   

Knee Control is floorball specific…(1 false–7 true)

 

5 (2)a

 

Knee Control takes too much time…(1 false–7 true)

 

4 (3)

 

Knee Control contains appropriate variation and progression for our team…(1 false–7 true)

 

5 (1)

 

Knee Control can be used over several seasons in our team…(1 false–7 true)

 

6 (1)

 
  1. Bold values indicate statistically significant results
  2. All results are presented as median with interquartile range in brackets. “Extremely” to be added to all anchors in the Likert scale, e.g., 1 extremely not preventable–7 extremely preventable. P-values refer to comparison between coaches’ pre-intervention and post-season survey responses
  3. aMissing for 1 coach