Clinical Scenario: Patients after sports-related injury experience deficits in self-efficacy. Goal setting may be an appropriate psychoeducation technique to enhance self-efficacy after sports-related injury. Clinical Question: Does goal setting–enhanced rehabilitation improve self-efficacy compared with traditional rehabilitation alone in individuals with sports-related injury? Summary of Key Findings: Two randomized controlled trials were included. The two studies selected assessed changes in self-efficacy before and after a goal-setting intervention following sports-related injury in an athletic population. Both studies used the Sports Injury Rehabilitation Beliefs Survey to evaluate self-efficacy. Clinical Bottom Line: There is currently consistent, good-quality, patient-oriented evidence that supports the use of goal setting to improve self-efficacy in patients undergoing rehabilitation for sports-related injury compared with the standard of care group. Future research should examine optimal timing for the implementation of goal setting in order to enhance self-efficacy following sports-related injury. Strength of Recommendation: The grade of A is recommended by the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy for consistent, good-quality, patient-oriented evidence.
Caitlin Brinkman, Shelby E. Baez, Francesca Genoese, and Johanna M. Hoch
Caitlin Brinkman, Shelby E. Baez, Carolina Quintana, Morgan L. Andrews, Nick R. Heebner, Matthew C. Hoch, and Johanna M. Hoch
Context: Fast visuomotor reaction time (VMRT), the time required to recognize and respond to sequentially appearing visual stimuli, allows an athlete to successfully respond to stimuli during sports participation, while slower VMRT has been associated with increased injury risk. Light-based systems are capable of measuring both upper- and lower-extremity VMRT; however, the reliability of these assessments are not known. Objective: To determine the reliability of an upper- and lower-extremity VMRT task using a light-based trainer system. Design: Reliability study. Setting: Laboratory. Patients (or Other Participants): Twenty participants with no history of injury in the last 12 months. Methods: Participants reported to the laboratory on 2 separate testing sessions separated by 1 week. For both tasks, participants were instructed to extinguish a random sequence of illuminated light-emitting diode disks, which appeared one at a time as quickly as possible. Participants were provided a series of practice trials before completing the test trials. VMRT was calculated as the time in seconds between target hits, where higher VMRT represented slower reaction time. Main Outcome Measures: Separate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine test–retest reliability for each task. The SEM and minimal detectable change values were determined to examine clinical applicability. Results: The right limb lower-extremity reliability was excellent (ICC2,1 = .92; 95% CI, .81–.97). Both the left limb (ICC2,1 = .80; 95% CI, .56–.92) and upper-extremity task (ICC2,1 = .86; 95% CI, .65–.95) had good reliability. Conclusions: Both VMRT tasks had clinically acceptable reliability in a healthy, active population. Future research should explore further applications of these tests as an outcome measure following rehabilitation for health conditions with known VMRT deficits.