{"id":{"repo_id":"gsu","oai_identifier":"oai:digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu:etd-2107"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/gsu/oai:digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu:etd-2107","repository":{"repo_id":"gsu","name":"Georgia Southern University","base_url":"https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Landing Technique Assessment Utilizing Laboratory-Based Landing And Simulated Basketball Landing Tasks","abstract":"<p><strong>Context</strong>: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a two-dimensional landing technique assessment tool that is readily available to clinicians. However, the LESS merely assesses a contrived landing, rather than dynamic, complex movements that may occur during actual athletic performance. <strong>Objective</strong>: To compare the LESS scores and knee joint kinematics between the LESS vertical-drop jump (DVJ), and two simulated basketball landing performances, jump-stop jump shot (JS) and rebounding (RB). <strong>Design</strong>: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: An intramural basketball court. <strong>Participants</strong>: Twenty-five female recreational basketball players (Age: 20.96±1.70, Height (cm): 166.07 ± 9.10, Weight (kg): 68.54 ±12.17). <strong>Intervention(s)</strong>: Participants performed the DVJ, JS, and RB. All landing performances were video-recorded and kinematics were analyzed using Dartfish. <strong>Results</strong>: LESS scores were significantly different between DVJ (5.97±1.43) and JS (8.75±0.94) (p < 0.001), DVJ and RB (7.33±1.02) (p < 0.001), and JS and RB (p < 0.001). Knee flexion angle (KFL) at initial contact (IC) was significantly different between JS (25.62°±4.80°) and RB (21.06°± 4.84°) (p < 0.005), maximum KFL was significantly different between DVJ (89.55°±12.14°) and JS (82.54°±10.60°) (p <0.001), and DVJ and RB (21.06°±4.84°) (p < 0.001). Knee abduction angle (KAB) at IC was significantly different between JS (5.96°±3.85°) and DVJ (1.94°±3.22°) (P< 0.001); JS and RB (3.10°±3.26°) (p < 0.001); and, no significant difference was found in KAB at maximum knee flexion (Max) between any combination of the three landings. <strong>Conclusions</strong>: Female recreational basketball players employed a different landing strategy between a controlled landing and simulated basketball landing tasks. The simulated basketball landings might better help identify athletes with poor landing technique, and are at higher risk of sustaining ACL injuries. </p>","abstract_html":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Context&lt;/strong&gt;: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a two-dimensional landing technique assessment tool that is readily available to clinicians. However, the LESS merely assesses a contrived landing, rather than dynamic, complex movements that may occur during actual athletic performance. &lt;strong&gt;Objective&lt;/strong&gt;: To compare the LESS scores and knee joint kinematics between the LESS vertical-drop jump (DVJ), and two simulated basketball landing performances, jump-stop jump shot (JS) and rebounding (RB). &lt;strong&gt;Design&lt;/strong&gt;: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: An intramural basketball court. &lt;strong&gt;Participants&lt;/strong&gt;: Twenty-five female recreational basketball players (Age: 20.96±1.70, Height (cm): 166.07 ± 9.10, Weight (kg): 68.54 ±12.17). &lt;strong&gt;Intervention(s)&lt;/strong&gt;: Participants performed the DVJ, JS, and RB. All landing performances were video-recorded and kinematics were analyzed using Dartfish. &lt;strong&gt;Results&lt;/strong&gt;: LESS scores were significantly different between DVJ (5.97±1.43) and JS (8.75±0.94) (p &lt; 0.001), DVJ and RB (7.33±1.02) (p &lt; 0.001), and JS and RB (p &lt; 0.001). Knee flexion angle (KFL) at initial contact (IC) was significantly different between JS (25.62°±4.80°) and RB (21.06°± 4.84°) (p &lt; 0.005), maximum KFL was significantly different between DVJ (89.55°±12.14°) and JS (82.54°±10.60°) (p &lt;0.001), and DVJ and RB (21.06°±4.84°) (p &lt; 0.001). Knee abduction angle (KAB) at IC was significantly different between JS (5.96°±3.85°) and DVJ (1.94°±3.22°) (P&lt; 0.001); JS and RB (3.10°±3.26°) (p &lt; 0.001); and, no significant difference was found in KAB at maximum knee flexion (Max) between any combination of the three landings. &lt;strong&gt;Conclusions&lt;/strong&gt;: Female recreational basketball players employed a different landing strategy between a controlled landing and simulated basketball landing tasks. The simulated basketball landings might better help identify athletes with poor landing technique, and are at higher risk of sustaining ACL injuries. &lt;/p&gt;","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kowata, Hiromi"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science in Kinesiology (M.S.)","degree_level":"Thesis (open access)","degree_discipline":"Department of Health and Kinesiology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Thomas A. Buckley","Barry Joyner"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2014-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:27:52Z","subjects":["ETD","Anterior cruciate ligament","Prevention","Screening","LESS","Landing","Basketball","Sports Sciences"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1121","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Thomas A. Buckley","Barry Joyner"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kowata, Hiromi"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-05-09T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Department of Health and Kinesiology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis (open access)"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science in Kinesiology (M.S.)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["ETD","Anterior cruciate ligament","Prevention","Screening","LESS","Landing","Basketball","Sports Sciences"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1121"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["<p><strong>Context</strong>: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a two-dimensional landing technique assessment tool that is readily available to clinicians. However, the LESS merely assesses a contrived landing, rather than dynamic, complex movements that may occur during actual athletic performance. <strong>Objective</strong>: To compare the LESS scores and knee joint kinematics between the LESS vertical-drop jump (DVJ), and two simulated basketball landing performances, jump-stop jump shot (JS) and rebounding (RB). <strong>Design</strong>: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: An intramural basketball court. <strong>Participants</strong>: Twenty-five female recreational basketball players (Age: 20.96±1.70, Height (cm): 166.07 ± 9.10, Weight (kg): 68.54 ±12.17). <strong>Intervention(s)</strong>: Participants performed the DVJ, JS, and RB. All landing performances were video-recorded and kinematics were analyzed using Dartfish. <strong>Results</strong>: LESS scores were significantly different between DVJ (5.97±1.43) and JS (8.75±0.94) (p < 0.001), DVJ and RB (7.33±1.02) (p < 0.001), and JS and RB (p < 0.001). Knee flexion angle (KFL) at initial contact (IC) was significantly different between JS (25.62°±4.80°) and RB (21.06°± 4.84°) (p < 0.005), maximum KFL was significantly different between DVJ (89.55°±12.14°) and JS (82.54°±10.60°) (p <0.001), and DVJ and RB (21.06°±4.84°) (p < 0.001). Knee abduction angle (KAB) at IC was significantly different between JS (5.96°±3.85°) and DVJ (1.94°±3.22°) (P< 0.001); JS and RB (3.10°±3.26°) (p < 0.001); and, no significant difference was found in KAB at maximum knee flexion (Max) between any combination of the three landings. <strong>Conclusions</strong>: Female recreational basketball players employed a different landing strategy between a controlled landing and simulated basketball landing tasks. The simulated basketball landings might better help identify athletes with poor landing technique, and are at higher risk of sustaining ACL injuries. </p>"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Landing Technique Assessment Utilizing Laboratory-Based Landing And Simulated Basketball Landing Tasks"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Thomas A. Buckley","Barry Joyner"],"dc:creator":["Kowata, Hiromi"],"dc:date.available":["2014-05-09T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["<p><strong>Context</strong>: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a two-dimensional landing technique assessment tool that is readily available to clinicians. However, the LESS merely assesses a contrived landing, rather than dynamic, complex movements that may occur during actual athletic performance. <strong>Objective</strong>: To compare the LESS scores and knee joint kinematics between the LESS vertical-drop jump (DVJ), and two simulated basketball landing performances, jump-stop jump shot (JS) and rebounding (RB). <strong>Design</strong>: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: An intramural basketball court. <strong>Participants</strong>: Twenty-five female recreational basketball players (Age: 20.96±1.70, Height (cm): 166.07 ± 9.10, Weight (kg): 68.54 ±12.17). <strong>Intervention(s)</strong>: Participants performed the DVJ, JS, and RB. All landing performances were video-recorded and kinematics were analyzed using Dartfish. <strong>Results</strong>: LESS scores were significantly different between DVJ (5.97±1.43) and JS (8.75±0.94) (p < 0.001), DVJ and RB (7.33±1.02) (p < 0.001), and JS and RB (p < 0.001). Knee flexion angle (KFL) at initial contact (IC) was significantly different between JS (25.62°±4.80°) and RB (21.06°± 4.84°) (p < 0.005), maximum KFL was significantly different between DVJ (89.55°±12.14°) and JS (82.54°±10.60°) (p <0.001), and DVJ and RB (21.06°±4.84°) (p < 0.001). Knee abduction angle (KAB) at IC was significantly different between JS (5.96°±3.85°) and DVJ (1.94°±3.22°) (P< 0.001); JS and RB (3.10°±3.26°) (p < 0.001); and, no significant difference was found in KAB at maximum knee flexion (Max) between any combination of the three landings. <strong>Conclusions</strong>: Female recreational basketball players employed a different landing strategy between a controlled landing and simulated basketball landing tasks. The simulated basketball landings might better help identify athletes with poor landing technique, and are at higher risk of sustaining ACL injuries. </p>"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1121"],"dc:subject":["ETD","Anterior cruciate ligament","Prevention","Screening","LESS","Landing","Basketball","Sports Sciences"],"dc:title":["Landing Technique Assessment Utilizing Laboratory-Based Landing And Simulated Basketball Landing Tasks"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Department of Health and Kinesiology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis (open access)"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science in Kinesiology (M.S.)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:27:52Z"}