Prehab & Rehabilitation — all lessons
Foundations of MSK Rehabilitation
Principles of injury prevention and recoveryBiomechanics and movement analysisUnderstanding pain science and tissue healingRehab Exercise Strategies
Progressive loading techniquesProgram design for rehabilitationPhased rehab programming: acute to return-to-performancePrehab 121 Protocols (intermediate–late stage)
ActivationEarly strengtheningAdvanced strengtheningPlyometrics in rehabilitationReturn-to-sport exercisesPrevention, Surgery and Return to Sport
Injury prevention programmesThe preoperative phase (prehabilitation)Role of criteria-based progressionsReturn-to-sport testingIntegration with strength and conditioningCase Studies
Case studies and real-world client scenariosReturn-to-sport testing
The tests used in return-to-sport decisions — strength, hop batteries, movement quality, sport-specific and psychological measures — and their limitations.
Learning objectives
- Select a return-to-sport test battery
- Administer hop tests and strength tests reliably
- Interpret results alongside clinical and contextual factors
- Recognise limitations of RTS testing
Before this lesson
Why this matters
Return-to-sport decisions have big consequences. Testing makes them more informed, though never risk-free.
Test battery (example knee)
| Domain | Tests |
|---|---|
| Strength | Isokinetic/dynamometer quadriceps and hamstrings; leg press RM |
| Hop | Single, triple, crossover hop for distance; 6-m timed hop |
| Movement | Single-leg squat, drop jump landing quality |
| Sport-specific | COD tests, sprinting, sport drills |
| Psychological | Confidence/fear questionnaire |
Criteria-based return was associated with lower re-injury risk after ACL reconstruction [grindem2016].
Interpretation
The Bern consensus recommends integrating tests with tissue healing, sport demands, risk tolerance and athlete goals in a shared decision [ardern2016]. As with screening, single tests have limited predictive power for individuals [bahr2016].
Common mistakes and misconceptions
Case study
A handball player passes hop tests (LSI ≥ 90%) but shows poor landing control in a reactive drill and low confidence. The team adds 3 weeks of reactive training and graded exposure before full return.
Further learning: video lessons
Video links are only marked “verified” after a human has watched them. Unverified entries open a YouTube search for that channel and topic rather than a guessed link.
Hop test battery
physiotherapy educators (search, e.g. E3 Rehab, Physiotutors)
You will understand: performing hop tests
Why: Clinician-led practical content; verify the specific video.
Return to sport decision-making
BJSM (search)
You will understand: shared decisions
Why: Consensus content.
Knowledge check
Knowledge check · 0/5
1. A common hop test battery includes…
2. RTS test results should be…
3. A limitation of standard hop tests is…
4. Strength testing in RTS ideally uses…
5. Passing RTS tests…
Short-answer & application questions
- Design an RTS testing day for an ACL patient.
- Explain to a coach why passing tests isn’t a guarantee.
- Add a reactive test to a standard battery.
Key takeaways
- RTS testing combines strength, hop, movement, sport-specific and psychological measures.
- Common hop battery: single, triple, crossover hops and 6-m timed hop.
- Testing informs a shared decision; it does not guarantee safety.
- Test under fatigue and in sport-like conditions where possible.
Connected topics
Athlete assessment and evaluation
sports technologyForce plates (e.g. VALD ForceDecks)
assessmentLimits of movement screens and postural assessment
References
- Ardern CL, Glasgow P, Schneiders A, et al. (2016). 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(14):853–864. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278 Guideline check pending
- Grindem H, Snyder-Mackler L, Moksnes H, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA (2016). Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13):804–808. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 Cohort check pending
- Bahr R (2016). Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—and probably never will…: a critical review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13):776–780. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096256 Narrative review check pending
Educational content only — not medical advice. Consult a qualified clinician for diagnosis or treatment.