Table 4 Distribution of FMS scores according to injury risks in volleyball players.

From: Functional movement screen and asymmetries in female volleyball players across playing positions

Variables

Group

N

Rank average

Kruskal Wallis

Df

P

Difference

Effect size (n2/r)

Deep squat

0.00

4

49.50

4.538

3

0.209

-

n2 = 0.0043

1.00

20

52.18

2.00

37

58.18

3.00

46

51.83

Hurdle step

0.00

1

103.00

13.617

3

0.003

0–1 < 2–3

n2 = 0.128

1.00

50

52.71

2.00

47

52.91

3.00

9

61.39

Inline lunge

1.00

4

62.88

4.026

2

0.134

-

r = 0.34

2.00

86

52.61

3.00

17

58.94

Shoulder mobility

0.00

2

49.50

14.546

3

0.002

0–1 < 2–3

n2 = 0.038

1.00

2

76.25

2.00

95

52.32

3.00

8

69.56

Active straight leg raise

0.00

8

56.19

2.652

3

0.448

-

n2 = 0.137

1.00

48

53.96

2.00

32

51.17

3.00

19

57.95

Trunk stability push-up

0.00

8

72.13

10.643

3

0.014

0–1 < 2–3

r = 0.37

1.00

48

46.02

2.00

32

64.61

3.00

19

48.66

Rotary stability

0.00

14

49.50

3.449

3

0.327

-

n2 = 0.025

1.00

61

53.89

2.00

26

57.73

3.00

6

49.50

  1. Effect sizes are interpreted according to Cohen’s guidelines (η²: ~0.01 = small, ~ 0.06 = medium, ≥ 0.14 = large; r: ~0.10 = small, ~ 0.30 = medium, ≥ 0.50 = large). Results show correlations between FMS scores and performance categories; direct injury data were not collected.