Table 2.
Mean interlimb asymmetry values and derived injury risk.
| Fitness Test | Mean Asymmetry ± SD (%) | Injury Risk |
|---|---|---|
| 505-COD | 3.58 ± 3.54 $ | No & |
| CMJ | 14.50 ± 9.80 *,$ | Yes & |
| SBJ | 4.24 ± 4.16 * | No & |
| LAT | 5.65 ± 3.09 * | No & |
| ROM_HFEK | 8.80 ± 7.66 * | Yes # |
| ROM_HAFK | 6.89 ± 5.13 * | No # |
| ROM_AFEK | 5.96 ± 4.05 * | No # |
| ROM_AFFK | 5.56 ± 8.04 * | No # |
| MM | 2.34 ± 1.64 | No & |
505-COD: 505 change of direction test; CMJ: countermovement jump; SBJ: standing broad jump; LAT: lateral jump; ROM: range of motion; HFEK: hip flexion with extended knee; HAFK: hip abduction with flexed knee; AFEK: ankle flexion with extended knee; AFFK: ankle flexion with flexed knee; MM: muscle mass. * Higher interlimb asymmetry scores in comparison to 505-COD test (p < 0.05). $ Higher interlimb asymmetry scores in comparison to MM test (p < 0.05). & Injury risk stablished in the threshold of 10% relating to Rohman et al. (2015) [21]. # Injury risk stablished in the threshold of 8% relating to López-Valenciano et al. (2019) [22].