Next Article in Journal
Internal Audit Strategies for Assessing Cybersecurity Controls in the Brazilian Financial Institutions
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of a Newly Developed Device for Resonance Disorders: A Clinical Pilot Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparing Workloads Among Different Age Groups in Official Masters’ Basketball Matches: Implications for Physical Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/app15105714
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lower-Limb Flexibility Profile in 142 Competitive Female Football Players: A Cross-Sectional Study

by
Antonio Cejudo
1,
Riccardo Izzo
2,
Francisco Javier Robles-Palazón
1,
María Teresa Martínez-Romero
1,* and
Pilar Sainz de Baranda
1
1
Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, CEIR Campus Mare Nostrum (CMN), University of Murcia, 30720 Murcia, Spain
2
Department of Biomolecular Sciences, School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, 61029 Urbino, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(10), 5714; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105714
Submission received: 21 February 2025 / Revised: 12 May 2025 / Accepted: 15 May 2025 / Published: 20 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Advances in Performance Analysis and Technologies for Sports)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: The ROM-SPORT is a test battery for assessing flexibility that measures the range of motion (ROM) in the sport. Restricted or optimal ROM is associated with an increased risk of injury or improved athletic performance, respectively. The aim of the present study was to determine the normative values of the lower limb’s flexibility profile by ROM assessment in female football players. Methods: Lower-limb flexibility (11 ROM tests) was measured using the ROM-SPORT battery in 142 female football players (19.42 ± 4.45 years). The tests were performed at the beginning of the training sessions in the first two weeks of the pre-season. Standardized Z-scores (on a scale of 0 to 100 [T-score]) were calculated from the mean and standard deviation to classify the ROM of each movement into three qualitative categories (poor [>−3 to −2], average or normal [−1 to 1; 68.2%], and optimal [1 to >3]) and a traffic light system to facilitate interpretation of the results. Results: The results show normal (or average) ROM values at 32–37° for ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended; 37–43° for ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed; 46–54° for hip internal rotation; 54–61° for hip external rotation; 31–37° for hip adduction; 70–76° for hip abduction with the hip flexed; 41–45° for hip abduction with the hip neutral; 135–141° for hip flexion; 73–82° for hip flexion with the knee extended; 15–21° for hip extension; 121–132° for knee flexion. The normative data presented in this study can be utilized by researchers and practitioners in the women’s football league in a variety of ways, provided similar data collection methods are used. Conclusions: Flexibility training is recommended to overcome normal or average ROM and optimize athletic performance with lower injury risk in female football players.

1. Introduction

The ROM-SPORT is a sport-specific testing battery that measures muscle flexibility via range of motion (ROM) [1]. Recent studies have shown that low ROM values in some tests of this battery are important predictors of the risk of sports injury [2,3,4,5]. Using machine learning techniques, flexibility measures such as hip flexion with the knee passively extended, hip internal and external rotation, hip abduction, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed and extended, evaluated through the ROM-SPORT method, have emerged as strong predictors of lower-extremity soft tissue injuries in 260 non-elite male youth football players [3], hamstring strain injury in 96 male professional football players [2], and other muscular injuries in 98 male professionals [4]. Traditional statistical analysis has also identified decreased hip abduction ROM as a risk factor for groin strains in 306 male players from Iceland’s top divisions [6].
In contrast, in women’s football, flexibility is often overlooked in injury risk models, largely because many studies do not include ROM assessments in their protocols [7]. To our knowledge, only one recent study has demonstrated that limited hip internal rotation ROM is associated with an increased risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in 95 competitive female football players, using binary logistic regression and ROC analysis [5]. Some exceptions exist: a few studies have assessed joint hypermobility [8,9,10] and one has linked excessive ankle ROM to ankle injuries in 300 female players [11]. These findings highlight a significant gap in the literature regarding flexibility as a modifiable risk factor for injury in female football. Given the high incidence of non-contact injuries such as ACL ruptures, hamstring strains, and ankle sprains in this population, injuries that are biomechanically linked to deficits or imbalances in flexibility, further predictive research is urgently needed.
The ROM-SPORT is a battery that has been used extensively to determine the muscular flexibility profile of the lower and upper extremities of male athletes in individual and collective sports [1,12,13]. In the context football, normative values for internal and external rotation of the hip in 90° flexion, internal rotation of the hip in prone position, flexed knee drop, and abduction of the hip in lateral position were determined in 394 asymptomatic male professional football players aged 18–40 years [14], in 68 male professional football players (25.5 ± 5.0 years) from four teams for the hip (flexion with flexed and extended knee, extension, abduction, external and internal rotation), the knee (flexion), and the ankle (dorsiflexion with flexed and extended knee) [13], and in 103 male professional first division footballers and 83 amateur football players for the hip (extension, adduction, abduction, internal rotation and internal rotation). However, only one scientific study was found describing the normal values for hip rotation ROM in 344 individual asymptomatic female football players selected for the Dutch national football teams [15]. In a sense, football professionals and strength and conditioning coaches demand the normative data for flexibility to ensure that women’s football players are evaluated on flexibility as well as the other relevant physical abilities that best define the physical demands of competition. This will contribute to enhance decision-making in the design of the flexibility training program.
In general, normative data were reported using descriptive statistics, primarily through mean and standard deviation (SD) values [16]. Some studies also categorized these values into five ranges (very low: ≤ –2 SD; low: –1 to –2 SD; normal: within ±1 SD; high: +1 to +2 SD; very high: ≥+2 SD) [14], while others stratified the results by age group [17]. Additionally, certain authors included a descriptive analysis of lower limb range of motion (ROM), integrating qualitative outcomes based on previously established reference values for athletes at increased risk of injury [13].
Previous researchers [18,19,20] have recommended using objective reference values derived from statistical measures that indicate how a female football player’s ROM compares to normative data from a cohort. Z-scores allow professional football and strength and conditioning coaches to categorize a football female player’s ROM test performance relative to her reference cohort (i.e., how many standard deviations above or below the team mean each individual female player is). Consequently, professional football and strength and conditioning coaches can make informed decisions about the design of flexibility training programs based on players whose ROM values are far from the mean (restricted ROM vs. optimal ROM). Z-scores are calculated as a multiple of the standard deviation relative to the mean. Assuming a normal distribution of the data, 99.7% of the individual data points are within three standard deviations of the mean, resulting in a typical Z-score range of −3 to 3, with 0 representing the mean. T-scores would facilitate the interpretation of the Z-score. It is obtained by multiplying the Z-score by 10 and adding 50 [19,20]. This statistical tool would be a great help for female football players, professional football players, and strength and conditioning coaches to qualitatively interpret a player’s ROM values in relation to the cohort mean on a scale of 0 to 100 (or 20–80 if a typical cut-off of three standard deviations above the mean is considered) [19,20].
The aim of the present study was to determine the normative values and establish benchmarks for the lower limbs flexibility profile by assessing ROM in female football players. These normal values are documented for hip, knee, and ankle ROM, which can be used as normative data profiles in the clinical assessment, sport screening, and management of female football players.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

A cross-sectional observational design was used to the normative values and establish benchmarks for the flexibility profile by assessing ROM in female football players. All participants provided informed consent for the study prior to testing, which preapproved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Murcia (Reg. Code 2424/2019) for studies involving humans and conformed to the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. All assessments were carried out in the pre-season (September) of 2021 and 2022. Firstly, information was collected on confounding variables such as demographic data (age, sex, height, weight, and BMI), athletic training data (discipline, years of training in football, training sessions, and training hours per week) and general injuries or medical issue of the female football players. In the second part, the flexibility of the lower limbs (11 ROM tests) was examined using the ROM-SPORT battery in the female football players. Previously, the female football players had a familiarization session of the ROM tests.

2.2. Sample of Female Football Players

A total of 142 female football players of three teams (19.10 ± 4.49 years, range: 13 to 32 years; 57.78 ± 7.17 kg; 161.93 ± 5.30 cm; 22.04 ± 2.59 kg/m2) from different leagues in Spain, the Regional League (n = 87), the National League (n = 36), and the First Division League (n = 19), were screened and tested for participation in a single testing session during the 2022 pre-season (September).
During the informed consent process, inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed before written informed consent was obtained. Only healthy players (≥13 years old) who were not injured at the time of the assessment were included in the study. Players presenting any current musculoskeletal injury or physical limitation affecting lower-limb function were excluded from participation.

2.3. Procedures

All measurements were conducted in the medical room of the sports facilities under standard conditions (24 °C) and performed by the same two Sports Science experts, each with over 15 years of experience and developers of the ROM-SPORT assessment method [1]. Lower-limb flexibility (11 ROM tests) was analyzed using the ROM-SPORT battery. For a detailed description of the assessment procedure and ROM tests, refer to article [1].
The criterion validity (gold standard) of the ROM tests was based on earlier studies by Gogia et al. [21] and Enwemeka et al. [22] who consider the radiological measurement to be the gold standard, as muscle origin and insertion can be observed and thus muscle extensibility can be determined by ROM. In addition, the ROM tests were selected due to their operational validity, as recognized by certain American Medical Organizations [23,24], and their inclusion in leading Sports Medicine manuals [17,23], which are grounded in anatomical principles and supported by extensive clinical and athletic experience. Furthermore, previous studies conducted by our research group [1,25] have reported moderate to high intra-tester reliability for all ROM procedures used by the evaluators responsible for the testing sessions. The coefficients of variation (CV) ranged from 0.2% to 9.1%, specifically: 0.4%, 1.7%, 9.1%, 3.5%, 3.7%, 3.5%, 3.4%, 1.0%, 0.2%, and 1.2% for hip flexion with knee flexed and extended, hip extension, hip abduction with hip flexed, hip abduction, hip adduction with hip flexed, hip internal rotation, hip external rotation, knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion with knee flexed and extended, respectively. Moreover, recent study involving football players has shown no significant differences in reliability metrics for various ROM values and strategy indicators across four separate testing sessions conducted during the first week of preseason [1]. In like manner, previous systematic review has demonstrated that this method of ROM assessment offers more advantages than disadvantages compared to other flexibility assessment protocols [26].
Two weeks prior to the assessment session, testers and participants engaged in practice sessions to promote familiarization with the theoretical foundations and practical execution of the testing protocol. The tests were administered in a randomized circuit format due to time constraints. Maximal passive ROM was determined either by the sensation of a moderate stretch or the identification of a synergistic movement that increased ROM (false negative) [1]. Each test was performed three times per player and the mean of the two closest measurements was used for subsequent statistical analysis.
Before the ROM assessment, a standardized dynamic warm-up of 20 min was carried out, including aerobic exercises and dynamic flexibility drills targeting the whole body [27].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed with R in Jamovi v.1.6.23 [Computer Software] (https://www.jamovi.org, accessed on 5 January 2025). The ROM metrics were used to compile the normative data and were normally distributed according to the results of a Shapiro–Wilk test.
To justify the union of the data of all the players of competitive levels (or sport categories), a Bayesian ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests were performed for each ROM variable or ROM test (the strength of evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis (H1) was moderate evidence, BF10 ≥ 3 to 10) along with the Error %.
Based on previous research studies [18,19,20], standardized Z-scores (on a scale from 0 to 100 [T-value]) were calculated from the mean and standard deviation to classify the ROM of each movement into three qualitative categories (poor [>−3 to −2], promising or normal [−1 to 1; 68.2%] and optimal [1 to >3]) and a traffic light system to facilitate the stratification of the results.
To create benchmarks for the presented ROM data, T-score performance bands were created and allocated qualitative descriptions (see the following text in brackets), ranging from excellent to extremely poor, as follows: >80 (excellent), >70–≤80 (very good), >60–≤70 (good), >45–≤55 (average), >40–≤45 (below average), >30–≤40 (poor), ≥20–≤ 30 (very poor), and <20 (extremely poor). A traffic light system approach was applied to the T-score performance bands to compliment the allocated qualitative descriptions and thereby further ease data interpretation for the intended end user [28]. The compilation of normative data, construction of T-score performance bands and application of the traffic light system were performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).

3. Results

The descriptive analysis reported no significant differences between the three competitive levels, with the exception of age (BF10 = 140.93; error % = 0.02), ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed (BF10 = 80.81; error % = 0.02) and extended (BF10 = 58.53; error % = 0.02), hip internal rotation (BF10 = 173.80; error % = 0.02), adduction with the hip flexed (BF10 = 18.07; error % = 0.01), and hip extension with the knee relaxed (BF10 = 246.80; error % = 0.02). Therefore, the descriptive values of all participants in the present study were described (Table 1).
The normative ROM data and benchmarks (based on the T-score bands) for hip extension with the knee relaxed (HE), hip external rotation (HER) and hip internal rotation (HIR) with the knee flexed, hip flexion with the knee flexed (HF_KF) and extended (HF_KE), adduction with the hip flexed (HAD_HF), abduction with the hip flexed (HAB-HF) and neutral hip/knee (HAB), knee flexion (KF), and ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed (AD_KF), and extended (AD_KE) ROM tests are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11. These benchmarks ranged from extremely poor to excellent, consistent with the T-score performance ranges described previously. These results are reported with the total sample without distinguishing the competitive levels, as the maximum difference between the average values between the sports categories is ≤6.54° and the data are presented in eight categories (from excellent to extremely poor). Therefore, this difference in the values between the sports categories does not show any relevant difference in the traffic light system based on T-score thresholds.

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to determine the normative values and create benchmarks for the lower limbs flexibility profile by assessing ROM in female football players. Differences have been observed between the three competitive levels in the ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed and extended, hip internal rotation, adduction with the hip flexed, and hip extension with the knee relaxed. Generally, ROM has been shown to increase with competitive level. Players competing in the National League have lower ROM (ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed and extended, hip internal rotation, adduction with the hip flexed, and hip extension with the knee relaxed) than the Regional League. The cause is longer football practice time (Regional League 5.7 ± 2.9 y vs. National League 8.7 ± 3.2 y), duration of training (Regional League 79.8 ± 31.7 min vs. National League 98.1 ± 15.8 min), and number of training sessions per week (Regional League 3.1 ± 0.5 training vs. National League 4.3 ± 0.9 training) [29,30]. In addition, the load of flexibility training does not increase with higher competition levels and compensates for negative adaptations to football or the increase in age [31,32]. The effects of ageing on flexibility are already apparent at a relatively early age [33].
The results show normal (or average) ROM values at 30–39° for ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended; 37–43° for ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed; 46–54° for hip internal rotation with the knee flexed; 54–61° for hip external rotation with the knee flexed; 31–37° for hip adduction with the hip/knee flexed; 70–76° for hip abduction with the hip/knee flexed; 41–45° for hip abduction with the neutral hip/knee; 135–141° for hip flexion with the knee flexed; 73–82° for hip flexion with the knee extended; 15–21° for hip extension with the knee relaxed; and 121–132° for knee flexion) in the 142 female football players. Other cross-sectional studies report the average values of one or nine lower limb tests in female football players, such as the sit and reach test in 55 female senior football players of First league [34], passive hip flexion and abduction in supine position and passive hip extension, internal and external rotation in prone position and weighted ankle dorsiflexion in 28 adolescent female football players aged 12–19 years from the two highest divisions [35], internal and external rotation ROM in 58 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I and hip extension, external and internal rotation of the hip, flexion with the knee flexed and extended, abduction with the hip/knee neutral, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed and extended ROM in 44 professional female football players [36]. However, the evaluation methods, sample size, age, and level of competition are different and do not allow us to compare the results with our scientific study.
The normative data presented in this study can be utilized by researchers and strength and conditioning coaches in the women’s football league in several ways, provided that similar data collection methods have been used [12]. Firstly, the data presented can facilitate the interpretation of ROM results achieved by individual competitive female football player. For example, if a female athlete achieves a ROM of 85° for hip flexion with the knee extended, this can be interpreted as an above-average result. Secondly, the data presented can be used to set specific and quantifiable targets for flexibility training for individual female football players. For example, a female football player who achieves a ROM of 70° for hip flexion with the knee extended, which is below average, can be set a ROM target of 73° to reach the lower end of average. Once this value is reached, a new benchmark can be set, e.g., a long-term ROM target of 82° to correspond to the lower ROM value above the average. Thirdly, benchmarks can be set for young women’s football players (formative stages) who aspire to a career as First Division League players.
For example, if a female football player achieves 25° in the hip extension range of motion (ROM) test with the knee relaxed, she would be classified at a “Good” level and could potentially improve to “Excellent”, thereby enhancing her athletic performance [37,38,39]. In a sample of 43 young male football players (aged 14 to 18 years), those with greater hamstring flexibility, as measured by the hip flexion with knee extended ROM test, outperformed their peers with lower flexibility in acceleration and sprint tests (5 m, 10 m, and 20 m), the countermovement jump, Balsom agility test, and take-off speed [38]. The hip flexion with the knee extended ROM may be a determining factor for skill performance, as shown by the deficits in kicking in football players with tightness hamstrings compared to athletes with greater hamstring flexibility [39]. Alimoradi et al. [37] have shown that increasing the ROM of the ankle joint through a 4 week soleus stretching programme leads to significant improvements in the Y-balance, drop jump, and Illinois agility tests. On the other hand, if a player reaches a value of 6°, she has a level of “Poor” and increases the risk of a football injury. Tainaka et al. [40], for example, supported this notion by examining hip ROM (flexion, extension, adduction, abduction) in 167 male and female student athletes aged 13–17 years from Japan and reported that lower values of hip internal rotation range of motion [≤35°] and external rotation range of motion [≤46°] were associated with ACL injury. Cejudo et al. [5] found that internal rotation of the hip with a flexed knee ROM of ≤44° and hip extension with the knee relaxed ROM asymmetry of ≥5° were discriminatory for ACL rupture detection in 95 female football players aged 14 to 33 years. Weaver and Relph [41] found that reduced hip flexion and internal rotation on the dominant side of players may increase the risk of lower limb injury in 32 female professional football players (age 23 ± 3.60 years). In contrast, there is a significant relationship between an increased incidence of football injuries and increased joint laxity in 123 senior female football players (elite n = 32 and non-elite n = 91) [42]. Emerging evidence shows that limited ankle dorsiflexion may lead to compensatory landing patterns, such as increased knee valgus and anterior tibial translation, which elevate ACL strain during dynamic tasks [43]. These compensations are particularly concerning in female football players, who already present a higher incidence of ACL injuries. Therefore, addressing joint ROM limitations, especially at the ankle and hip, may be crucial for developing targeted prevention strategies in this population.
On a quantitative level, all the different stretching techniques can improve the extensibility of the muscles and the ROM of the different joints, such as ballistic stretching, dynamic stretching, active statics stretching, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, eccentric flexibility training or passive statics stretching. However, each stretching technique has additional benefits related to the time of application and the procedure of the stretching technique. Ballistic stretching and dynamic stretching are techniques that are recommended during the warm-up. The ballistic stretching training the stretch reflex, which causes contraction of the stretched muscle by the facilitatory influences of muscle spindles type Ia and II receptors upon homonymous alpha motor neuron excitability [44]. The dynamic stretching has a positive effect on ROM and dynamic flexibility, and can increase the spindle reflex afferent excitation of the motor neurons and improve athletic performance (running, jumping, sprinting, and agility) [45]. Active statics stretching improves intermuscular agonist–antagonist coordination [46] and also avoids compensatory movements (maintaining neutral joint stability) during muscle stretching at maximum ROM. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and Eccentric stretching are techniques that are recommended during the during the main part of a training session or competition. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, which involves passive static stretches and isometric contractions in a cyclical pattern, is a very effective stretching technique to achieve passive and active ROM and optimize motor performance [47]. Eccentric stretching improves tolerance to eccentric actions and can help prevent muscle–tendon injuries through a full range of motion by training the muscle in a more functional type of activity [48]. Finally, the passive static stretching technique is recommended after of a training session or competition to reduce residual muscle tension (or muscle tone) and muscle stiffness and also to recover muscle tightness caused by exercise [49].
The programs for preventing football injuries [50,51] and improving athletic performance [52,53,54] recommend a multicomponent intervention that includes a combination of different stretching techniques. It is recommended to apply dynamic stretching and active static stretching before, and passive static stretching after football training or competition; it is also recommended to perform a pure stretching program at home [55]. In general, at least four weeks [56], at least three days per week and six stretching exercises (e.g., iliopsoas, quadriceps, hamstrings, iliotibial band, internal and external rotators of the hip, gastrocnemius/soleus and low back) are recommended [51]. Each exercise is performed in at least 2–3 sets of 15–30 s (10–15 repetitions for dynamic stretching) with a 10 s rest between sets and moderate intensity or discomfort sensation (between four and six RPE points) [53,57,58].

Limitations

When using the normative data presented in this study, several methodological considerations and limitations should be taken into account. First, all data were collected during the pre-season phase, as this was the only period authorized by the coaching staff of the participating women’s football teams. Although this ensured that all players were evaluated under comparable performance conditions, it is possible that the recorded ROM values do not represent their maximal in-season capacity. Nevertheless, strength and conditioning coaches generally consider the pre-season to be the most appropriate moment to assess baseline physical capacities [59]. During the competitive phase, variations in training and match schedules across teams introduce heterogeneous training loads that would compromise the comparability required for a multicentric study of this nature [18].
Furthermore, ROM values reported here correspond to the mean of the two most similar measurements obtained across three passive trials, rather than the single highest value. This approach was adopted to enhance the reliability of the data, as averaging reduces measurement error and increases consistency [60,61]. All measurements were conducted after a standardized warm-up to minimize variability associated with viscoelastic changes in soft tissues due to temperature and stretching effects [62].
A further limitation lies in the use of passive ROM testing. While passive techniques are recommended for monitoring flexibility due to their lower intra-individual variability and reduced susceptibility to measurement error, they may not fully reflect dynamic or functional ROM. Active or dynamic ROM tests are influenced by inter-subject variability in muscular strength, neuromuscular coordination (e.g., the balance between agonist activation and antagonist relaxation), and individual motivation levels [26]. Moreover, dynamic tests are prone to compensatory movements, which can produce misleadingly high ROM values (i.e., false negatives) [1]. For a more complete picture, passive assessments should ideally be complemented with kinematic and kinetic analyses of sport-specific movements involving large ranges of motion, in order to identify possible limitations or injury-related compensations.
Finally, future research should explore the relationship between flexibility and other technical and physical parameters of the upper limbs and trunk, assessing their potential contribution to performance enhancement and injury prevention.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we recommend incorporating targeted flexibility training to help female football players exceed average ROM values and thereby optimize performance while reducing injury risk. Our proposed approach to compiling and presenting normative data and objective benchmarks offers a practical reference for practitioners; however, it should be interpreted with caution. These findings are not directly generalisable to other populations (e.g., male athletes or athletes from different sports) or to studies using different methodological criteria (e.g., control of compensatory movements, end-of-range definitions, or alternative measurement tools).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C., R.I., F.J.R.-P., M.T.M.-R. and P.S.d.B.; methodology, A.C., R.I., F.J.R.-P., M.T.M.-R. and P.S.d.B.; formal analysis, A.C., F.J.R.-P., M.T.M.-R. and P.S.d.B.; investigation, A.C., R.I., F.J.R.-P., M.T.M.-R. and P.S.d.B.; resources, A.C., F.J.R.-P., M.T.M.-R. and P.S.d.B.; data curation, A.C. and R.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C. and R.I.; writing—review and editing, A.C. and R.I.; supervision, A.C. and P.S.d.B.; funding acquisition, A.C. and P.S.d.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is part of the project “El Fútbol Femenino Importa: Identificación del Riesgo de Lesión a través de la Inteligencia Artificial” (I+D+I/PID2020-115886RB-I00), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the State Research Agency (AEI) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033). The funders had no role in study design, data analysis, interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Murcia (Reg. Code 2424/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the first or corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Part of this work was developed during a research and teaching stay undertaken by the first author (A.C.) and senior author (P.S.d.B.) at the Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo, (Italy) in Junio 2024.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cejudo, A. Description of ROM-SPORT I Battery: Keys to Assess Lower Limb Flexibility. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ayala, F.; López-Valenciano, A.; Gámez Martín, J.; De Ste Croix, M.; Vera-Garcia, F.; García-Vaquero, M.; Ruiz-Pérez, I.; Myer, G. A Preventive Model for Hamstring Injuries in Professional Soccer: Learning Algorithms. Int. J. Sports Med. 2019, 40, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ruiz-Pérez, I.; López-Valenciano, A.; Hernández-Sánchez, S.; Puerta-Callejón, J.; De Ste Croix, M.; Sainz de Baranda, P.; Ayala, F. A Field-Based Approach to Determine Soft Tissue Injury Risk in Elite Futsal Using Novel Machine Learning Techniques. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. López-Valenciano, A.; Ayala, F.; Puerta, J.; Croix, M.; Vera-García, F.; Hernández-Sánchez, S.; Myer, G. A preventive model for muscle injuries: A novel approach based on learning algorithms. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018, 50, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cejudo, A.; Armada-Zarco, J.; Ayala, F.; Sainz de Baranda, P. Prediction of ACL-tear by lower limbs muscle strength and flexibility: A prospective cohort study in 95 female soccer players. Res. Sports Med. 2024, 32, 820–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arnason, A.; Sigurdsson, S.; Gudmundsson, A.; Holme, I.; Engebretsen, L.; Bahr, R. Risk Factors for Injuries in Football. Am. J. Sports Med. 2004, 32, 5S–16S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hägglund, M.; Waldén, M. Risk factors for acute knee injury in female youth football. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2016, 24, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Östenberg, A.; Roos, H. Injury risk factors in female European football. A prospective study of 123 players during one season. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2000, 10, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Söderman, K.; Alfredson, H.; Pietilä, T.; Werner, S.; Söderman, K.; Alfredson, H.; Pietilä, T.; Alfredson, H.; Werner, S. Risk factors for leg injuries in female soccer players: A prospective investigation during one out-door season. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2001, 9, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Faude, O.; Junge, A.; Kindermann, W.; Dvorak, J. Risk factors for injuries in elite female soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 2006, 40, 785–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Niyonsenga, J.; Phillips, J. Factors associated with injuries among first-division Rwandan female soccer players. Afr. Health Sci. 2013, 13, 1021–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sainz de Baranda, P.; Cejudo, A.; Ayala, F.; Santonja, F. Perfil óptimo de flexibilidad del miembro inferior en jugadoras de fútbol sala. Rev. Int. De Med. Y Cienc. De La Act. Fisica y del Deporte 2015, 15, 647–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. López-Valenciano, A.; Ayala, F.; Vera-García, F.; De Ste Croix, M.; Hernández-Sánchez, S.; Ruiz-Pérez, I.; Cejudo, A.; Santonja, F. Comprehensive profile of hip, knee and ankle ranges of motion in professional football players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2019, 59, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mosler, A.; Crossley, K.; Thorborg, K. Hip strength and range of motion: Normal values from a professional football league. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Heijboer, W.; Thijs, K.; Weir, A.; Serner, A.; Tol, J.; Goedhart, E.; Groot, F. Normal hip strength and range of motion values in youth and adult female national football teams: Data from 504 assessments. Phys. Ther. Sport 2024, 69, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tak, I.; Langhout, R.; Groters, S.; Weir, A.; Stubbe, J.; Kerkhoffs, G. A new clinical test for measurement of lower limb specific range of motion in football players: Design, reliability and reference findings in non-injured players and those with long-standing adductor-related groin pain. Phys. Ther. Sport 2017, 23, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Magee, D. Orthopedic Physical Assessment; Elsevier Health Sciences: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  18. McMahon, J.J.; Ripley, N.J.; Comfort, P. Force plate-derived countermovement jump normative data and benchmarks for professional rugby league players. Sensors 2022, 22, 8669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Turner, A.; Jones, B.; Stewart, P.; Bishop, C. Total score of athleticism: Holistic athlete profiling to enhance decision-making. Strength Cond. J. 2019, 41, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lockie, R.; Risso, F.; Giuliano, D.; Orjalo, A.; Jalilvand, F. Practical fitness profiling using field test data for female elite-level collegiate soccer players: A case analysis of a Division I Team. Strength Cond. J. 2018, 40, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gogia, P.; Braatz, J.; Rose, S.; Norton, B. Reliability and Validity of Goniometric Measurements at the Knee. Phys. Ther. 1987, 67, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Enwemeka, C. Radiographic verification of knee goniometry. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1986, 18, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gerhardt, J.; Cocchiarella, L.; Lea, R. The Practical Guide to Range of Motion Assessment; American Medical Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  24. Surgeons American Academy of Orthopaedic. Joint Motion: Method of Measuring and Recording; Churchill Livingstone: Chicago, IL, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cejudo, A.; Sainz de Baranda, P.; Ayala, F.; Santonja, F. Test-retest reliability of seven common clinical tests for assessing lower extremity muscle flexibility in futsal and handball players. Phys. Ther. Sport 2015, 16, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cejudo, A.; Sainz de Baranda, P.; Ayala, F.; De Ste Croix, M.; Santonja-Medina, F. Assessment of the Range of Movement of the Lower Limb in Sport: Advantages of the ROM-SPORT I Battery. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Taylor, K.; Sheppard, J.; Hamilton, L.; Plummer, N. Negative effect of static stretching restored when combined with a sport specific warm-up component. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2009, 12, 657–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Robertson, S.; Bartlett, J.; Gastin, P. Red, Amber, or Green? Athlete Monitoring in Team Sport: The Need for Decision-Support Systems. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 12, S273–S279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. De la Fuente, A.; Gómez-Landero, L. Motor differences in cadet taekwondo athletes according to competition level. Rev. Int. De Med. Y Cienc. De La Act. Fisica y del Deporte 2019, 19, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Battista, R.; Pivarnik, J.; Dummer, G.; Sauer, N.; Malina, R. Comparisons of physical characteristics and performances among female collegiate rowers. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Manning, C.; Hudson, Z. Comparison of hip joint range of motion in professional youth and senior team footballers with age-matched controls: An indication of early degenerative change? Phys. Ther. Sport 2009, 10, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hackett, D.; He, W.; Tran, D.; Sanders, R. Effects of age and playing position on field-based physical fitness measures in adolescent female soccer players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2024, 64, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ganse, B.; Degens, H. Current Insights in the Age-related Decline in Sports Performance of the Older Athlete. Int. J. Sports Med. 2021, 42, 879–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nikolaidis, P. Physical fitness in female soccer players by player position: A focus on anaerobic power. Hum. Mov. 2014, 15, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fältström, A.; Skillgate, E.; Tranaeus, U.; Weiss, N.; Källberg, H.; Lyberg, V.; Nomme, M.; Thome, N.; Omsland, T.; Pedersen, E.; et al. Normative values and changes in range of motion, strength, and functional performance over 1 year in adolescent female football players: Data from 418. Phys. Ther. Sport 2022, 58, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. López-Valenciano, A.; Ayala, F.; De Ste Croix, M.; Barbado, D.; Vera-Garcia, F. Different neuromuscular parameters influence dynamic balance in male and female football players. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2019, 27, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alimoradi, M.; Sahebozamani, M.; Hosseini, E.; Konrad, A.; Noorian, S. The effect on flexibility and a variety of performance tests of the addition of 4 weeks of soleus stretching to a regular dynamic stretching routine in amateur female. Sports 2023, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. García-Pinillos, F.; Ruiz-Ariza, A.; Moreno del Castillo, R.; Latorre-Román, P. Impact of limited hamstring flexibility on vertical jump, kicking speed, sprint, and agility in young football players. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 1293–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oliveira, A.; Barbieri, F.; Gonçalves, M. Flexibility, torque and kick performance in soccer: Effect of dominance. Sci. Sports 2013, 28, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tainaka, K.; Takizawa, T.; Kobayashi, H.; Umimura, M. Limited hip rotation and non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury: A case–control study. Knee 2014, 21, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Weaver, K.; Relph, N. An assessment of clinical joint and limb measures in professional female soccer players: Screening tools for injury prevention? Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 406–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nilsson, T.; Östenberg, A.; Alricsson, M. Injury profile among elite male youth soccer players in a Swedish first league. J. Exerc. Rehabil. 2016, 12, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xu, D.; Zhou, H.; Quan, W.; Ma, X.; Chon, T.; Fernandez, J.; Gusztav, F.; Kovács, A.; Baker, J.; Gu, Y. New insights optimize landing strategies to reduce lower limb injury risk. Cyborg Bionic Syst. 2024, 5, 0126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Konrad, A.; Tilp, M. Effects of ballistic stretching training on the properties of human muscle and tendon structures. J. Appl. Physiol. 2014, 117, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Behm, D.; Blazevich, A.; Kay, A.; McHugh, M. Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: A systematic review. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2015, 41, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Nishikawa, Y.; Aizawa, J.; Kanemura, N.; Takahashi, T.; Hosomi, N.; Maruyama, H.; Kimura, H.; Matsumoto, M.; Takayanagi, K. Immediate effect of passive and active stretching on hamstrings flexibility: A single-blinded randomized control trial. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 3167–3170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sharman, M.; Cresswell, A.; Riek, S. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching Mechanisms and Clinical Implications. Sports Med. 2006, 36, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Nelson, R.; Bandy, W. Eccentric Training and Static Stretching Improve Hamstring Flexibility of High School Males. J. Athl. Train. 2004, 39, 254. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cai, P.; Liu, L.; Li, H. Dynamic and static stretching on hamstring flexibility and stiffness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Robles-Palazón, F.; Blázquez-Rincón, D.; López-Valenciano, A.; Comfort, P.; López-López, J.; Ayala, F. A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for reducing the injury incidence in youth team-sport players. Part 1: An analysis by classical training components. Ann. Med. 2024, 56, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alentorn-Geli, E.; Myer, G.; Silvers, H.; Samitier, G.; Romero, D.; Lázaro-Haro, C.; Cugat, R. Prevention of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in soccer players. Part 2: A review of prevention programs aimed to modify risk factors and to reduce injury rates. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2009, 17, 859–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Amiri-Khorasani, M.; Gulick, D. Acute effects of different stretching methods on static and dynamic balance in female football players. Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. 2015, 22, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ltifi, M.; Jlid, M.; Coquart, J.; Maffulli, N.; van den Tillaar, R.; Aouadi, R. Acute Effect of Four Stretching Protocols on Change of Direction in U-17 Male Soccer Players. Sports 2023, 11, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rodríguez, C.; Echegoyen, S.; Aoyama, T. The effects of “prevent injury and enhance performance program” in a female soccer team. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2018, 58, 659–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Emery, C.; Meeuwisse, W. The effectiveness of a neuromuscular prevention strategy to reduce injuries in youth soccer: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 44, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Azuma, N.; Someya, F. Injury prevention effects of stretching exercise intervention by physical therapists in male high school soccer players. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2020, 30, 2178–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hernandez-Martinez, J.; Ramirez-Campillo, R.; Vera-Assaoka, T.; Castillo-Cerda, M.; Carter-Truillier, B.; Herrera-Valenzuela, T.; López-Fuenzalida, A.; Nobari, H.; Valdés-Badilla, P. Warm-up stretching exercises and physical performance of youth soccer players. Front. Physiol. 2023, 14, 1127669. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hewett, T.; Lindenfeld, T.; Riccobene, J.; Noyes, F. The effect of neuromuscular training on the incidence of knee injury in female athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 1999, 27, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Weldon, A.; Duncan, M.; Turner, A.; Lockie, R.; Loturco, I. Practices of strength and conditioning coaches in professional sports: A systematic review. Biol. Sport 2022, 39, 715–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hopkins, W. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance test. Sport Sci. 2004, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hopkins, W.; Marshall, S.; Batterham, A.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dixon, J.; Keating, J. Variability in straight leg raise measurements. Physiotherapy 2000, 86, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 05714 g001
Figure 1. Normative data on hip extension with the knee relaxed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 1. Normative data on hip extension with the knee relaxed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g001
Applsci 15 05714 g002
Figure 2. Normative data on hip external rotation with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 2. Normative data on hip external rotation with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g002
Applsci 15 05714 g003
Figure 3. Normative data on hip internal rotation with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 3. Normative data on hip internal rotation with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g003
Applsci 15 05714 g004
Figure 4. Normative data on hip flexion with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 4. Normative data on hip flexion with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g004
Applsci 15 05714 g005
Figure 5. Normative data on hip flexion with the knee extended ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 5. Normative data on hip flexion with the knee extended ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g005
Applsci 15 05714 g006
Figure 6. Normative data on hip adduction with the hip/knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 6. Normative data on hip adduction with the hip/knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g006
Applsci 15 05714 g007
Figure 7. Normative data on hip abduction with the hip/knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 7. Normative data on hip abduction with the hip/knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g007
Applsci 15 05714 g008
Figure 8. Normative data on hip abduction with the neutral hip/knee ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 8. Normative data on hip abduction with the neutral hip/knee ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g008
Applsci 15 05714 g009
Figure 9. Normative data on knee flexion ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 9. Normative data on knee flexion ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g009
Applsci 15 05714 g010
Figure 10. Normative data on ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 10. Normative data on ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g010
Applsci 15 05714 g011
Figure 11. Normative data on ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Figure 11. Normative data on ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended ROM for 142 female football players with T-score bands and accompanying qualitative descriptions and traffic light system.
Applsci 15 05714 g011
Table 1. Range of motion of the lower limbs in 142 competitive female football players.
Table 1. Range of motion of the lower limbs in 142 competitive female football players.
VariablesRegional League (n = 87) National League (n = 36)First Division League (n = 19)BF10
(Error %)
Age (year)17.94 ± 4.8620.47 ± 2.7421.84 ± 3.55 1140.93 (0.02)
Weight (kg)57.46 ± 7.4158.84 ± 7.2357.24 ± 5.970.13 (0.03)
Height (cm)161.61 ± 5.10162.76 ± 5.84161.85 ± 5.240.14 (0.03)
BMI (kg/m2)22.02 ± 2.8322.22 ± 2.5421.80 ± 1.330.10 (0.03)
HE (degree)19.31 ± 6.1114.92 ± 3.67 116.42 ± 3.53246.80 (0.02)
HER (degree)58.45 ± 8.0456.94 ± 6.4355.00 ± 5.810.40 (0.03)
HIR (degree)52.43 ± 7.7045.89 ± 8.17 149.00 ± 8.09173.80 (0.02)
HF_KF (degree)138.55 ± 6.70137.50 ± 5.18136.26 ± 5.910.23 (0.03)
HF_KE (degree)78.08 ± 8.7779.40 ± 10.5172.53 ± 7.27 1,21.53 (0.01)
HAD_HKF (degree)33.61 ± 5.1832.31 ± 5.8537.84 ± 7.74 1,218.07 (0.01)
HAB_HKF (degree)73.59 ± 6.1571.67 ± 6.5872.89 ± 4.750.26 (0.03)
HAB_NHK (degree)42.43 ± 3.5443.03 ± 3.7444.79 ± 4.011.15 (0.02)
KF (degree)128.33 ± 11.40123.90 ± 9.31123.50 ± 8.681.24 (0.04)
AD_KF (degree)40.94 ± 5.4436.90 ± 5.05 140.79 ± 4.4858.33 (0.02)
AD_KE (degree)35.42 ± 4.7031.99 ± 3.72 133.89 ± 3.4680.81 (0.02)
Note: Hip extension with the knee relaxed (HE), hip external rotation (HER) and hip internal rotation (HIR) with the knee flexed, flexion with the knee flexed (HF_KF) and extended (HF_KE), adduction with the hip/knee flexed (HAD_HKF), abduction with the hip/knee flexed (HAB_HKF) and neutral hip/knee (HAB_NHK), knee flexion (KF), and ankle dorsiflexion with the knee flexed (AD_KF), and extended (AD_KE). 1 At least the moderate strength of the evidence in relation to the Regional League; 2 At least the moderate strength of the evidence in relation to the Regional League.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cejudo, A.; Izzo, R.; Robles-Palazón, F.J.; Martínez-Romero, M.T.; Sainz de Baranda, P. Lower-Limb Flexibility Profile in 142 Competitive Female Football Players: A Cross-Sectional Study. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5714. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105714

AMA Style

Cejudo A, Izzo R, Robles-Palazón FJ, Martínez-Romero MT, Sainz de Baranda P. Lower-Limb Flexibility Profile in 142 Competitive Female Football Players: A Cross-Sectional Study. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(10):5714. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105714

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cejudo, Antonio, Riccardo Izzo, Francisco Javier Robles-Palazón, María Teresa Martínez-Romero, and Pilar Sainz de Baranda. 2025. "Lower-Limb Flexibility Profile in 142 Competitive Female Football Players: A Cross-Sectional Study" Applied Sciences 15, no. 10: 5714. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105714

APA Style

Cejudo, A., Izzo, R., Robles-Palazón, F. J., Martínez-Romero, M. T., & Sainz de Baranda, P. (2025). Lower-Limb Flexibility Profile in 142 Competitive Female Football Players: A Cross-Sectional Study. Applied Sciences, 15(10), 5714. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105714

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop