Browsing by Author "Arnold, Brent L."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Exploring sport motivation and multi-dimensional wellness in NCAA Division II student-athletes
    (2017-11-17) Mayol, Mindy M.; Arnold, Brent L.; Koceja, David M.; Raglin, John S.; Staten, Lisa K.
    Too few studies relating to motivation and wellness have targeted the NCAA Division II student-athlete (SA) population. PURPOSES: To examine differences in SAs’ sport motivation (SM) types over three time points as well as multi-dimensional wellness (MDW) levels in SAs during one time point. METHODS: Overall, 530 Division II SAs (nmales = 355, nfemales = 175) with an overall age range of 18 to 23 (M = 19.40, SD = 1.33) from 21 teams voluntarily completed the 18-item Self-Determination Theory-based SM Scale II used to measure six motivation types, the 45-item MDW Inventory used to measure nine wellness dimensions, and a demographics questionnaire. Repeated measures Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) and 2x2x3 Mixed ANOVAs were used to analyze SM types while a multivariate ANOVA was used to analyze MDW with an alpha level of 0.05 set for statistical significance. RESULTS: Analyses demonstrated statistically significant differences in SM types over time (p = .05), interactions and differences in SM types between interactive/coactive and male/female SAs (p = .05), and interactions and differences in MDW levels between male/female SAs and SAs who completed/did not complete a college wellness course (p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggested that autonomous-based SM types decreased over time whereas amotivation increased over time indicating possible athlete burnout. Interactive and female SAs showed similarities also representative of athlete burnout. SAs who completed the MDW course demonstrated higher physical wellness exercise scores than SAs who did not. Female SAs had higher means in five wellness dimensions when compared to male SAs. SAs who completed the course showed higher means for seven wellness dimensions versus SAs who did not. Further research should ensue to better understand motivation and wellness on a national scale examining Division I, II and III and NAIA athletes in order to provide more generalizable results.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A retrospective descriptive study of pain scores in the pre-diabetic patients on metformin
    (2015-07-01) Moore, Michele Nakamura; Mushi, Christina R.; Ang, Dennis C.; Mac Kinnon, Joyce L.; Sturek, Michael S.; Arnold, Brent L.
    Objectives: The purpose was to evaluate pain scores (SF-36 BPS) among pre-diabetic patients on metformin or placebo to determine if patients on metformin therapy report less pain (higher SF-36 BPS) than patients on placebo. Study design: A descriptive retrospective review of pain scores was conducted using secondary data analyses of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) conducted from 1996 to 2008. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo, low (850 mg/day) or high dose (1700 mg/day) metformin groups. Pain scores using the SF-36 BPS standard version were taken before randomization and annually (year one through four). Results: Out of 3,819 patients that participated in the original study, 1,056 patients met the current study criteria. The metformin group included 506 patients and the placebo group included 550 patients. With an alpha level of 0.05 for all analyses, baseline pain scores between the metformin group and placebo group showed no significant difference. Year two showed significance between placebo and metformin pain scores (75.2 vs 78.6). All other years were not significant. Comparing low and high dose metformin and placebo groups, years one, two and three displayed significant differences in pain scores. In years one and two, the high dose metformin group reported less pain than the placebo group (80.7 vs 77.7; 80.1 vs 75.2) and the low dose metformin group (80.7 vs 71.8; 80.1 vs 68.6). In year three, the high dose metformin group had less pain than the low dose metformin group (78.4 vs 70.5).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Wobble Board Rehabilitation for Improving Balance in Ankles With Chronic Instability
    (Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, 2016-01) Linens, Shelley W.; Ross, Scott E.; Arnold, Brent L.; Department of Health Sciences, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences
    Objective: To quantify improvements in clinical impairments using a wobble board rehabilitation protocol for chronic ankle instability (CAI). Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: Laboratory. Patients: Thirty-four participants with “giving way” and history of ankle sprains were randomly assigned to a rehabilitation group (REH) (170.22 ± 8.71 cm; 75.57 ± 13.55 kg; 22.94 ± 2.77 years) or control group (CON) (168.57 ± 9.81 cm; 77.19 ± 19.93 kg; 23.18 ± 3.64 years). Interventions: Four weeks with no intervention for CON or wobble board rehabilitation for REH, consisting of 3 sessions per week of 5 repetitions. Main Outcome Measures: Dependent variables were preintervention and postintervention score on foot lift test (average number of errors), Time-in-Balance Test (TBT) (longest time), Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT)-anteromedial, medial, and posteromedial (average reach distance normalized to leg length), side hop test (fastest time), and figure-of-eight hop test (fastest time). Results: Main effects for time were significant for all measures (P < 0.05); but main effects for groups were not (P > 0.05) except for SEBT-anteromedial reach direction. Significant interactions were found for all dependent measures (P < 0.05) except for TBT (P > 0.05). Post hoc testing of significant interactions showed REH improved performance at posttest, whereas CON did not. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that a single intervention using a wobble board improved static and dynamic balance deficits associated with CAI. Clinical Relevance: This approach provides a potentially more economical, time efficient, and space efficient means of improving clinical outcome measures associated with CAI in patients who are physically active.