@inproceedings{44153, author = {{Knickenberg, Margarita and Zurbriggen, C.}}, title = {{{Qualität sozialer Interaktionen von Jugendlichen mit emotionalen Problemen oder Problemen im Umgang mit Peers im Unterricht – Eine Pilotstudie mit der Experience Sampling Method}}}, year = {{2021}}, } @inproceedings{44152, author = {{DeVries, J. M. and Knickenberg, Margarita and Trygger, M.}}, title = {{{Gender, special education needs, and inclusion: Evidence from the Perceptopions of Inclusion Questionnaire in Sweden}}}, year = {{2021}}, } @article{44151, author = {{DeVries, Jeffrey M. and Knickenberg, Margarita and Trygger, Maria}}, issn = {{0885-6257}}, journal = {{European Journal of Special Needs Education}}, keywords = {{Developmental and Educational Psychology, Health Professions (miscellaneous), Education}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{511--525}}, publisher = {{Informa UK Limited}}, title = {{{Academic self-concept, perceptions of inclusion, special needs and gender: Evidence from inclusive classes in Sweden}}}, doi = {{10.1080/08856257.2021.1911523}}, volume = {{37}}, year = {{2021}}, } @article{45115, abstract = {{ Context Return to running (RTR) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a crucial milestone. However, how and when to start a running program are uncertain. Objective To explore the feasibility of a structured program to reintroduce running after ACLR and evaluate the predictive value of potential predictors of short-term success. Design Longitudinal cohort study. Setting Local research center and participants' homes. Patients or Other Participants Thirty-five participants were recruited after ACLR. Intervention(s) Program with a progression algorithm to reintroduce running (10 running sessions in 14 days). Main Outcome Measure(s) The criterion for short-term success was no exacerbation of symptoms. Potential predictors were (1) the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form score, (2) ACL Return to Sport after Injury questionnaire score, (3) quadriceps and hamstrings strength, (4) step-down endurance test, and (5) modified Star Excursion Balance test. Descriptive statistics were performed to study the feasibility of the RTR program, and Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of success. Results Of the 34 participants, 33 completed the RTR program. Sixteen participants experienced some temporary exacerbation of symptoms, but only 1 had to stop the program. The initial IKDC score was the only significant predictor of a successful RTR, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 80.4%. An IKDC cut-off of 63.7/100 differentiated responders and nonresponders with the highest sensitivity and specificity (77.8% and 75.0%, respectively). A participant with an IKDC score above this threshold had a 3-fold greater chance of success. Conclusions Our results confirm the feasibility of our RTR program and progression algorithm after ACLR. Clinicians should use an IKDC score of >64 as a criterion to reintroduce running after ACLR to increase the likelihood of short-term success. }}, author = {{Pairot de Fontenay, Benoit and Van Cant, Joachim and Gokeler, Alli and Roy, Jean-Sébastien}}, issn = {{1938-162X}}, journal = {{Journal of Athletic Training}}, keywords = {{Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, General Medicine}}, number = {{6}}, pages = {{540--546}}, publisher = {{Journal of Athletic Training/NATA}}, title = {{{Reintroduction of Running After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With a Hamstrings Graft: Can We Predict Short-Term Success?}}}, doi = {{10.4085/1062-6050-0407.21}}, volume = {{57}}, year = {{2021}}, } @article{45135, abstract = {{Context: Only 55% of the athletes return to competitive sports after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Athletes younger than 25 years who return to sports have a second injury rate of 23%. There may be a mismatch between rehabilitation contents and the demands an athlete faces after returning to sports. Current return-to-sports (RTS) tests utilize closed and predictable motor skills; however, demands on the field are different. Neurocognitive functions are essential to manage dynamic sport situations and may fluctuate after peripheral injuries. Most RTS and rehabilitation paradigms appear to lack this aspect, which might be linked to increased risk of second injury. Objective: This systematic and scoping review aims to map existing evidence about neurocognitive and neurophysiological functions in athletes, which could be linked to ACL injury in an integrated fashion and bring an extensive perspective to assessment and rehabilitation approaches. Data Sources: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies published between 2005 and 2020 using the keywords ACL, brain, cortical, neuroplasticity, cognitive, cognition, neurocognition, and athletes. Study Selection: Studies investigating either neurocognitive or neurophysiological functions in athletes and linking these to ACL injury regardless of their design and technique were included. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Data Extraction: The demographic, temporal, neurological, and behavioral data revealing possible injury-related aspects were extracted and summarized. Results: A total of 16 studies were included in this review. Deficits in different neurocognitive domains and changes in neurophysiological functions could be a predisposing risk factor for, or a consequence caused by, ACL injuries. Conclusion: Clinicians should view ACL injuries not only as a musculoskeletal but also as a neural lesion with neurocognitive and neurophysiological aspects. Rehabilitation and RTS paradigms should consider these changes for assessment and interventions after injury. }}, author = {{Piskin, Daghan and Benjaminse, Anne and Dimitrakis, Panagiotis and Gokeler, Alli}}, issn = {{1941-7381}}, journal = {{Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach}}, keywords = {{Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{549--555}}, publisher = {{SAGE Publications}}, title = {{{Neurocognitive and Neurophysiological Functions Related to ACL Injury: A Framework for Neurocognitive Approaches in Rehabilitation and Return-to-Sports Tests}}}, doi = {{10.1177/19417381211029265}}, volume = {{14}}, year = {{2021}}, } @article{45140, abstract = {{Background: Differential learning (DL) is a motor learning method characterized by high amounts of variability during practice and is claimed to provide the learner with a higher learning rate than other methods. However, some controversy surrounds DL theory, and to date, no overview exists that compares the effects of DL to other motor learning methods.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of DL in comparison to other motor learning methods in the acquisition and retention phase.Design: Systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until February 3, 2020. To be included, (1) studies had to be experiments where the DL group was compared to a control group engaged in a different motor learning method (lack of practice was not eligible), (2) studies had to describe the effects on one or more measures of performance in a skill or movement task, and (3) the study report had to be published as a full paper in a journal or as a book chapter.Results: Twenty-seven studies encompassing 31 experiments were included. Overall heterogeneity for the acquisition phase (post-pre; I2 = 77%) as well as for the retention phase (retention-pre; I2 = 79%) was large, and risk of bias was high. The meta-analysis showed an overall small effect size of 0.26 [0.10, 0.42] in the acquisition phase for participants in the DL group compared to other motor learning methods. In the retention phase, an overall medium effect size of 0.61 [0.30, 0.91] was observed for participants in the DL group compared to other motor learning methods.Discussion/Conclusion: Given the large amount of heterogeneity, limited number of studies, low sample sizes, low statistical power, possible publication bias, and high risk of bias in general, inferences about the effectiveness of DL would be premature. Even though DL shows potential to result in greater average improvements between pre- and post/retention test compared to non-variability-based motor learning methods, more high-quality research is needed before issuing such a statement. For robust comparisons on the relative effectiveness of DL to different variability-based motor learning methods, scarce and inconclusive evidence was found.}}, author = {{Tassignon, Bruno and Verschueren, Jo and Baeyens, Jean-Pierre and Benjaminse, Anne and Gokeler, Alli and Serrien, Ben and Clijsen, Ron}}, issn = {{1664-1078}}, journal = {{Frontiers in Psychology}}, keywords = {{General Psychology}}, publisher = {{Frontiers Media SA}}, title = {{{An Exploratory Meta-Analytic Review on the Empirical Evidence of Differential Learning as an Enhanced Motor Learning Method}}}, doi = {{10.3389/fpsyg.2021.533033}}, volume = {{12}}, year = {{2021}}, } @article{45138, abstract = {{Individuals after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have a high rate of reinjury upon return to competitive sports. Deficits in motor control may influence reinjury risk and can be addressed during rehabilitation with motor learning strategies. When instructing patients in performing motor tasks after ACLR, an external focus of attention directed to the intended movement effect has been shown to be more effective in reducing reinjury risk than an internal focus of attention on body movements. While this concept is mostly agreed upon, recent literature has made it clear that the interpretation and implementation of an external focus of attention within ACLR rehabilitation needs to be better described. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a clinical framework for the application of attentional focus strategies and guide clinicians towards effectively utilizing an external focus of attention in rehabilitation after ACLR. Level of Evidence 5 }}, author = {{Singh, Harjiv and Gokeler, Alli and Benjaminse, Anne}}, issn = {{2159-2896}}, journal = {{International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy}}, keywords = {{Rehabilitation, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation}}, number = {{6}}, publisher = {{International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy}}, title = {{{Effective Attentional Focus Strategies after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Commentary}}}, doi = {{10.26603/001c.29848}}, volume = {{16}}, year = {{2021}}, } @article{45151, author = {{Dingenen, Bart and Billiet, Bart and De Baets, Liesbet and Bellemans, Johan and Truijen, Jan and Gokeler, Alli}}, issn = {{1466-853X}}, journal = {{Physical Therapy in Sport}}, keywords = {{Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, General Medicine}}, pages = {{68--76}}, publisher = {{Elsevier BV}}, title = {{{Rehabilitation strategies of Flemish physical therapists before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: An online survey}}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.02.003}}, volume = {{49}}, year = {{2021}}, } @misc{42317, author = {{N., N.}}, publisher = {{Universität Paderborn}}, title = {{{Die Aufteilung der Barentsseegebiete mithilfe des Adjusted Winner Verfahrens bei asymmetrischen Machtverhältnissen}}}, year = {{2021}}, } @misc{42315, author = {{N., N.}}, publisher = {{Universität Paderborn}}, title = {{{Versionisierung von Serviceleistungen auf Videoplattformen}}}, year = {{2021}}, }