RTC Test Battery - Examples

Table of Contents

  1. Slidedeck
  2. One-Minute-Paper Topics

Slidedeck

Contents of this lecture can be found in the Slidedeck.

One-Minute-Paper Topics

A One-Minute-Paper (OMP) is a short, focused prompt that students answer in ~60 seconds at the end of a session to consolidate learning, surface misconceptions, and provide formative feedback. When answering, be concise, specific, and use terminology from today’s session.

  1. Working from one example case presented today, identify the single RTC battery domain that showed the greatest improvement from the first to the most recent test point, and explain what drove that change.
  2. In one of today’s examples, was there a discrepancy between the athlete’s self-reported readiness (I-PRRS or CAIT) and their functional test scores? How would you handle such a discrepancy clinically?
  3. Describe how you would use the traffic-light classification system to communicate RTC battery results to a coach in a brief debrief meeting.
  4. Compare two example cases from today’s session: what were the most clinically meaningful differences in their rehabilitation trajectories?
  5. Explain why the same absolute LSI value (e.g. 88%) may warrant different clinical responses depending on the athlete’s sport and playing position.
  6. Select one RTC test from today’s examples and explain how you would coach the athlete to improve specifically on that measure in the next rehabilitation phase.
  7. What constitutes a “passing” profile across the full RTC battery (hop tests, balance, questionnaires) for return-to-competition clearance, based on today’s examples?
  8. Identify one case from today where the timeline (days post-injury) and the test results gave conflicting signals about readiness. How should the clinician proceed?
  9. Describe how normalized reach distances in the SEBT were interpreted in one of today’s examples and whether they supported or questioned clearance.
  10. What role did the MIS or I-PRRS play in the final clearance decision in one of today’s cases?
  11. Explain the concept of “residual asymmetry” and discuss whether a persistent 5% deficit is clinically acceptable for high-load sport re-entry.
  12. How do the example cases from today illustrate the importance of criterion-based rather than time-based progression?
  13. Describe one scenario from today where a yellow-zone result on a balance test changed the recommended return-to-sport timeline.
  14. What does the pattern of results across all today’s examples suggest about the typical sequence in which RTC battery domains normalise after ankle or knee injury?
  15. How would you modify the RTC test battery protocol for a contact-sport athlete (e.g. soccer) versus a non-contact-sport athlete (e.g. swimmer)?
  16. Identify one assessment tool introduced in the RTC battery that you feel least confident interpreting, and describe what additional information you would need.
  17. How should a clinician document and present RTC battery results longitudinally to best support shared decision-making with the athlete and medical team?
  18. In one of today’s cases, what was the weakest link in the athlete’s return-to-competition profile, and what targeted intervention would you prescribe?
  19. Which example from today’s session best illustrates why no single test is sufficient for return-to-competition clearance?
  20. What is the one insight from today’s examples that you will most directly apply in your future sports medicine practice?