Competency and confidence in qualitative biomechanical assessment of exercise technique among exercise professionals

Key points

1. 01Average score was 50% on a 30-question biomechanics instrument (random guessing baseline was 30%)
2. 02No significant differences in scores were found across occupation types or years of experience after correcting for multiple comparisons
3. 0372% of professionals were very or completely confident in choosing exercises for specific muscles, yet objective scores were poor
4. 0497% of respondents indicated they definitely or probably wanted to learn more about resistance exercise technique assessment
5. 05The gap between high confidence and low objective scores suggests a Dunning-Kruger-type miscalibration in this domain

How it was conducted

Design

Cross-sectional survey study with a development and testing phase

Participants

310 active exercise professionals (personal trainers, strength coaches, physiotherapists, athletic trainers, physical therapists) after exclusions

Instrument

30-item true/false and multiple-choice test of biomechanical principles applied to resistance exercises; Flesch-Kincaid grade level 12

Additional measures

Self-efficacy (4 items, 5-point Likert) and perceived job importance (6 items, 5-point Likert) for exercise technique subskills

Statistical analysis

One-way ANOVA with Scheffe post hoc for scores by occupation and experience; Wilcoxon rank sum tests for confidence and importance data with Benjamini-Yekutieli correction

What they found

• Overall percentage correct was 50% +/- 13%; random guessing probability was 30%
• ANOVA for occupation was significant (F(4,305) = 2.8; p = 0.03), but Scheffe post hoc tests found no significant pairwise differences (p > 0.14)
• Scores by occupation: fitness professionals 52.8%, physiotherapists 50.4%, physical therapists 50.2%, strength and conditioning coaches 47.6%, athletic trainers 43.2%
• ANOVA for years of experience was significant (F(4,304) = 2.7; p = 0.03), but Scheffe post hoc tests found no significant pairwise differences (p > 0.06)
• Scores by experience: 6-10 years 52%, 11-20 years 51.5%, 2-5 years 48.9%, >20 years 48.0%, 0-1 year 29%
• 72% of professionals were very or completely confident in choosing exercises to target specific muscles; 70% in identifying poor technique
• 45% were very or completely confident in optimizing exercises to maximize muscle activation (the lowest confidence subskill)
• Approximately 90% rated motivating clients, identifying poor technique, and modifying exercises as very or extremely important
• 97% indicated they definitely or probably wanted to learn more about assessing resistance exercises

Limitations

• Convenience and snowball sampling via email and social media introduces selection bias and limits generalizability to the broader professional population
• Uneven and relatively small subgroup sizes increase risk of type II errors in occupational and experience comparisons
• Instrument psychometrics (test-retest reliability, predictive validity against real-world technique assessment) have not yet been formally evaluated
• The instrument was administered in English only, which may disadvantage non-native English speakers in the international sample

Why it matters

For patients

Patients and athletes receiving exercise instruction may be working with professionals who lack the biomechanical knowledge needed to safely and effectively adapt exercises to individual needs.

For clinicians

Clinicians prescribing or supervising resistance exercise should seek continuing education in biomechanics, particularly external forces and moment arms, as current training appears to leave significant knowledge gaps regardless of credential or experience.

For readers

This study establishes a baseline competency benchmark and highlights an unmet educational need, calling for better teaching tools and curricula focused on qualitative biomechanical analysis of resistance exercise.