An NPR report highlights a gap between ACL test performance and perceived readiness, with practical context for discussing confidence and fear of reinjury.
On October 19, 2026, an NPR report published by Central Florida Public Media highlighted a gap in ACL recovery: performing well on physical tests did not necessarily mean athletes felt ready to return to sport. The report described research by Erich Petushek and Shelby Baez involving about 60 athletes followed for six months after ACL surgery.
The finding brings attention to a part of recovery that a hopping result may not reflect: the athlete's own sense of readiness. It offers a reason to discuss confidence alongside physical progress rather than treating either as the complete answer.
The report adds to an existing approach rather than introducing psychological readiness as an entirely new idea. A clinical review published October 14, 2026, in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine recommends considering time since surgery, functional criteria and psychological readiness together in return-to-play decisions.
These are different kinds of information. Time places recovery within its course. Functional criteria address physical performance. Psychological readiness addresses how a person feels about resuming sport.
The review describes the ACL-Return to Sport after Injury scale as a tool that assesses emotional response, performance confidence and risk appraisal. In plain language, that means asking about feelings, trust in performance and the person's view of risk.
That context matters because a return decision is not a contest between physical tests and feelings. The review puts them alongside each other. ReboundBody's explanation of looking beyond symptom relief when considering activity provides related context for understanding why a single sign of progress is not the whole decision.
According to the NPR report, performance on tests such as single-leg hopping did not necessarily predict the athletes' perceived readiness. The important word is perceived: the researchers were examining how ready the athletes felt.
Petushek described good-looking function as “only one piece of the puzzle.” Physiotherapist and researcher Clare Ardern also told NPR that some people regain strength and movement but still do not return to their prior sport level.
The useful addition is the distinction between doing a movement and feeling ready to resume sport. A test result speaks to the task being measured. A report of fear or confidence brings a different question into view.
These findings support asking about both rather than assuming that one answers for the other. A person who performs well still needs space to describe hesitation. A person who feels ready still needs physical progress considered within the wider clinical decision.
The reported group consisted of athletes recovering from ACL surgery. That is the population to keep in mind when reading the finding. For readers hoping to resume sport after that surgery, the report offers a way to describe a possible mismatch between physical progress and confidence.
The recovery goal also deserves a clear description. Returning to ordinary activity and returning to a previous sport level are not the same question. When reading about readiness, it helps to keep the reported outcome separate from the activity someone actually hopes to resume.
For example, a conversation about how ready someone feels should name the activity under discussion rather than leave “return” undefined. Readers thinking about those goals can find related context in ReboundBody's article on separating daily activity from sport performance.
The practical relevance is a more specific conversation with the rehabilitation team, not an instruction to change exercise or return sooner. Baez told NPR that clinicians should consider whether fear is warranted at a person's current stage of rehabilitation. She noted that some fear shortly after surgery may be protective.
This is a different starting point from treating all fear as a problem to remove. It gives the concern a place in the clinical discussion instead of judging it as a failure of effort or motivation. Baez also cautioned against treating fear as something to suppress. In the NPR report, she emphasized that the patient's perception is their reality.
The report supports discussing what feels difficult as well as what went well on testing. Questions for a qualified clinician might include:
These questions do not set a return date or replace a clinical assessment. They help make the concern visible. Naming a movement or situation that brings on fear gives the clinician something specific to discuss.
The aim is not to produce a more positive answer on demand. It is to describe the experience accurately enough for the treating team to consider it alongside the physical findings. That keeps confidence from becoming another test the patient feels pressure to pass.
NPR also described possible ways to anchor attention in the present. Baez mentioned grounding cues such as touching a wristband, tapping the chest or using a cue word. She said the appropriate approach depends on the individual.
The report discussed mindfulness during activity as well. These are topics to raise with the treating team rather than techniques to turn into a self-directed return-to-sport plan.
For readers unfamiliar with this part of recovery, ReboundBody offers background on psychological factors and ACL assessment tools. Understanding the terms provides a starting point for asking what an assessment means within a personal rehabilitation plan.
The NPR report does not provide the full study title or a link to a paper. It also leaves out participant characteristics, the exact test battery and statistical results. Without those details, the strength of the finding cannot be independently assessed from the report alone.
The reported outcome was perceived readiness. It does not establish that physical tests lack value for predicting reinjury or sporting performance. Nor should this athlete sample be treated as direct evidence about every orthopedic operation or recurring pain condition.
The clinical review adds another important limit: the relationship between psychological readiness and reinjury may depend on when readiness is measured. It cites one study in which higher readiness at three months was associated with a higher incidence of a second ACL injury. That association does not show that confidence caused the later injury.
That makes a high readiness score an incomplete basis for calling a return safe. The useful question is how the score fits with timing and physical findings, not whether the score supplies permission on its own.
The NPR report also does not establish that grounding cues or mindfulness improve ACL return-to-sport outcomes. Its account of guided mindful running involved people with patellofemoral pain and reported reduced fear of pain, but it supplied no sample size or effect estimate. That is a different group from athletes recovering from ACL surgery.
Open questions include how best to assess fear at different stages and how psychological support affects later return to sport. More detailed research is needed to judge which approaches help which patients.
Good recovery conversations leave room for the test result and the person behind it.
Mistaking a strong hopping result for restored confidence can obscure fear of reinjury; ReboundBody addresses that confusion through clear recovery education. Its evidence-aware articles help sidelined adults in midlife and later life understand research and consider questions for qualified care when worry about doing too much clouds the return to activity.
Follow ReboundBody for practical articles on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength. New posts turn research into clear ideas for the road back to activity after injury or surgery.
Read practical guidance on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength as you work your way back to activity.
Explore Resources