## 3 Results
When examining correlations between participants' _mechanical/functional ankle instability_ (yes/no by categories) and their ability to cope with perturbations, our findings indicated a significantly lower ability to cope with unexpected perturbations among individuals with low CAIT scores (\(\leq\)25) in both legs compared to participants with high CAIT(\(>\)25) scores in the TD position (\(p\) < 0.01 and \(p\) < 0.01, respectively) and in the TND position (\(p\) < 0.01 and \(p\) = 0.01, respectively). This same pattern was found for those with high AII questionnaire scores (\(<\)5) compared with low scores (\(\geq\)5) in coping with perturbations in the SO (\(p\) < 0.01 and \(p\) < 0.01, respectively), SC (\(p\) = 0.04 and \(p\) < 0.03, respectively), TD (\(p\) < 0.01 and \(p\) < 0.01, respectively), TND (\(p\) < 0.01 and \(p\) < 0.02, respectively) and walking positions (\(p\) < 0.04 and \(p\) = 0.04, respectively). Finally, this pattern was also seen among participants with low scores on the ankle sprains history questionnaire (\(\leq\)4) compared to those with high score (=5) and coping with perturbations in the SO (\(p\) = 0.03), SC (\(p\) < 0.01), TD (\(p\) < 0.02), TND (\(p\) < 0.01); and walking positions (\(p\) < 0.01), as seen in Table 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **SO** & **SC** & **TD** & **TND** & **SLSS** & **SLOS** & **Walk** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CAIT D} & \(\leq\)25 & 15 (3) & 12 (6) & 6 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (4) & 6 (0) & 12 (3) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(>\)25 & 15 (6) & 12 (6) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (6) & 6 (2) & 12 (3) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CAIT ND} & \(\leq\)25 & 15 (6) & 12 (8) & 6 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (6) & 6 (0) & 12 (3) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(>\)25 & 15 (6) & 12 (6) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (2) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (4) & 6 (1) & 14 (3) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{AII D} & \(\geq\)5 & 14 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 12 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (6) & 6 (0) & 12 (3) \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(<\)5 & 15 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 14 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (4) & 6 (0) & 15 (6) \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{AII ND} & \(\geq\)5 & 12 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (6)\({}^{*}\) & 6 (0) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (7) & 6 (2) & 9 (6) \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(<\)5 & 15 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 12 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (4) & 6 (0) & 12 (3) \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Clinical ass. D} & \(\geq\)2 & 15 (6) & 12 (6) & 8 (3) & 9 (3) & 6 (6) & 6 (1) & 12 (3) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(<\)2 & 15 (5) & 15 (6) & 9 (3) & 9 (3) & 6 (4) & 6 (0) & 15 (9) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Clinical ass. ND} & \(\geq\)2 & 15 (3) & 12 (6) & 6 (3) & 9 (3) & 6 (6) & 6 (0) & 12 (3) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(<\)2 & 15 (6) & 15 (9) & 9 (3) & 9 (3) & 6 (4) & 6 (0) & 12 (3) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ankle sprains} & \(=\)5 & 12 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 6 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 4 (6) & 6 (0) & 12 (6) \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \(\leq\)4 & 15 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 15 (6) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \({}^{*}\) & 9 (3) \The number and percentage of individuals with CAI (1) and with no-CAI (0) in the different mechanical/functional assessments is shown in Table 3. The ability to cope with perturbations in individuals with \"stable\" and \"unstable\" ankles was determined. Survival analyses showed significant differences between participants with no CAI in at least four of the five mechanical and functional assessments (\"stable\" group) and those with CAI in at least four of the five mechanical and functional assessments (\"unstable\" group) in the SO, SC, TD and TND positions (\(p<0.05\), \(p<0.04\), \(p<0.02\) and \(p<0.01\), respectively), Table 4 and in Figure 3.  
Finally, only the participants' AII questionnaire scores significantly differentiated between participants with unilateral, bilateral, and no ankle instability in their ability to cope with increased level of unexpected perturbations.