## 3 Results  
_Age and Anthropometric parameters_: No significant age differences was found between genders (F = 25.3 \(\pm\) 3.9, M = 26.9 \(\pm\) 6.1). The weight and height of the male participants were significantly higher than those of the female participants (_p_\(<\) 0.05), but no significant differences were seen between the BMI of the two gender groups (weight: F = 60.1 \(\pm\) 9.3, M = 76.7 \(\pm\) 13.6; height: F = 164.2 \(\pm\) 6.7, M = 179.3 \(\pm\) 7.0; BMI: F = 22.3 \(\pm\) 2.6, M = 23.7 \(\pm\) 3.2). No gender differences were found in the TTT and ADT clinical assessments. Table 1 presents Pearson correlations in between the different mechanical or functional ankle instability assessments and the scores for the dominant and non-dominant leg. _Age_ was positively correlated with the ability to cope in the SO position (r = 0.36, _p_\(<\) 0.01); _weight_ was negatively correlated with the ability to cope with perturbation in SLOS and walking (r = \(-\)0.34, _p_\(<\) 0.01 and r = \(-\)0.3, _p_\(<\) 0.05, respectively); and _height_ was negatively correlated with perturbation coping in SO, SLOS, and walking (r = \(-\)0.31, _p_\(<\) 0.05; r = \(-\)0.36, _p_\(=\) 0.02 and r = \(-\)0.36, _p_\(=\) 0.02, respectively). BMI was not significantly correlated with the ability to cope with perturbations. Looking at the correlations between the different mechanical and functional ankle instability assessments and the ability to cope perturbations in different starting positions, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **CAIT** & **CAITN** & **Ankle** & **AII** & **AII** & **Clinical** & **Clinical** & **AMEDA** \\  & **D** & **D** & **Sprains** & **D** & **ND** & **ass. D** & **ass. ND** & **D** \\ \hline CAIT D & - & & & & & & & \\ \hline CAIT ND & 0.762 * & - & & & & & & \\ \hline Ankle sprains & \(-\)0.626 * & \(-\)0.710 * & - & & & & & \\ \hline AII D & \(-\)0.833 * & \(-\)0.555 * & 0.670 * & - & & & & \\ \hline AII ND & \(-\)0.434 * & \(-\)0.733 * & 0.662 * & 0.378 * & - & & & \\ \hline Clinical ass. D & \(-\)0.497 * & \(-\)0.386 * & 0.283 * & 0.563 * & 0.383 * & - & & \\ \hline Clinical ass. ND & \(-\)0.379 * & \(-\)0.560 * & 0.363 * & 0.281 * & 0.420 * & 0.452 * & - & \\ \hline AUC D & 0.453 * & 0.273 * & \(-\)0.418 * & \(-\)0.434 * & \(-\)0.215 & \(-\)0.199 & \(-\)0.086 & - \\ \hline AUC ND & 0.211 & 0.196 & \(-\)0.762 * & 0.153 & \(-\)0.285 * & \(-\)0.138 & \(-\)0.183 & 0.646 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Correlations ([PERSON]’s r values) between the different mechanical and functional ankle instability assessments for the dominant (D) and non-dominant legs (ND). significant correlations were found between CAIT scores for both the dominant and non-dominant legs and perturbation in the TND position (r = 0.296, \(p\) = 0.02 and r = 0.325, \(p\) = 0.01, respectively). Correlations were also found between the AII questionnaire data regarding the dominant leg and the TD / TND positions (r = \(-\)0.283, \(p\) = 0.03 and r = \(-\)0.365, \(p\) < 0.01, respectively), and between the AII questionnaire data regarding the non-dominant leg and the TND position (r = \(-\)0.324, \(p\) < 0.01). Furthermore, significant correlations were found between AUC scores in both legs and the SO position (r = 0.349, \(p\) < 0.01 and r = 0.447, \(p\) < 0.01, respectively), SC (r = 0.364, \(p\) < 0.01 and r = 0.413, \(p\) < 0.01, respectively), TD (r = 0.346, \(p\) < 0.01 and r = 0.308, \(p\) = 0.02, respectively), TND (r = 0.280, \(p\) = 0.03 and r = 0.329, \(p\) = 0.01, respectively), and walking positions (r = 0.418, \(p\) = 0.02 and r = 0.439, \(p\) < 0.01, respectively). Finally, correlations were observed between data regarding previous ankle sprains and the SC, TD, and TND positions (r = \(-\)0.333, \(p\) < 0.01; r = \(-\)0.285, \(p\) < 0.03 and r = \(-\)0.367, \(p\) < 0.01, respectively).