## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Range of Motion, Mean (Standard Deviation)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ANOVA Repeated Measure**} \\ \hline  & **Control-Pre** & **Top** & **Bottom** & **Full** & **Effect Size** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline L elbow FL/EX & 49.35 (23.12) & 51.38 (23.28) & 50.95 (22.82) & 51.24 (24.05) & 0.048 & 0.417 \\ R elbow FL/EX & 93.30 (13.27) & 89.43 (12.46) & 89.14 (13.79) & 89.82 (14.38) & 0.098 & 0.116 \\ L shoulder FL/EX & 30.06 (12.77) & 26.98 (11.58) & 30.40 (12.66)  & 26.87 (10.48)  & 0.152 \(\delta\) & 0.041  \\ R shoulder FL/EX & 44.11 (18.88) & 40.48 (16.96) & 44.01 (19.11) & 41.47 (17.2) & 0.148  & 0.148  \\ L shoulder AB/AD & 124.84 (113.81) & 125.37 (132.49) & 133.85 (120.05) & 132.36 (124.17) & 0.022  & 0.66 \\ R shoulder AB/AD & 72.93 (51) & 75.01 (55.07) & 76.05 (48.47) & 78.02 (71.69) & 0.012  & 0.821 \\ L shoulder rotation & 50.50 (40.81) & 58.41 (51.4) & 67.24 (83.18) & 59.95 (61.04) & 0.089  & 0.176 \\ R shoulder rotation & 90.38 (45.46) & 128.70 (81.71) & 105.07 (67.28) & 118.07 (73.94) & 0.128  & 0.048  \\ L wrist RA/UL & 35.80 (20.68) & 34.93 (27) & 35.12 (28.48) & 38.26 (32.93) & 0.036 & 0.552 \\ R wrist RA/UL & 70.79 (27.55) & 79.36 (92.02) & 71.34 (33.37) & 77.73 (81.8) & 0.071  & 0.249 \\ L wrist FL/EX & 39.21 (33.56) & 39.37 (41.11) & 42.20 (33.93) & 42.90 (4 mechanically, compression garments had a significant influence on the ROM of the head flexion, trunk lateral bending, left (non-dominant side) shoulder flexion, right (dominant side) shoulder rotation and left knee flexion as indicated by the ANOVA findings. Post hoc comparisons showed that wearing either upper- or full-body garments constrained the ROM of head flexion and trunk lateral bending which could be associated with improved trunk stability and thus, improved performance [27]. The relationship between the condition of the head movement and stability and free-throw accuracy was advocated previously, but not well understood [28]. On the other hand, garment coverage of the lower body (bottom or full-body gear) significantly reduced the ROM of the left (non-dominant) side knee joint in the sagittal plane, but not the right (dominant) side, because experienced players tended to adjust the knee joint of the dominant side to greater extent for better performance [29]. Theoretically, compression of the knee joint enhanced proprioception and thus performance [30; 31] notwithstanding that our study did not demonstrate an improved shooting score for lower-body (bottom) garments. In addition, the reduced head flexion and trunk lateral bending ROM could implicate successful shooting performance. Elbow and wrist movements are determinants of free-throw performance and player skill levels [20]. Skilled players coordinate the shooting arm by constantly compromising between elbow and wrist movements to adapt to subtle changes in release parameters of the ball (e.g., release height, angle of ball projection, velocity at ball release) [20]. In addition, more highly skilled players tend to maximize the ROM of the wrist joint [20]. top compression garments help to constrain the ROM of the elbow, and thus players can focus on optimizing distal joint (wrist) motion only [20]. In our study, although there were no significant main effects on the ROM of the elbow and wrist joints, pairwise comparisons showed that upper-body (top) garments significantly reduced the ROM of the right (dominant) side elbow, but increased that of the wrist radial/ulnar deviation and palmar rotation compared to that of the control-pre condition. This was likely due to the fact that the uncovered wrist joint compensated the reduced motion of the elbow [20]. In fact, some statisticians argued that conducting and interpreting post hoc analyses could still be valid even though the main effect was not significant [32; 33]. The enhanced proprioception by compression garments may also facilitate the organization of compensatory behavior between joints for better performance.