A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MOVEMENT DEFICIENCIES AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS IN UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STAFF WITH AND WITHOUT NON-SPECIFIC LOWER BACK PAIN

Non-specific lower back pain (NSLBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. It reduces work performance, elevates stress, and diminishes quality of life. Existing literature shows prolonged sitting and constrained work postures is a risk factor for NSLBP, university faculty and staff are particularly vulnerable. Traditional movement assessments for pain evaluate joints in isolation may miss the multidirectional functional deficits. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and Selective Functional Movement Assessment (SFMA) address this gap by screening movement quality across multiple planes, yet neither has been widely applied in non-athletic occupational settings. Fear of movement and perceived exercise barriers add a psychosocial layer that targeted prevention strategies for NSLBP group have yet to address. The purpose of this study is to bridge that gap by comparing movement quality, physical activity behavior, sedentary time, and physical activity-related perceptions between university faculty and staff with and without NSLBP. Fifty university faculty and staff from Washington State University and University of Idaho completed the FMS, SFMA Top Tier, Global Physical Activity Questionnaire, Modality-Specific Activity Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Exercise Benefits and Barriers Scale, and a physical activity preference questionnaire. NSLBP group was determined through a validated eligibility screening process (Oswestry Lower Back Pain Disability Questionnaire). Between-group comparisons were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests, Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Thirty-eight percent of the sample reported NSLBP. NSLBP group demonstrated significantly lower total FMS score and greater bilateral movement asymmetry occurrence and accumulation across multiple movement tasks than controls. Pain aggravation during SFMA was significantly more common in the pain group, while movement dysfunction was similar across both groups. Both groups reported approximately eight hours of daily sitting, though largely met physical activity guidelines, and did not differ significantly in total activity volume, fear of movement, or perceived exercise benefits and barriers. NSLBP group reported lower aerobic training frequency and reported higher low-impact modality preference. NSLBP in this occupational population was not associated with overall physical activity or psychosocial deficits, but with selective differences in movement quality, particularly asymmetric motor control patterns. Results suggesting looking at physical activity or sitting time alone may be insufficient for prevention in this population. Movement quality screening may offer a more targeted path forward. Future prospective research with larger samples should clarify whether asymmetric motor control drives pain or results from it. Additionally, future research should compare targeted corrective exercise for asymmetries to general resistance training to better inform prevention strategies to this population.