The sole purpose will be to conduct not only a critical evaluation but also to proclaim a sound analysis of the implications and investigations regarding the Lachman test from a methodological perspective. The investigative section will aim to provide further information regarding the Lachman test and will attempt to identify the work of others, and how they compare to the studies of the authors being discussed.After this segment, a conclusion will then be drawn upon highlighting the various points previously discussed, as well as conclude with an overall position on the effectiveness of each article in terms of how well it represents the use of the Lachman test in its proper physiological context.Both articles are similar in that they each take an individualized look at the Lachman test and apply it to a specific set of circumstances. The objective for Hurley and McGuire (2003) was to examine the influences of clinician technique on performance and interpretation of the Lachman test. The article established that clinician grip configuration was found to relate to performance and interpretation of the Lachman test. It also concluded that clinicians demonstrating proximal tibia-hand placement were more likely to correctly perform and interpret the Lachman test than clinicians demonstrating distal tibia-hand placement (Hurley McGuire 2003, p.41).On the other hand, the purpose of the Hurley, Boros, and Challis (2003) study was to examine the influence of the Lachman test performance technique on tibia displacement and strain in the anterior cruciate ligament. The results of this particular study found that tibia translation and strain behavior of the anterior cruciate ligament during the Lachman test appears to have been influenced by clinician hand positioning used in the application of force to the tibia (Hurley, Boros Challis 2003, p.97).Each study tends to follow the same pattern while analyzing the uses of the Lachman test, yet they differ in terms of the content displayed.