Objective: Patient-specific musculoskeletal models have emerged as a reliable method to study how tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) morphology influences anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. However, there are no such models for adolescent populations that can be scaled to accommodate growth. To serve as the foundation for such models, the objective of this thesis was therefore to i) build a patient-specific model of natural knee motion in an ACL-injured (ACLi) adolescent sample using joint congruency and ii) to attempt to reconstruct patient-specific simplified articular contacts using principal component analysis (PCA). Design: Twelve magnetic resonance images (MRI) of ACi adolescents were segmented and used to generate spheres of simplified TFJ articulations. A congruence-based optimization algorithm was used to determine the envelope of tibiofemoral configurations that optimize joint congruency. Descriptive statistics were used to compare model outputs to existing literature. Combinations of marker trajectories and anthropometrics were used to determine the feasibility of reconstructing articular sphere simplifications using PCA. Root-mean squared error (RMSE) was used to compare predicted sphere contacts to MRI-extracted contacts. Results: Average knee joint anglesof the femur with respect to the tibia was slightly abducted and externally rotated, with a range of motion (ROM) of 1.60º ± 0.66 and 7.64 º ± 2.34 across 102° of flexion respectively. The percent elongation of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) varied the most across participants (8.65 ± 6.2%) compared to the ACL (2.34 ± 2.1%), MCL (1.41 ± 0.5%) and LCL (1.75 ± 1.6%) respectively. The combination of femur markers and anthropometrics was able to reconstruct simplified tibiofemoral articulations the best, but not within 5 mm of RMSE. Conclusion: Inter-subject variability in passive kinematic motion derived from patient-specific morphology highlights the need for personalized and accessible musculoskeletal models in growing populations. Furthermore, simplified distal femur morphology can be reconstructed from anthropometrics and marker positions, but proximal tibia morphology requires more information.