text

Comparison of different trunk endurance testing methods in college-aged individuals

SOAR Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Reiman, Michael P.
dc.contributor.author Krier, Amber D.
dc.contributor.author Nelson, Julie A.
dc.contributor.author Rogers, Michael A.
dc.contributor.author Stuke, Zachariah O.
dc.contributor.author Smith, Barbara S.
dc.date.accessioned 2012-11-08T18:07:46Z
dc.date.available 2012-11-08T18:07:46Z
dc.date.issued 2012-10
dc.identifier.citation Reiman, Michael P.; Krier, Amber D.; Nelson, Julie A.; Rogers, Michael A.; Stuke, Zachariah O.; Smith, Barbara S. 2012. Comparison of different trunk endurance testing methods in college-aged individuals. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, v.7 no.5 pp.533-539 en_US
dc.identifier.other PMCID: PMC3474305
dc.identifier.uri http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474305/pdf/ijspt-07-533.pdf
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10057/5347
dc.description Click on the link to access the article (may not be free). en_US
dc.description.abstract Objective: Determine the reliability of two different modified (MOD1 and MOD2) testing methods compared to a standard method (ST) for testing trunk flexion and extension endurance. Participants: Twenty‐eight healthy individuals (age 26.4 ± 3.2 years, height 1.75 ± m, weight 71.8 ± 10.3 kg, body mass index 23.6 ± 3.4 m/kg2). Method: Trunk endurance time was measured in seconds for flexion and extension under the three different stabilization conditions. The MOD1 testing procedure utilized a female clinician (70.3 kg) and MOD2 utilized a male clinician (90.7 kg) to provide stabilization as opposed to the ST method of belt stabilization. Results: No significant differences occurred between flexion and extension times. Intraclass correlations (ICCs3,1) for the different testing conditions ranged from .79 to .95 (p <.000) and are found in Table 3. Concurrent validity using the ST flexion times as the gold standard coefficients were .95 for MOD1 and .90 for MOD2. For ST extension, coefficients were .91 and .80, for MOD1 and MOD2 respectively (p <.01). Table 3. Reliability of Testing Conditions (n=28). All ICCs are signifi cant at the P <0.000 level. Conclusions: These methods proved to be a reliable substitute for previously accepted ST testing methods in normal college‐aged individuals. These modified testing procedures can be implemented in athletic training rooms and weight rooms lacking appropriate tables for the ST testing. Level of Evidence: 3 en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Sports Physical Therapy Section en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy;v.7 no.5
dc.subject Core en_US
dc.subject Stabilization en_US
dc.subject Trunk endurance en_US
dc.title Comparison of different trunk endurance testing methods in college-aged individuals en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search SOAR


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics