Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorReiman, Michael P.
dc.contributor.authorKrier, Amber D.
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Julie A.
dc.contributor.authorRogers, Michael A.
dc.contributor.authorStuke, Zachariah O.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Barbara S.
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-08T18:07:46Z
dc.date.available2012-11-08T18:07:46Z
dc.date.issued2012-10
dc.identifier.citationReiman, 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.533-539en_US
dc.identifier.otherPMCID: PMC3474305
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474305/pdf/ijspt-07-533.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10057/5347
dc.descriptionClick on the link to access the article (may not be free).en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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: 3en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSports Physical Therapy Sectionen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy;v.7 no.5
dc.subjectCoreen_US
dc.subjectStabilizationen_US
dc.subjectTrunk enduranceen_US
dc.titleComparison of different trunk endurance testing methods in college-aged individualsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record