Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLehecka, B.J.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Barbara S.
dc.contributor.authorRundell, Todd
dc.contributor.authorCappaert, Thomas A.
dc.contributor.authorHakansson, Nils A.
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-08T21:30:26Z
dc.date.available2022-04-08T21:30:26Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-01
dc.identifier.citationLehecka BJ, Smith BS, Rundell T, Cappaert TA, Hakansson NA. The Reliability and Validity of Gluteal Endurance Measures (GEMs). IJSPT. 2021;16(6):1442-1453. doi:10.26603/001c.29592en_US
dc.identifier.issn2159-2896
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.26603/001c.29592
dc.identifier.urihttps://soar.wichita.edu/handle/10057/23025
dc.descriptionThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-SA-4.0). Also available from the DOI link.en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground The gluteals have unique morphology related to muscle endurance, including moderate fiber sizes and a majority of Type I endurance fibers. Evidence suggests gluteal endurance is related to low back pain, running kinematics, balance, posture, and more. However, reliable and valid measures specific to gluteal endurance are lacking in the literature. Hypothesis/Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of two gluteal endurance measures (GEMs) for clinical use. It also aimed to examine validity for the two measures by using electromyography (EMG), recording reasons for task failure, and analyzing differences between demographic groups. Study Design Cross-Sectional Methods Sixty-eight males and females with and without recurrent low back pain aged 18-35 years were recruited from a university population. Electromyography electrodes were placed on subjects’ gluteus maximus and gluteus medius, and each subject performed three trials of GEM-A (abduction endurance) and GEM-B (bridging endurance). Hold times, EMG median frequency (MF) data, and subjective reasons for task failure were analyzed. Results Both GEMs demonstrated high intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.87-0.94) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.99). Mean hold times were 104.83 ± 34.11 seconds for GEM-A (abduction endurance) and 81.03 ± 24.79 seconds for GEM-B (bridging endurance). No statistically significant difference was found between subjects with and without recurrent LBP. Median frequency data validated the onset of gluteal fatigue during both measures. Posterolateral hip (gluteal) fatigue was reported as the primary reason for task failure in 93% and 86% of subjects for GEM-A and GEM-B, respectively. Conclusion This seminal study of GEM-A (abduction endurance) and GEM-B (bridging endurance) found both measures to be reliable and valid measures of gluteal endurance. Further examination of the GEMs in samples with different types of LBP or hip pain is recommended. Level of Evidence 3en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherNASMIen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy;2021
dc.subjectGlutealsen_US
dc.subjectEnduranceen_US
dc.subjectElectromyographyen_US
dc.subjectMovement systemen_US
dc.titleThe reliability and validity of Gluteal Endurance Measures (GEMs)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holder2021 The Authors CCBY-SA-4.0en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record