Show simple item record

dc.contributorWichita State University. Department of Physical Therapyen_US
dc.contributor.authorReiman, Michael P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKrier, Amber D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Julie A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRogers, Michael A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorStuke, Zachariah O.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Barbara S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-12T19:12:36Z
dc.date.available2012-03-12T19:12:36Z
dc.date.issued2010-03en_US
dc.identifier20145574en_US
dc.identifier9415084en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. 2010 Mar; 24(3): 730-6.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1533-4287en_US
dc.identifier.issn1064-8011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c06c56en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10057/4785
dc.descriptionClick on the DOI link below to access the article (may not be free).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to determine if a modified (MOD) testing method for previously established trunk endurance testing for flexion and extension is a reliable alternative. Fifty subjects were tested with the standard (ST) testing procedure and an MOD testing procedure on separate testing occasions 1 week apart. The testing procedure order and method of assessments were randomly selected and implemented. The MOD testing procedure used a clinician to provide stabilization as opposed to the ST method of belt stabilization. Interrater reliability for MOD procedures was 0.97 for extension and 0.93 for flexion. Correlation of the MOD procedure to the ST procedure was found to be 0.90 and 0.84 for extension and flexion, respectively. From this testing, it can be concluded in a sample of normal college-aged subjects that an MOD testing method for trunk flexion and extension endurance can reliably be used as compared with the previously accepted ST testing methods. From a practical application standpoint, this allows the use of an MOD testing procedure to be implemented in athletic training rooms and weight rooms that may not have appropriate tables for the ST testing and the fact that the MOD testing procedure will most likely require less time commitment and greater efficiency with testing of large groups of subjects.en_US
dc.format.extent730-6en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research / National Strength & Conditioning Associationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJ Strength Cond Resen_US
dc.sourceNLMen_US
dc.subjectComparative Studyen_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshExercise/physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMovement/physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshMuscle Strength/physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshObserver Variationen_US
dc.subject.meshPhysical Endurance/physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshPhysical Fitness/physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshRange of Motion, Articular/physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshReproducibility of Resultsen_US
dc.subject.meshResistance Trainingen_US
dc.subject.meshYoung Adulten_US
dc.titleReliability of alternative trunk endurance testing procedures using clinician stabilization vs. traditional methodsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.coverage.spacialUnited Statesen_US
dc.description.versionpeer revieweden_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright © 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Associationen_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