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