The sit-and-reach test (SRT) is one of the most commonly used instruments to measure hamstring-and-lower-back flexibility (HLBF) and is often used to diagnose or assess the risk of injury and to evaluate performance.1,2 The classical SRT was first described by Wells and Dillon in 1952.3 Since then, the SRT has been incorporated in many HLBF and fitness test protocols such as the Eurofit Test of Physical Fitness.1,4–9 The SRT has a high intrarater reliability and test–retest reliability.2–4,8,10 For practical use by clinicians (eg sports physicians, physical therapists, sports masseurs, etc.), the SRT is quick and simple to perform and requires little skill and training, both for administering the test and interpreting the scores.5,11 Furthermore, the SRT is particularly useful in large-scale evaluation of HLBF in the field setting such as team monitoring of HLBF over time.11,12
Hamstring-and-lower-back flexibility is an important modifiable risk factor for injuries and is easy to measure in clinical practice using instruments such as the SRT. As such, HLBF deserves attention in sports injury-related research.13–15 Hamstring-and-lower-back flexibility is an integral part of the current cause–effect model for hamstring injury, although research contains controversial findings regarding the contribution of hamstring flexibility on increased injury risk.16 Mendiguchia's new conceptual model for hamstring injury suggests that hamstring flexibility could particularly turn into a risk factor when combined with other risk factors, such as strength, and increase the likelihood of injury.16 Regarding the relationship between strength and flexibility, fundamental research has shown that the ratio of the change in resistance to the change in length of the muscle, termed stiffness, is associated with an increased risk of injury.17–19 As a less stiff muscle can extend to a greater length, it can better absorb applied forces.17,20 Sports requiring optimal use of the stretch-shortening cycles of the hamstring muscles generally involve rapid acceleration and deceleration, such as is seen in rugby, American football, and soccer, all of which are high-risk sports for hamstring injuries.21,22 Therefore, evaluating hamstring muscle flexibility, using instruments such as the SRT, is a regular assessment in sports medical evaluation because reduced HLBF has been proposed as a predisposing factor for increased risk of hamstring injury.23
A reduced HLBF can be a risk factor not only for sports injuries,24–28 such as acute hamstring injuries,27 muscle damage after eccentric exercises,26 patellar tendinopathy,28 anterior knee pain,28 low back pain,25 but also for reduced performance.24 Competitive soccer players have a reduced HLBF compared with recreational athletes,29,30 possibly as a result of the long-term impact of soccer training on the muscle-tendon system. It potentially makes soccer players more susceptible to hamstring injuries.29,31,32 Indeed, the highest rate of hamstring injury is seen in soccer,33 accounting for 47% of all muscle strains in the sport and the most lost playing time when compared with all other injuries.22 Hamstring injuries are characterized by a high recurrence and substantial lost playing time.22,34 Therefore, identifying soccer players with a reduced HLBF, measured with the SRT, might facilitate identification of those players at risk of injury.35
Accurate diagnostics and valid prediction rules for HLBF can improve the effectiveness of treatment, prevention, and training. However, the interpretation of outcomes for many clinical tests, such as the SRT, is still highly subjective.36 The lack of population-based reference data with appropriate cutoff points makes it difficult to use the results of clinical tests for evidence-based decision making or research.37,38 To our knowledge, no studies have measured HLBF in soccer players. The aim of this study was to measure HLBF in male adult amateur soccer players, with a view to establishing population-based reference values and to determining whether HLBF in this population is associated with specific player characteristics.
This cross-sectional study was part of the Hamstring Injury Prevention Strategies study, a study of interventions to prevent hamstring injuries in male adult soccer players in the Netherlands (trial number NTR3664).39 Baseline data, including SRT scores, of 616 soccer players were available for this study.
Soccer teams from Dutch high-level amateur field soccer competitions (“1e Klasse”) were invited to participate. Teams were included if the coaches and medical staff agreed on participation and players were willing to sign informed consent. Male players aged between 18 and 40 years were eligible for inclusion.
Teams were regarded as dropout if the medical staff did not return the player questionnaires or SRT scores of the team or did not follow the SRT testing protocol. Individual players were excluded if they suffered from a hamstring injury at the moment of inclusion or any other injury that prevented them from following the SRT protocol. Individual players were regarded as dropout if they were not available for flexibility testing.
Instruction meetings for the medical staff of participating teams were organized in each district 2 to 6 weeks before the study started in January 2013. During these meetings, the aims of the study and the SRT for flexibility measurements were explained. Team medical staff were provided with a SRT box, written instructions, and intake questionnaires and were responsible for collecting and returning the questionnaires and SRT scores. Data were collected during the first soccer team activity after the winter break in January 2013.
Information about player characteristics (date of birth, self-reported height and weight, nationality, years of soccer experience, dominant leg (ie, kicking leg), field position, current injury status, and soccer injury history) was obtained with a questionnaire. This questionnaire defined soccer injuries, in accordance with Fuller's consensus statement, as any physical complaint sustained by a player that results from a soccer match or soccer training, irrespective of the need for medical attention or time loss from soccer activities.40
Flexibility was measured using the classical SRT protocol as described by Ayala et al.5 Meta-analysis has shown that the classical SRT protocol has a better criterion-related validity than modified versions of the SRT protocol.12 For this test, a standard SRT box (30.5-cm-high) with a sliding reach indicator on top of a measuring scale (0–50 cm) was used. The 35-cm mark was aligned with the foot panel of the box. The test has a high intrarater reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.92-0.98] and test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.92-0.95) for the SRT.1,2,6,10
The SRT was performed before normal training, and the player was not allowed to do any warm-up or stretching exercises before the test. The player was tested while sitting on the floor, with the legs together, the knees extended, and the soles of the bare feet placed against the foot panel of the test box (Figure 1 see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JSM/A104). He was instructed to place his hands on top of each other with the hand palms facing downward and to reach forward slowly, pushing the reach indicator as far as possible along the measuring scale. Throughout the test, a member of the medical staff made sure that the knees of the player remained extended; the knees could be fixed during the test. The maximum position had to be reached gradually and maintained for 2 seconds. Two measurements were taken, with a 30-second interval, for each player.5 In between the 2 measurements, the player had to sit up straight so that the hip extensor muscles were returned to a neutral position; the player was not allowed to stand up or stretch. Test scores were recorded to the nearest 0.5 cm. If a player could not reach the zero mark on the box, the test score was reported as zero.
All statistical procedures were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp. 2011, Armonk, NY). Player characteristics were reported as mean and SD values for continuous variables [age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), and soccer experience] and as the number of players and percentages for ordinal or categorical variables (nationality, leg dominance, field position, and injury history).
Sit-and-reach test scores are reported as mean values in centimeters, SDs, range, and quartiles.5 Population-based reference values of HLBF were calculated as: >2SD below mean (defining “very low” HLBF), 1SD-2SD below mean (“low” HLBF), 1SD below mean to 1SD above mean (“normal” HLBF), 1SD-2SD above mean (“high” HLBF), and >2SD above mean (“very high” HLBF).
Pearson correlation coefficient or Spearman rho was calculated to determine whether player characteristics were correlated with SRT scores. Continuous variables were checked for normal distribution by using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Subsequently, differences in player characteristics among subgroups of HLBF were analyzed with χ2 tests and analyses of variance. Statistical significance was accepted at the P = 0.05 level.
This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands (File number 12–575/C). All players were asked to provide written informed consent before the start of this study. Players unwilling to do so were excluded from the trial.
Baseline data of 449 soccer players from 29 teams were available for analysis. A flow chart of the study population is presented in Figure 2.
Player characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Their mean age was 24.5 years (SD 3.8), and they had played soccer for a mean of 18.1 years (SD 4.2). The right leg was dominant in 68.1% of the players. Field positions were proportionally represented, although some players reported multiple field positions (eg midfielder and forward). Almost one in 4 players (23.3%) had had one or more hamstring injuries in the previous year.
Sit-and-Reach Test Scores
Sit-and-reach test scores are presented in Table 2. The mean overall SRT score of all players was 22.0 cm (SD 9.2; range 0-43.5 cm). Fifteen players (3.3%) scored 0 cm in both tests. The lower and upper limits of the normal range of SRT scores for this population (mean ± 1SD) were 13.0 and 31.0 cm, respectively. The lower and upper critical limit values for HLBF (mean ± 2SD) were 3.5 and 40.5 cm, respectively. The population-based reference values for the SRT in male adult amateur soccer players are presented in Table 3.
Player Characteristics Associated With SRT Scores
Player height was negatively correlated with SRT scores (ρ = −0.132, P = 0.005), whereas BMI was positively correlated with SRT scores (r = 0.114, P = 0.016). Players with a history of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery had a higher SRT score (mean 7.6 cm) than players without such a history (P < 0.001). Age, weight, soccer experience, leg dominance, field position, and previous hamstring injury were not associated with HLBF. There was a difference in BMI between the “very low HLBF” and “high HLBF” groups (Δ −1.36, P = 0.045) and for “history of ACL surgery” [χ2 (4, n = 422) = 25.424, P = 0.000].
This study investigated the HLBF of male adult amateur soccer players, with a view to establishing population-based reference values for the SRT and to determining whether player characteristics are associated with SRT scores.
Population-Based Reference Values
The mean SRT score was 22.0 cm, and normal values ranged from 13.0 to 31.0 cm in male adult amateur soccer players. These soccer players had a substantially lower flexibility than other athletes.4,5,41 Using the same protocol, Ayala et al5 found SRT scores of 35.9 (±10.1) cm and 38.1 (±9.7) cm among 243 recreationally active young adults (mean age 21 years). Soccer training reduces muscle flexibility in both the short and long terms,42 and, because our participants had played soccer for an average of 18 years, this could explain why they had lower SRT scores than the recreationally active young adults described by Ayala et al.5 Moreover, the study population of Ayala et al contained both men and women and it is recognized that women generally have higher SRT scores than men.8 The SRT scores of Spanish male professional futsal players were reported as 44.1 (±7.8) cm and 42.4 (±7.5) cm.1 The difference in SRT scores between these studies and our study might be due to more extensive stretching protocols during the training sessions of professional players, which could increase their overall muscle flexibility.31 Furthermore, unlike in our study, in the other studies participants followed a 5-minute warm-up and stretching protocol before testing. This could have affected hamstring flexibility, because it has been shown that 120 to 150 seconds of stretching results in changes in the viscoelastic properties of muscles that last 20 minutes.43,44 Therefore, most SRT protocols, including the original protocol by Wells and Dillon, do not recommend a warm-up before testing and this study adhered to these guidelines.3
Associations With Player Characteristics
To our knowledge, no previous study has reported associations between HLBF and player characteristics. We found HLBF (SRT score) to be significantly associated with the height of adult soccer players. Our results show that taller players have lower hamstring flexibility than shorter players. However, the methodology of the SRT might have contributed to this correlation because of differences in the proportional length of the arms and legs, as tall adolescents with longer legs relative to their arms have a poorer performance on the SRT.45 Clinicians could therefore consider using a modified version of the classical SRT protocol to establish a relative zero point for each person, thereby solving this methodological problem of tall players.45
We also found HLBF to be significantly correlated with a history of ACL surgery, with SRT scores being substantially higher in players who had undergone surgery. In contrast, Ekstrand and Gillquist29 reported no difference in lower extremity muscle tightness between players with and without soccer injuries in the previous year. In their study, Ekstrand and Gillquist analyzed all knee injuries but did not report additional analyses for players with a history of ACL surgery. In players with recent ACL surgery, this increased flexibility might be a result of rehabilitation during which extensive (hamstring) stretching exercises are combined with a period without soccer. Unfortunately, we do not know whether a hamstring tendon autograft was used for ligament reconstruction, because this could potentially help explain the change in hamstring length or flexibility in this subgroup.46 However, because ACL surgery should, theoretically, not directly influence HLBF, this finding suggests that ACL surgery influences SRT test scores in some other way. In conclusion, the normal range of SRT scores presented here should not be applied to players with a history of ACL injury.
The main strength of this study is the large representative population of 449 soccer players, all playing at the same amateur level, with similar training and competition loads. All player characteristics, such as age, field positions, and injury history, were well represented among the players. Moreover, all players performed the SRT following a standardized, easily executed protocol with the same measuring device, for which the members of medical staff of the teams had received identical instructions. The test protocol used in this study is simple and requires little skill or training, both with regard to test administration and data interpretation.1 This enabled a team of players to be tested in a short time, which increases the practical usability of this test for both research purposes and in the field. This supports the representativeness and relevance of the reported population-based SRT reference values.
A potential study limitation is the lack of a criterion standard. Several different tests to measure hamstring flexibility or HLBF are available, such as the knee extension angle, sacral angle, straight leg raise, toe touch test, and different versions of the SRT.4,6 However, no criterion standard has yet been established and these tests do not possess sufficient concurrent validity to assume that they each measure solely hamstring flexibility or HLBF.1,6 In this study, we chose to measure flexibility with the classical SRT, which measures a combination of hamstring and lower back flexibility.3
It has been argued that the SRT score may be influenced by other anthropometric and physical factors,4,6,11 such as limb and trunk length, gastrocnemius length, and flexibility of the shoulders, spine, and ankles. We did not correct for these factors, because the test was performed in a way that is clinically and easily applicable on the soccer field. The SRT reference values we determined represent statistically determined limits for HLBF in soccer players. Given that the standard sit-and-reach box has a range of 0 to 50 cm, a normal range of 13.0 to 31.0 cm leaves more room for distinguishing between players with a high than low HLBF. In total, 3.3% of players scored 0 cm on the SRT in this study and these individuals may be at risk of hamstring injuries because of a limited HLBF.
Future research will have to determine whether the SRT reference values can indeed identify players at increased risk of hamstring injuries due to reduced flexibility. If this is the case, then the reference values can be further refined to identify not only players with very poor and very high flexibility, but also the intermediate categories of flexibility with differing injury risk.
Because a reduced HLBF is often suggested to be a modifiable intrinsic risk factor for soccer injuries and diminished performance, identification of players with reduced HLBF is essential.34,47–49 The SRT is a preferable test for clinicians to measure HLBF because it is reliable, quick, and simple to perform and easy for group measurements in the field setting.11,12 Normal values of the SRT for male players— the largest subgroup in soccer— provide a basis for targeted injury prevention or performance-enhancing strategies.
This study provides population-based reference HLBF values (measured with the SRT) for male amateur soccer players as follows: “very low” (<3.5 cm), “low” (3.5–12.5 cm), “normal” (13.0-31.0 cm), “high” (31.5-40.5 cm), and “very high” (>41.5 cm). With a mean SRT score of 22.0 cm, male adult amateur soccer players have a lower HLBF than other groups of sportsmen. Coaches and practitioners should be aware of population-specific differences when using the SRT for diagnostic purposes or to assess injury risk and/or performance and remember that the HLBF references values are not appropriate for players with a history of ACL injuries.
1. Ayala F, Sainz de Baranda P, De Ste Croix M, et al. Absolute reliability of five clinical tests for assessing hamstring flexibility
in professional futsal players. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15:142–147.
2. Hui SS, Yuen PY. Validity of the modified back-saver sit-and-reach test
: a comparison with other protocols. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:1655–1659.
3. Wells KF, Dillon EK. The sit-and-reach. A test of back and leg flexibility
. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1952;23:115–118.
4. Ayala F, Sainz de Baranda P, De Ste Croix M, et al. Criterion-related validity of four clinical tests used to measure hamstring flexibility
in professional futsal players. Phys Ther Sport. 2011;12:175–181.
5. Ayala F, Sainz de Baranda P, De Ste Croix M, et al. Reproducibility and criterion-related validity of the sit and reach test and toe touch test for estimating hamstring flexibility
in recreationally active young adults. Phys Ther Sport. 2012;13:219–226.
6. Davis DS, Quinn RO, Whiteman CT, et al. Concurrent validity of four clinical tests used to measure hamstring flexibility
. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:583–588.
7. Holt LE, Pelham TW, Burke DG. Modifications to the standard sit-and-reach flexibility
protocol. J Athl Train. 1999;34:43–47.
8. Kawano MM, Ambar G, Oliveira BI, et al. Influence of the gastrocnemius muscle on the sit-and-reach test
assessed by angular kinematic analysis. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2010;14:10–15.
9. Eurofit. Eurofit Tests of Physical Fitness. 2nd ed. Strasbourg, France; 1993.
10. Bozic PR, Pazin NR, Berjan BB, et al. Evaluation of the field tests of flexibility
of the lower extremity: reliability and the concurrent and factorial validity. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:2523–2531.
11. López-Miñarro PA, Andújar PS, Rodriguez-Garcia PL. A Comparison of the sit-and-reach test
and the back-saver sit-and-reach test
in university students. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8:116–122.
12. Mayorga-Vega D, Merino-Marban R, Viciana J. Criterion-related validity of sit-and-reach tests for estimating hamstring
and lumbar extensibility: a meta-analysis. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13:1–14.
13. van Beijsterveldt AM, van de Port IG, Vereijken AJ, et al. Risk factors for hamstring
injuries in male soccer players: a systematic review of prospective studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:253–262.
14. Dadebo B, White J, George KP. A survey of flexibility
training protocols and hamstring
strains in professional football clubs in England. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:388–394.
15. Reurink G, Goudswaard GJ, Tol JL, et al. Therapeutic interventions for acute hamstring
injuries: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:103–109.
16. Mendiguchia J, Alentorn-Geli E, Brughelli M. Hamstring
strain injuries: are we heading in the right direction? Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:81–85.
17. Magnusson SP. Passive properties of human skeletal muscle during stretch maneuvers. A review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8:65–77.
18. McHugh MP, Magnusson SP, Gleim GW, et al. Viscoelastic stress relaxation in human skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24:1375–1382.
19. Watsford ML, Murphy AJ, McLachlan KA, et al. A prospective study of the relationship between lower body stiffness and hamstring
injury in professional Australian rules footballers. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:2058–2064.
20. McNair PJ, Dombroski EW, Hewson DJ, et al. Stretching at the ankle joint: viscoelastic responses to holds and continuous passive motion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33:354–358.
21. Lempainen L, Banke IJ, Johansson K, et al. Clinical principles in the management of hamstring
injuries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014. doi: .
22. Woods C, Hawkins RD, Maltby S, et al. The football association medical research programme: an audit of injuries in professional football–analysis of hamstring
injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:36–41.
23. Witvrouw E, Mahieu N, Danneels L, et al. Stretching and injury prevention, an obscure relationship. Sports Med. 2004;34:443–449.
24. Croisier JL, Forthomme B, Namurois MH, et al. Hamstring
muscle strain recurrence and strength performance disorders. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:199–203.
25. Jones MA, Stratton G, Reilly T, et al. Biological risk indicators for recurrent non-specific low-back pain in adolescents. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:137–140.
26. LaRoche DP, Connolly DA. Effects of stretching on passive muscle tension and response to eccentric exercise. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1000–1007.
27. Witvrouw E, Danneels L, Asselman P, et al. Muscle flexibility
as a risk factor for developing muscle injuries in male professional soccer players. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:41–46.
28. Witvrouw E, Lysens R, Bellemans J, et al. Intrinsic risk factors for the development of anterior knee pain in an athletic population. A two-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:480–489.
29. Ekstrand J, Gillquist J. The frequency of muscle tightness and injuries in soccer players. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:75–78.
30. Silva DA, Petroski EL, Gaya AC. Anthropometric and physical fitness differences among brazilian adolescents who practise different team court sports. J Hum Kin. 2013;36:77–86.
31. Ayala F, Sainz De Baranda P, De Ste Croix M. Effect of active stretch on hip flexion range of motion in female professional futsal players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2010;50:428–435.
32. Grygorowicz M, Piontek T, Dudzinski W. Evaluation of functional limitations in female soccer players and their relationship with sports level—a cross-sectional study. PloS One. 2013;8:e66871.
33. Heiderscheit BC, Sherry MA, Slider A, et al. Hamstring
strain injuries: recommendations for diagnosis, rehabilitation, and injury prevention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40:67–81.
34. Engebretsen AH, Myklebust G, Holme I, et al. Intrinsic risk factors for hamstring
injuries among male soccer players: a prospective cohort study. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:1147–1153.
35. Bahr R, Krosshaug T. Understanding injury mechanisms: a key component of preventing injuries in sport. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:324–329.
36. Scott IA, Greenberg PB, Poole PJ. Cautionary tales in the clinical interpretation of studies of diagnostic tests. Intern Med J. 2008;38:120–129.
37. Gräsbeck R. The evolution of the reference value concept. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42:692–697.
38. Siest G, Henny J, Gräsbeck R, et al. The theory of reference values
: an unfinished symphony. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51:47–64.
39. Horst van der N, Smits DW, Petersen J, et al. The preventive effect of the Nordic hamstring
exercise on hamstring
injuries in amateur soccer players: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Inj Prev. 2014;20:e8.
40. Fuller CW, Ekstrand J, Junge A, et al. Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16:97–106.
41. Muyor JM, Vaquero-Cristóbal R, Alacid F, et al. Criterion-related validity of sit-and-reach and toe-touch tests as a measure of hamstring
extensibility in athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28:546–555.
42. Bradley PS, Portas MD. The relationship between preseason range of motion and muscle strain injury in elite soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:1155–1159.
43. Ford P, McChesney J. Duration of maintained hamstring
ROM following termination of three stretching protocols. J Sport Rehabil. 2007;16:18–27.
44. Power K, Behm D, Cahill F, et al. An acute bout of static stretching: effects on force and jumping performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:1389–1396.
45. Hoeger WW, Hopkins DR, Button S, et al. Comparing the sit and reach with the modified sit and reach in measuring flexibility
in adolescents. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1990;2:156–162.
46. Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, et al. Patellar tendon versus hamstring
tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7:CD005960.
47. Benell K, Tully E, Harvey N. Does the toe-touch test predict hamstring
injury in Australian rules footballers. Aust J Physiother. 1999;45:103–109.
48. Gabbe BJ, Finch CF, Bennell KL, et al. Risk factors for hamstring
injuries in community level Australian football. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:106–110.
49. Henderson G, Barnes CA, Portas MD. Factors associated with increased propensity for hamstring
injury in English premier league soccer players. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13:397–402.
sit-and-reach test; hamstring; flexibility; reference values
Supplemental Digital Content
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.