Secondary Logo

Liemohn Wendell; Sharpe, Gina L.; Wasserman, Jack F.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: May 1994
Article: PDF Only
Free

ABSTRACTThe sit-and-reach test is often administered under the assumption that it gives a composite accounting of lumbar and hamstring flexibility. This study examined the criterion related validity of a commonly given sit-and-reach test and a modified sit-and-reach test that purportedly places less stress on lumbosacral structures. The subjects were 40 university students (20 males, 20 females). A sit-and-reach box was used for measuring performance; an inclinometer was used for measuring lumbosacral flexibility and hip joint (hamstring) flexibility. Although the criterion related validity of both sit-and-reach tests as measures of hamstring flexibility was supported (r = 0.70 to 0.76, p < 0.05), neither has criterion related validity as a field test of low-back flexion range of motion (r = 0.29 to 0.40, ns).

The sit-and-reach test is often administered under the assumption that it gives a composite accounting of lumbar and hamstring flexibility. This study examined the criterion related validity of a commonly given sit-and-reach test and a modified sit-and-reach test that purportedly places less stress on lumbosacral structures. The subjects were 40 university students (20 males, 20 females). A sit-and-reach box was used for measuring performance; an inclinometer was used for measuring lumbosacral flexibility and hip joint (hamstring) flexibility. Although the criterion related validity of both sit-and-reach tests as measures of hamstring flexibility was supported (r = 0.70 to 0.76, p < 0.05), neither has criterion related validity as a field test of low-back flexion range of motion (r = 0.29 to 0.40, ns).

© 1994 National Strength and Conditioning Association