Reliability of Alternative Trunk Endurance Testing Procedures Using Clinician Stabilization Vs. Traditional Methods

Abstract

The 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.

A Comparison of Two Isometric Tests of Trunk Flexor Endurance

“…Despite our efforts to standardize head and torso position during the modified V-sit test, the SD associated with these data was higher. As a result, the ICC value for this test was lower than those reported previously (3,5,13,17). This suggests that testretest reliability may be lower when an inclined examination table is used instead of a triangular testing jig.…”

“…The V-sit test generally requires one examiner to move the testing jig away from the subject's torso and another examiner to control the timer. The test-retest reliability of the V-sit test in previous studies has been high, with reliability coefficients of 0.92-0.93 reported (2,5,13,17). The head position during the V-sit test may be difficult to standardize (5).…”

“…V arious clinical tests have been proposed to help identify deficits in trunk muscle performance (1,8,17). These tests are often isometric in nature and intended to assess muscular endurance.…”

Intersession Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Isometric Endurance Tests for the Lateral Trunk Muscles

“…5,11 Various clinical tests of trunkmuscle endurance have been described. 10,12,13 McGill and colleagues 14 recommended the use of a side-support (or side-bridge) test for the lateral musculature. This assessment, referred to in this article as the torso-elevated side-support test (TESS), has been shown to challenge the quadratus lumborum and the oblique abdominal muscles without imposing deleterious compressive or shear loads to the passive spinal tissues.…”

Core Muscles Endurance in Sedentary Individuals with and without Nonspecific Chronic Low Back: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Diagnosis of nonspecific chronic LBP was confirmed by an orthopaedic specialist who was blind to our study protocol. Subjects were excluded from the study for any of the following characteristics: active lifestyle (an individual who had any type of exercise activity for at least 45 min three times a week, these people were excluded as active life style may be an outlier affecting both the LBP characteristics and the core muscle biomechanics) (44,45); systemic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes; neurological problems; a history of fractures; anatomical or surgical lesions in the lower limb and spine (39); a history of rehabilitative exercises in the last six months, which could have altered their core muscle endurance (36); stopping the test due to exacerbated back pain (36), pregnancy (46); taking any painkillers or opiate medication within the week leading up to the test session; pain; and upper or lower extremity problems. A physiotherapist who was unaware of the research design determined the inclusion and exclusion criteria through an in-person interview and a comprehensive clinical examination.…”