Comparison of three different sit and reach tests for measurement of hamstring flexibility in female university students

G Baltaci, N Un, V Tunay, A Besler, S Gerçeker, G Baltaci, N Un, V Tunay, A Besler, S Gerçeker

Abstract

Background: The sit and reach test is the most common flexibility test used in health related fitness test batteries.

Objective: To examine and compare three different sit and reach tests as a measure of hamstring flexibility in 102 female students.

Method: The traditional sit and reach test, the chair sit and reach test, the back saver sit and reach test, and passive straight leg raise were administered in three trials to all 102 students (mean (SD) age 22 (1) years) on the same day.

Results: A Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was significant (p<0.01) for the traditional sit and reach test with back saver sit and reach test and flexibility of hamstrings (r = 0.45 and 0.65 for left and right legs, and 0.63 and 0.53 for left and right legs respectively). Also, the back saver sit and reach test for the left (p<0.01) and right (p<0.05) leg was significantly associated with hamstring flexibility (r = 0.37 and 0.25 for the left leg and 0.50 and 0.44 for the right leg respectively).

Conclusion: The results indicate that the back saver sit and reach test produces reasonably accurate and stable measures of hamstring flexibility. Moreover, it appears that this test is a safe and acceptable alternative to the traditional and chair sit and reach tests as a measure of hamstring flexibility in young women.

References

    1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999 Dec;70(4):401-6
    1. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1982 Dec;7(4):249-57
    1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989 Dec;60(4):384-7
    1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992 Jun;63(2):191-5
    1. Percept Mot Skills. 1999 Feb;88(1):304-16
    1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996 Dec;67(4):448-51
    1. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Jan;27(1):22-6
    1. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Apr;27(4):295-300
    1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1998 Dec;69(4):338-43
    1. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1994 Jun;65(2):189-92

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe