删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Validity of the modified back-saver sit-and-reach test: a comparison with other protocols (2000)_香港中

香港中文大学 辅仁网/2017-06-20

Validity of the modified back-saver sit-and-reach test: a comparison with other protocols
Publication in refereed journal


香港中文大学研究人员 ( 现职)
阮伯仁先生 (体育部)
许世全教授 (体育运动科学系)


全文


引用次数
Web of Sciencehttp://aims.cuhk.edu.hk/converis/portal/Publication/56WOS source URL

其它资讯

摘要Purpose: Studies have shown that the classical sit-and-reach (CSR) test, the modified sit-and-reach (MSR), and the newly developed back-saver sit-and-reach (BS) test have poor criterion-related validity in estimating low-hack flexibility but yielded moderate criterion-related validity in hamstring flexibility. The V sit-and-reach (VSR) test was found to be practical but the validity has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose a modified back-saver sit-and-reach (MBS) test, which incorporated all advantages of the various protocols, and to compare the criterion-related validity and reliability of all these tests. Methods: 158 college students (F = 96, and M = 62; age = 20.77 +/- 2.51) performed CSR, VSR, BS (left and right leg), and MBS (left and right leg) tests in a randomized order. Scores from each test were then correlated with the criterion measures. Results: For all sit-reach tests, intraclass reliability (single trial) was very high (r = 0.89-0.98). MBS yielded significant and highest r with low-back and hamstring criterion for men (r = 0.47-0.67) and women (r = 0.23-0.54). The low-back and right hamstring validity of MBS for men were significantly (P < 0.01) higher than those from BS and CSR, whereas no differences in criterion-related validity were found between the NIBS and other protocols in women. The ratings of perceived comfort among the sit-and-reach protocols were significantly different (P < 0.001) from each other. The rating for MBS was observed the most comfortable test as compared with other protocols. Conclusion: The MBS test is not only a reliable test for hamstring and low-back flexibility, it is also a more practical with improved Validity for hamstring and low-back flexibility in men than previous protocols.

着者Hui SSC, Yuen PY
期刊名称Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
出版年份2000
月份9
日期1
卷号32
期次9
出版社LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
页次1655 - 1659
国际标準期刊号0195-9131
电子国际标準期刊号1530-0315
语言英式英语

关键词fitness testing; flexibility; sit-and-reach
Web of Science 学科类别Sport Sciences; SPORT SCIENCES

相关话题/国际 电子 科学 语言 学科