Though it is commonly accepted that the sit-and- reach produces an accurate and relative measure of a person’s flexibility, the Aladdin of the test has been examined a number of times (Jackson and Baker, 1986). A common issue with the sit-and-reach test is revealed when one of the subjects taking the test has disproportionate arm or leg length to the rest of their body, resulting in noticeable outliers and not accurately representing the subject’s flexibility (Jackson and Baker, 1986). The sit-and-reach test has been used to record lower back and hamstring flexibility in the past (Jackson and Baker, 1986).
The purpose of this study was to determine the contributors to the it-and-reach flexibility test. METHODS The subjects in this study were 11 female and 10 male college aged students that appeared to be healthy and active. Four methods were used to obtain the flexibility measurement of the test subjects. A goniometry was used to find the flexibility measurements of the subjects for the shoulder flexing, shoulder extension, hip flexing, and hip extension tests. Using the joint as the fulcrum, the goniometry was aligned with the axis of rotation of the desired flexibility measurement.
The immovable arm of the goniometry was aligned next to the on-moving portion of the body while the movable arm of the goniometry was aligned with the extending or flexing part of the body. For the shoulder flexing and extension tests, the torso was used as the unmoving body part while the right arm was used as the moving body part and the shoulder joint was used as the fulcrum (Hayward, 269). For the hip flexing and extension tests, the left leg was used as the unmoving body part while the right leg was used as the moving body part and the hip joint was used as the fulcrum (Hayward, 270).
The assortment being recorded was the displacement in degrees that occurred when the subject either flexed or extended their hip or shoulder. The skin distraction test is helpful when trying to assess lower back flexibility (Hayward, 276). The test was performed by first, making a mark with a pen on the midlines of the subject’s spine at the intersection of a horizontal line connecting the tops of the subject’s right and left posterior superior iliac spines while the subject stood straight up. Next, a second mark was made 15 CM directly above the first mark.
Finally, the subject flexed their lumbar spine as far as they could comfortably by reaching towards the floor and the additional displacement between the two marks was recorded (Hayward, 277). The sit-and-reach/ modified sit-and-reach were measured using standard methods. Correlation and meaningfulness were searched for between the sit-and-reach, the modified sit- and reach-and the other flexibility tests. Mean and standard deviation of all tests were conducted using an a < 0. 05. RESULTS Table 1 reports the means and standard deviations gathered using the data collected in lab.
The means of the sample population data were compared with the average ROOM (range of motion) measurements for adults as found by Vivian Hayward in Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription. These values were similar to the means calculated for the sample population who were tested in this experiment. Table 2 shows correlations and meaningfulness between the sit-and-reach and modified sit-and-reach and all other flexibility variables. It was determined with this experiment that there was a significant correlation between the shoulder flexing test and the sit-and-reach test.
For shoulder flexing 61% of the variance could be accounted for by the sit-and-reach. A correlation was also found between the modified sit-and-reach test and both the shoulder extension and hip flexing tests. For shoulder extension 33% of the variance was accounted for by the modified sit-and-reach and for hip flexing 22% of the variance was accounted for by the modified sit-and-reach. Table 1 . Means and Standard Deviation of Flexibility Measures Variable Mean Standard Deviation Shoulder Flexing 181 16. 3 Shoulder Extension 75 12. Hip Flexing 95 25. 4 Hip Extension 38 15. Skin Distraction 31. 5 14. 5 Sit and Reach 4. 9 1. 5 Modified Sit and Reach 38. 6 9. 4 Table 2. Correlations and meaningfulness between the sit-and-reach and modified sit-and-reach and all other flexibility variables Sit-and-Reach Modified Sit-and-Reach Variable raw . 78 . 61 . 41 . 17 . 24 . 57 . 33 . 23 . 05 . 47 . 22 -. 12 . 15 . 02 -. 20 DISCUSSION The purpose of this experiment was to identify which flexibility measurement tests correlate with the sit-and-reach and modified sit-and-reach tests.
In more recent studies, statistics have shown that both hip flexing test results and holder extension test results were directly correlated to modified sit-and reach test results (Mayor-Vega, Merino-Merman, and Vicuña, 2014). The data gathered for the sample population in this experiment confirms this statement, as significant correlations were found between both the shoulder extension test and the hip flexing test with the modified sit-and-reach test. Additionally the sample population tested for this experiment did not show any sort of correlation between lower back flexibility and sit-and-reach or modified sit-and- reach test results.
This result was confirmed by Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription, which states that the modified sit-and-reach test is a poor indicator of lower back flexibility (Hayward, 2010). CONCLUSION Shoulder flexing test results are related to sit-and-reach test results and shoulder extension and hip flexing test results are related to the modified sit- and-reach test results for this sample population, while no other flexibility measurements had any significant correlation between either the sit-and-reach or the modified sit-and-reach tests. References Hayward, V. (2010). Assessing Flexibility.