Testing active hip internal and external ROM as part of a lower extremity screen, Gabbe et al.9 recorded smaller degrees of flexibility compared with our study (internal rotation 27°/46°, external rotation 22°/78°). The most noticeable difference between the studies was the participant’s testing position. Gabbe et al.9 performed their ROM tests in the sitting position, while we tested in prone. The sitting position requires the participant to move against gravity, while in the prone position–gravity–assists the movement. Furthermore, in the sitting position, a mechanical block of the joint could limit the hip flexibility. Loudon et al.15 performed the squat test on 11 healthy adults
as part of a functional performance assessment. Using the same protocol, the participants in their study performed fewer squats (20/30). This could be attributed to different populations tested SRT1720 in the studies. They used volunteers who were mostly female with a mean age of 30 years, while our participants were male with an average age of 21 who could have been in better physical condition. Different testing protocols and testing populations could explain the differences between our observations and the literature. Despite the differences in the testing scores, many of the core stability related measurements used in
our study had similar reliability compared with earlier studies. Two of the tests included the sit-and-reach test and the single leg stance. Gabbe et al.9 found corresponding sit-and-reach BIBW2992 price intra-rater reliability, ICC 0.97–0.98, when compared with our results. This can be contributed Thiamine-diphosphate kinase to the simplicity of the testing equipment and protocol. Cachupe et al.14 also recorded similar reliability for the single leg balance test: ICC 0.81 compared with an ICC that ranged from 0.76 to 0.90 for the four tests we performed. Both of the tests used comparable protocols and participants. While some of the core stability related measurements had
a similar reliability, other tests were observed to have lower reliability when compared with earlier reports. Compared with our observations, Essendrop et al.16 found higher intra-rater reliability for trunk flexion strength: ICC 0.62–0.97, and trunk extension strength: ICC 0.81–0.93. Differences in reliability could be attributed to the testing position. Both studies tested in the standing position with the pelvis stabilized, but Essendrop and associates16 also stabilized the shoulders of their participants. Although this position could isolate the trunk muscles, it limits the need for muscle coordination, which is essential in functional and athletic activities. Measuring core endurance, Evans et al.13 observed a more reliable trunk flexion test: ICC 0.66–0.95, compared with our study. This could be explained by the 2 weeks between testing session in their study compared with the 1 week in ours.