LQYBT
- Start by having the subject's barefoot in the center of the foot plate with toes just behind the red starting line.
- While maintaining a single leg stance, have the subject practice by reaching in each of the three directions (anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral) with his/her free leg and then return to the starting position.
- When the practice trials are completed, have the subject start with his/her right foot in the center of the foot place and perform 3 trials of the direction being tested.
- Repeat with the subject's left foot in the center of the foot plate. The testing order is right anterior, left anterior, right posteromedial, left posteromedial, right posterolateral, and left posterolateral.
- The maximal reach for each leg in each direction is often used, but some studies also report the average of 3 trials. The maximal reach is measured by reading the distance at the edge of the reach indicator closest to the subject to the nearest half centimeter. The limb being tested is the stance limb.
- The composite score is calculated by taking the sum of 3 reach directions divided by 3 times the limb length then multiplied by 100.
- Subject cannot touch down during the test or place his/her foot on top of the reach indicator. Subject also needs to maintain contract with the red target area on the reach indicator until the reach is finished
- Athletes
- High School Basketball Players
- Collegiate Soccer Players
- Division I Collegiate Athletes
- Collegiate American Football Players
- Service members
- Healthy Adults
- Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability
Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age)
| Type | Direction | YBT Interrater Reliability SEM (cm) |
| Maximal Reach | Anterior | 3.1 |
|
| Posteromedial | 3.7 |
|
| Posterolateral | 4.2 |
|
| Composite | 9 |
| Average Reach of 3 Trials | Anterior | 2.0 |
|
| Posteromedial | 2.7 |
|
| Posterolateral | 3.5 |
|
| Composite | 7.0 |
Athletes (Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)
| Type | Measurement | Modiefied SEBT Intrarater Reliability SEM (cm) | SEM Coefficient of Variationa |
| Maximal Reach | Anterior | 2.0 | 2.9 |
|
| Posteromedial | 2.5 | 2.9 |
|
| Posterolateral | 2.9 | 3.4 |
|
| Limb Length | 0.2 | 0.2 |
aSEM Coefficient of Variation (CVME) is the percent of variation from the preseason to the postseason measurement, reflecting the difference between the 2 scores.
(Plisky et al, 2009; n = 15 male collegiate soccer players; mean age 19.7 ± 0.81)
| Maximal Reach Direction | YBT Intrarater Reliability SEM (cm) |
| Anterior | 2.01 |
| Posteromedial | 2.83 |
| Posterolateral | 3.11 |
| Composite | 5.84 |
| Maximal Reach Direction | Limb | YBT Interrater Reliability SEM (cm) |
| Anterior | Left Right | 0.69 0.71 |
| Posteromedial | Left Right | 0.68 0.78 |
| Posterolateral | Left Right | 0.73 0.85 |
| Composite | Left Right | 3.31 2.08 |
Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age)
| YBT Measurement Type | Direction | MDC (cm) |
| Maximal Reach | Anterior | 8.7 |
|
| Posteromedial | 10.3 |
|
| Posterolateral | 11.5 |
|
| Composite | 24.8 |
| Average Reach of 3 Trials | Anterior | 5.5 |
|
| Posteromedial | 7.5 |
|
| Posterolateral | 9.7 |
|
| Composite | 19.5 |
Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability (Hall et al, 2015; n = 39 college-aged individuals with chronic ankle instability)
· MDC = 7.7 for composite, normalized to limb length
Athletes (Chimera et al, 2015; n=190 Division I Collegiate Athletes; mean age = 20 ± 1.5)
- MCID = 3.5%
Athletes (Butler et al, 2013; n = 59 male collegiate American football players; mean age 19.4 ± 1.1 years of age)
- Cut-off score: Composite score of < 89% (100% sensitivity; 71.7% specificity) in collegiate American football players
- Composite scores were calculated by averaging the maximal reach distance for each reach direction after being normalized to limb length.
Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age; Service Members)
| Type | Direction | Lower Extremity | Absolute Reach (cm) Mean ± SD (95% CI) | Normalized Reacha (%) Mean ± SD (95% CI) |
| Maximal Reach | Anterior | Left | 60.0 ± 7.4 | 66.0 ±7.8 |
|
| Posteromedial | Left Right | 95.7 ± 8.3 | 105.3 ± 8.3 |
|
| Posterolateral | Left | 91.3 ± 8.5 92.1 ± 9.4 | 100.5 ± 9.1 |
|
| Composite | Left Right | 246.9 ± 21.8 | 90.6 ± 7.5 |
| Average Reach of 3 Trials | Anterior | Left Right | 57.8 ± 6.8 | 63.6 ±7.2 |
|
| Posteromedial | Left Right | 93.2 ±8.5 | 102.7 ±8.6 |
|
| Posterolateral | Left Right | 88.3 ±8.5 | 97.2 ± 9.4 |
|
| Composite | Left Right | 239.3 ± 21.5 | 87.8 ± 7.6 |
aNormalized reach was calculated as reach distance/limb length (anterior superior iliac spine to medial malleolus X 100).
Healthy Adults (Kang et al, 2015; n = 30 adults; mean age 22.57 ± 2.3 years of age)
| YBT Normalized Reach Distance (%) | Mean ± SD | 95% CI |
| Anterior | 58.58 ± 5.26 | 57.61 - 61.54 |
| Posteromedial | 100.44 ± 7.98 | 97.46 - 103.42 |
| Posterolateral | 98.79 ± 10.00 | 95.06 - 102.53 |
(Coughlan et al, 2012; n = 20 healthy male participants; mean age 22.05 (3.05)
| Normalized Mean Maximal Reach Distances for SEBT and YBT | |||
| Direction | Limb | YBT Mean ± SD (%) | SEBT Mean ± SD (%) |
| Anterior | Right Left | 64.90 ± 6.96* 64.84 ± 7.47* | 69.49 ± 7.14* 69.92 ± 7.29* |
| Posteromedial | Right Left | 110.48 ± 7.31 110.58 ± 7.56 | 110.82 ± 7.23 111.51 ± 5.76 |
| Posterolateral | Right Left | 104.79 ± 7.61 103.97 ± 6.42 | 104.03 ± 6.89 104.00 ± 6.42 |
|
Composite | Right Left | 89.74 ± 5.43 90.89 ± 4.91 | 90.72 ± 5.33 108.98 ± 5.54 |
*The distance that participants reached on the SEBT in the anterior direction was significantly greater than on the YBT (Left: p = 0.0002; Right: p = 0.003). No other differences were found.
(Fullman et al, 2014; n = 29 healthy adults 19-25 years of age)
| Normalized Reach Distance Results for the YBT and SEBT | |||
| Direction | SEBT Mean ± SD (%) | YBT Mean ± SD (%) | P Value |
| Anterior | 67.05 ± 4.97 | 59.74 ± 4.85 | < 0.017 |
| Posteromedial | 99.71 ± 8.67 | 99.53 ± 9.81 | > 0.05 |
| Posterolateral | 106.14 ± 7.94 | 102.87± 9.24 | > 0.05 |
| Joint Motion | Sagittal-Plane Angular Displacement Anterior Reach (in degrees) |
| Hip Flexion | 28.32 13.19 |
| Knee Flexion | 59.59 13.05 |
| Ankle Dorsiflexion | 32.6 6.20 |
Athletes (Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)
| Modified SEBT Reach Distance | Total Mean ± SD (cm) | Girls Mean ± SD (cm) | Boys Mean ± SD (cm) |
| Anterior | 78.2 ± 8.2 | 73.1 ± 5.8 | 82.3 ±7.6 |
| Posteromedial | 107.0 ± 11.7 | 98.9 ± 9.3 | 113.6 ± 8.9 |
| Posterolateral | 100.4 ± 12.0 | 93.0 ± 9.7 | 106.4± 10.3 |
| Compositea | 285.6 ± 30.0 | 265.0 ± 22.8 | 302.2 ± 24.3 |
| Limb Length | 94.3 ± 6.1 | 89.9 ± 3.9 | 97.9 ± 5.1 |
| Modified SEBT Normalized Reach Distance | Total Mean ± SD (%) | Girls Mean ± SD (%) | Boys Mean ± SD (%) |
| Anterior | 83.9 ± 7.1 | 81.4 ± 6.2 | 84.1 ± 7.6 |
| Posteromedial | 113.4 ± 9.7 | 110.1 ± 10.0 | 116.1 ± 8.5 |
| Posterolateral | 106.4 ± 10.8 | 103.6 ± 10.7 | 108.7 ± 10.3 |
| Compositeb | 100.9 ± 8.4 | 98.4 ± 8.2 | 103.0 ± 8.0 |
aSum of the 3 reach distances (anterior, posteromedial, posterolateral) in cm.
bSum of the 3 reach distances, divided by 3 times limb length, multiplied by 100.
(Plisky et al, 2009; n = 15 male collegiate soccer players; mean age 19.7 ± 0.81)
|
| Direction | Non-normalized Mean ± SD (cm) | Normalized* Mean ± SD (%) |
| Rater 1 | Anterior | 71.5 ± 6.9 | 76.7 ±4.4 |
| Posteromedial | 114.0 ± 7.1 | 122.5 ± 4.3 | |
| Posterolateral | 110.2 ± 7.2 | 118.5 ±5.0 | |
| Composite | 295.1 ± 19.8 | 105.7 ± 3.4 | |
| Rater 2 | Anterior | 71.7 ± 7.1 | 76.9 ± 4.4 |
| Posteromedial | 114.0 ± 7.1 | 122.5 ±4.3 | |
| Posterolateral | 110.3 ± 7.2 | 118.5 ± 4.9 | |
| Composite | 296.7 ± 20.3 | 106.2 ± 3.8 | |
| Repeated Measurement | Anterior |
72.9 ± 5.8 |
78.3 ± 3.9 |
|
| Posteromedial | 114.9 ± 7.3 | 123.5 ± 5.0 |
| Posterolateral | 112.3 ± 6.5 | 120.8 ± 5.3 | |
| Compositeb | 300.1 ± 17.7 | 107.5 ± 3.5 |
*Normalized to limb length expressed as a percentage
(Smith et al, 2014; n = 184 Division I collegiate athletes 18-24 years of age)
| Demographic Data and YBT Anterior, Posteromedial, and Posterolateral Reach Asymmetry and Composite Scores for Injured and Uninjured Athletes | ||
| Variable | Injured (n = 81) Mean ± SD | Uninjured (n = 103) Mean ± SD |
| Age (yr) | 20.6 ± 1.6 | 20.0 ± 1.4* |
| Height (cm) | 174.0 ± 0.1 | 180.3 ± 0.1* |
| Weight (kg) | 73.6 ± 19.6 | 85.3 ± 20.8* |
| Anterior Asymmetry (cm) | 3.6 ± 3.9 | 3.2 ± 3.3 |
| Posteromedial Asymmetry (cm) | 3.9 ± 3.5 | 3.1 ±2.7 |
| Posterolateral Asymmetry (cm) | 3.5 ± 2.7 | 3.7 ± 2.8 |
| Composite Scorea (%) | 101.3 ± 7.8 | 101.2 ± 7.1 |
* p < 0.05
aAverage of right and left reach directions, normalized to leg length, and multiplied by 100.
(Chimera et al, 2015; n=190 Division I Collegiate Athletes; mean age = 20 ± 1.5)
| YBT Composite Scoresa Classified by Sport and Sex | ||||
|
| Women | Men | ||
| Sport | No. | Mean ± SD | No. | Mean ± SD |
| Basketball | 2 | 98 ± 0 | 9 | 98 ± 6 |
| Cheer and Dance | 4 | 97 ± 8 | N/A | N/A |
| Cross Country | 17 | 99 ± 5 | 13 | 101 ± 12 |
| Football | N/A | N/A | 69 | 102 ± 7 |
| Golf | 3 | 97 ± 3 | N/A | N/A |
| Soccer | 28 | 102 ± 6 | N/A | N/A |
| Swimming and Diving | 17 | 102 ± 7 | N/A | N/A |
| Tennis | 5 | 99 ± 6 | 5 | 107 ± 5 |
| Track and Field | 3 | 92 ± 14 | 7 | 106 ± 6 |
| Volleyball | 8 | 99 ± 8 | N/A | N/A |
| Total | 87 |
| 103 |
|
aNormalized to % lower extremity length
| YBT Performance Classified by Injury History | |||||
| Composite Score (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | |||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | Trunk | |
| Previous Injury | 101 ± 8 | 101 ± 7 | 100 ± 10 | 102 ± 10 | |
| No Previous Injury | 101 ± 8 | 101 ± 8 | 101 ± 8 | 101 ± 7 | |
| P Value | 0.68 | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.37 | |
| t Value | 0.416 | 0.695 | -0.635 | 0.902 | |
| Anterior Reach Asymmetry (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | |||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | Trunk | |
| Previous Injury | 4.5 ±8.9 | 5.1 ± 11.6 | 3.1 ± 2.3 | 6.3 ± 14.3 | |
| No Previous Injury | 4.2 ± 8.5 | 4.0 ± 6.9 | 4.5 ± 9.1 | 3.9 ± 6.9 | |
| P Value | 0.78 | 0.40 | 0.51 | 0.34 | |
| t Value | 0.274 | 0.841 | -0.616 | 0.976 | |
| Posteromedial Reach Asymmetry (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | |||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | Trunk | |
| Previous Injury | 4.4 ± 9.6 | 3.1 ± 2.6 | 4.3 ± 2.9 | 5.8 ± 15.6 | |
| No Previous Injury | 3.5 ± 3.2 | 4.4 ± 8.7 | 3.9 ± 7.6 | 3.5 ± 3.2 | |
| P Value | 0.39 | 0.24 | 0.83 | 0.40 | |
| t Value | 0.857 | -1.171 | 0.211 | 0.864 | |
| Posterolateral Reach Asymmetry (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | |||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | Trunk | |
| Previous Injury | 3.6 ± 2.8 | 3.9 ± 3.1 | 3.9 ± 3.9 | 3.5 ± 2.7 | |
| No Previous Injury | 3.7 ± 2.7 | 3.5 ± 2.6 | 3.6 ± 2.6 | 3.7 ± 2.8 | |
| P Value | 0.91 | 0.4 | 0.78 | 0.74 | |
| t Value | -0.116 | 0.851 | 0.290 | -0.335 | |
| YBT Performance Classified by Surgery History | ||||
| Composite Score (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | ||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | |
| Previous Injury | 96 ± 4 | 100 ± 8 | 95 ± 3 | |
| No Previous Injury | 101 ± 8 | 101 ± 8 | 101 ± 1 | |
| P Value | 0.20 | 0.56 | 0.20 | |
| t Value | -1.286 | -0.586 | -1.285 | |
| Anterior Reach Asymmetry (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | ||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | |
| Previous Injury | 2.1 ± 1.4 | 6.7 ± 15.8 | 2.5 ± 3.5 | |
| No Previous Injury | 4.4 ± 8.8 | 4.3 ± 7.4 | 4.4 ± 8.8 | |
| P Value | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.71 | |
| t Value | -0.512 | 0.790 | -0.368 | |
| Posteromedial Reach Asymmetry (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | ||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | |
| Previous Injury | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 3.2 ± 2.6 | 3.0 ± 1.3 | |
| No Previous Injury | 4.0 ± 7.3 | 4.1 ± 7.7 | 4.0 ± 7.3 | |
| P Value | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.82 | |
| t Value | -0.648 | -0.517 | -0.230 | |
| Posterolateral Reach Asymmetry (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | ||||
|
| Ankle | Knee | Hip | |
| Previous Injury | 2.4 ± 1.9 | 3.1 ± 3.0 | 2.8 ± 1.8 | |
| No Previous Injury | 3.4 ± 2.8 | 3.7 ± 2.7 | 3.7 ± 2.8 | |
| P Value | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.61 | |
| t Value | -0.925 | -0.952 | -0.509 | |
| YBT Performance Classified by Sex | |||
|
| Women | Men | P Value |
| Composite Score (Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI) | 100 ± 6 | 102 ± 8 | 0.052 |
Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability (Hall et al, 2015; n = 39 college-aged individuals with chronic ankle instability)
| Intervention Group | YBT Pre-Test Normalized Composite Score (%) | YBT Post-Test Normalized Composite Score (%) |
| Resistance Band | 97.4 ± 7.2 | 102.0 ± 7.2 |
| PNF | 96.9 ± 7.0 | 101.5 ± 7.2 |
| Control | 99.6 ± 7.7 | 99.9 ± 4.6 |
Athletes (Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)
| Measurement Type | Modified SEBT Test- Retest Reliability (ICC, 95% CI) |
| Maximal Reach (n = 40) | Excellent (0.89-0.93) |
Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age)
| Measurement Type | YBT Interrater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI) |
| Maximal Reach | Excellent (0.80-0.85) |
| Average Reach of 3 Trials | Excellent (0.85-0.93) |
Healthy Adults (Gribble et al, 2013; n = 29 adults 18-50 years of age; mean age = 31.72)
| Measurement Type | Modified SEBT Interrater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI) |
| Maximal Reach | Excellent (0.86-0.94) |
| Average Reach of 3 Trials | Excellent (0.88-0.92) |
| Limb Length | Excellent (0.92) |
Athletes (Plisky et al., 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)
| Measurement Type | Modified SEBT Intrarater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI) |
| Maximal Reach | Excellent (0.82-0.87) |
| Limb Length | Excellent (0.92) |
(Plisky et al., 2009; n = 15 male collegiate soccer players; mean age 19.7 ± 0.81)
| Measurement Type | YBT Intrarater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI) | YBT Interrater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI) |
| Maximal Reach | Excellent (0.85-0.89) | Excellent (0.97-1.0) |
Service Members:
(Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age; Service Members)
· 31.3% of the subjects had greater than 4cm differences in anterior limb reach differences suggesting a balance asymmetry and potential for increased risk of injury (p < 0.05).
Athletes:
(Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players; Athletes)
| Adjusted Odds Ratios for Potential Lower Extremity Injury Risk Factors Among High School Basketball Players From Performance on the Modified SEBT | |||
| Population | Risk Factor | Category | LE Injury Adjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI) |
| All Players | Normalized Composite Right Reach Distancea | ≤ 94% | 3.0 (1.5, 6.1) |
| Anterior Reach Distance Differenceb | ≥ 4cm | 2.7 (1.4, 5.3) | |
| Girls | Normalized Composite Right Reach Distancea | ≤ 94% | 6.5 (2.4, 17.5) |
| Boys | Anterior Reach Distance Differenceb | ≥ 4cm | 3.0 (1.1, 7.7) |
aReach distance is reach distance divided by limb length multiplied by 100. Right reach done by standing on left limb and reaching with right limb.
bDifference between right and left anterior reach distances.
*Adjusted odds ratio for gender, grade, previous injury, and participation in a neuromuscular training program since initial measurement, and lower extremity tape/brace use.
· Players with an anterior reach distance difference of greater than or equal to 4cm were 2.7 times more likely to sustain a LE injury.
· Players with a decreased normalized composite right reach distance (≤ 94% of their limb length) 3 times more likely to sustain a LE injury, with the risk being 6.5 times more likely in girls.
(Smith et al, 2014; n = 184 Division I collegiate athletes 18-24 years of age; Athletes)
| Association between Composite Scores and Asymmetry and Injury in Collegiate Athletes During Competitive Season | ||
| YBT Variable | Odds Ratio, 95% CI | P Value |
| Anterior Asymmetry (≥4cm) | 2.20 | 0.03 |
| Posteromedial Asymmetry (≥ 4cm) | 1.15 | 0.69 |
| Posterolateral Asymmetry (≥ 4cm) | 0.57 | 0.11 |
| Composite Scorea (%) | 1.00 | 0.69 |
aAverage of right and left reach directions, normalized to leg length, and multiplied by 100.
· Participants with anterior asymmetry greater than or equal to 4cm were at increased risk of injury compared to those without anterior asymmetry. No significant associations between noncontact injury and composite score or asymmetry in the posteromedial or posterolateral directions were found.
(Chimera et al, 2015; n=190 Division I Collegiate Athletes; mean age = 20 ± 1.5; Athletes)
· Injury and surgery history did not influence performance on the YBT.
· The male athletes tested in this study had greater anterior reach asymmetry than the female athletes (t188=-1.920; p=0.02). As the result, evaluating sex as a potential confounder may be necessary when testing performance on the YBT.
(Butler et al, 2013; n = 59 male collegiate American football players; mean age 19.4 ± 1.1 years of age; Athletes)
| YBT Cut-off Point and Noncontract LE Injury Occurrence | ||
| Composite Reach Cut-Off Score | Noncontact LE Injury Present (+) | Noncontact LE Injury Absent (-) |
| (+) YBT (<89%) | 6 (true positive) | 15 (false positive) |
| (-) YBT (≥89%) | 0 (false negative) | 38 (true negative) |
· Using a composite score of <89% as the cut-off point, all athletes who developed a noncontact LE injury were identified, along with 15 athletes who did not get injured (positive likelihood ratio: 3.5, 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).
· In this study's ROC analysis, reach asymmetry on the YBT and previous injury did not contribute to identifying athletes at risk for an injury during the season.
Healthy Adults:
(Kang et al, 2015; n = 30 adults; mean age 22.57 ± 2.3 years of age; Healthy Adults)
· Linear regression between ankle dorsiflexion on the anterior reach portion of the LQYBT and the inclinometer and tape measurement of the weight bearing lunge test. Inclinometer: r2 = 0.55; Tape measurement: r2= 0.40
(Coughlan et al, 2012; n = 20 healthy male participants; mean age 22.05 3.05; Healthy Adults)
| SEBT and YBT Paired-Samples Correlations (n=20) | |||
| Direction | Limb | Correlation | P Value |
| Anterior | Right Left | 0.638 0.781 | 0.002 0.000 |
| Posteromedial | Right Left | 0.781 0.572 | 0.000 0.008 |
| Posterolateral | Right Left | 0.651 0.624 | 0.002 0.003 |
(Fullman et al, 2014; n = 29 healthy adults 19-25 years of age; Healthy Adults)
· Participants reached farther on the anterior reach direction of the SEBT compared with the YBT (p < 0.017).
· No statistically significant relationship between sagittal-plane angular displacement at the hip, knee, and ankle joints and anterior reach distance were found. However, there was a negative correlation (r = –0.06, r2 = 0.36, n = 29, P > .01) between hip joint flexion angle and anterior reach distance on the SEBT and a positive correlation (r = 0.43, r2 = 18.49, n = 29, P > .01) between hip-joint flexion angle and anterior reach distance of the YBT.
Healthy Adults (Coughlan et al, 2012; n = 20 healthy male participants; mean age 22.05 + 3.05)
| SEBT and YBT Effect Size | ||
| Reach Direction | Right Leg | Left Leg |
| Anterior | Moderate, 0.76 | Strong, 1.04 |
| Posteromedial | Weak, 0.07 | Weak, 0.15 |
| Posterolateral | Weak, -0.13 | Weak, 0.00 |
| Composite | Moderate, 0.3 | Strong, 2.55 |
Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability (Hall et al, 2015; n = 39 college-aged individuals with chronic ankle instability)
| Intervention Group | YBT Effect Size (95% CI)* |
| Resistance Band | Moderate, 0.6 (-0.2, 1.4) |
| PNF | Moderate, 0.6 (-0.2, 1.4) |
| Control | Weak, 0.1 (-0.7, 0.8) |
*No clinical significance from pre-test to post-test.
- This study was only looking at sagittal plane motion when in reality the movements made during the YBT are multiplanar. There is also a difference in performance between genders that needs to be taken into account when analyzing data from the YBT.
- Use caution when making firm conclusions based on the results of a PPT alone. An observed change based on scoring may or may not be meaningful.
Shaffer S.W., Teyhen D.S., et al. (2013). "Y-Balance Test: A Reliability Study Involving Multiple Raters." Military Med 178(11): 1264-1270.
Gribble P.A., Kelly S.E., et al. (2013). "Interrater Reliability of the Star Excursion Balance Test." J Athl Train 48(5): 621-626
Kang M-H., Lee D-K., et al. (2015). "Association of Ankle Kinematics and Performance on the Y-Balance Test With Inclinometer Measurements on the Weight-Bearing-Lunge Test." J Sport Rehab 24: 62-67.
Plisky P.J., Rauh M. J., et al. (2006). "Star Excursion Balance Test as a Predictor of Lower Extremity Injury in High School Basketball Players." J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36(12): 911-919.
Plisky P.J., Gorman P. P., et al. (2009). "The Reliability of an Instrument Device for Measuring Components of the Star Excursion Balance Test." N Am J Sports Phys Ther 4(2): 92-99.
Coughlan G.F., Fullam K., et al. (2012). "A Comparison Between Performance on Selected Directions of the Star Excursion Balance Test and Y Balance Test." J Athl Train 47(4): 366-371.
Smith C.A., Chimera N.J., et al. (2014). "Association of Y Balance Test Reach Asymmetry and Injury in Division I Athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47(1): 136-141.
Hall E.A., Docherty C.L., et al. (2015). "Strength-Training Protocols to Improve Deficits in Participants with Chronic Ankle Instability: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Athl Train 50(1): 36-44.
Chimera N.J., Smith C.A., & Warren M. (2015). "Injury History, Sex, and Performance on the Functional Movement Screen and Y Balance Test." J Athl Train 50(5): 475-485.
Fullman K., Caulfied B, et al. (2014). "Kinematic Analysis of Selected Reach Directions of the Star Excursion Balance Test Compared with the Y Balance Test." J Sports Rehab 23: 27-35.
Butler R.J., Lehr M.E., et al. (2013). "Dynamic Balance Performance and Noncontact Lowe Extremity Injury in College Football Players: An Initial Study." Sports Health 5(5): 417-422.
from Rehabilitation via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/1VjQMJV
via IFTTT
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.