A comparison of the sit-and-reach test and the back-saver sit-and-reach test in university students

This study compares the forward reach score, spine and pelvispostures, and hamstring criterion-related validity (concurrentvalidity) between the sit-and-reach test (sr) and the back-saversit-and-reach test (bs). seventy-six men (mean age ± sd: 23.45± 3.96 years) and 67 women (mean age ± sd: 23.85 ± 5.36years) were asked to perform three trials of sr, bs left (bsl),right (bsr), and passive straight leg raise (pslr) right and left(hamstring criterion measure) in a randomized order. the thoracic,lumbar, and pelvis angles (measured with a uni-levelinclinometer) and forward reach scores were recorded once thesubjects reached forward as far as possible without flexing theknees. a repeated measure anova was performed followed bybonferroni´s post hoc test. pearson correlation coefficients wereused to define the relationships between sr and bs scores withrespect to pslr. in both men and women, the thoracic angle inbs was significantly greater than in sr (p<0.016). however, nosignificant differences were found between the tests in lumbarangle, pelvic angle, and forward reach scores. the concurrentvalidity of the forward reach score as a measure of hamstringextensibility was moderate in women (0.66-0.76) and weak tomoderate in men (0.51-0.59). the concurrent validity wasslightly higher in sr than in bs, although no significant differencesbetween the correlation values were observed. there weresignificant differences in the thoracic angle between the sr andbs, but not in the forward reach score. there was no differencein concurrent validity between the two tests. however, the traditionalsr was preferred because it reached better concurrentvalidity than the bs.