Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Test–retest reliability and validity of a newly instrumented device for measuring trunk extensor muscles endurance in healthy male participants: a randomized cross-over study

  • Research
  • Published:
Sport Sciences for Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Measuring trunk extensor muscle endurance is important for identifying non-specific low back pain (LBP) risk factors and prognostic indicators, planning treatment goals, and measuring patient progress. This randomized cross-over study evaluated the reliability and validity of a newly instrumented device for measuring lumbar spine extensor muscle endurance.

Methods

Thirty healthy men participated in this study. The Biering-Sørensen test (for the endurance time) and the newly invented device (for the number of repetitions) were applied to measure lumbar spine extensor muscle endurance in two separate weeks at a similar time of a day and with the same rater. Test–retest reliability and validity of the devices were examined via an intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC (2,1)], 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), standard errors of the measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and Pearson’s correlation coefficient, respectively.

Results

Test–retest reliability of the newly instrumented device demonstrated an excellent level of reliability [ICC (2,1): 0.969; 95% CI: 0.934–0.985; SEM: 2.65 repetition; MDC: 3.75 repetition]; while a moderate to good degree of test–retest reliability was found between the Biering-Sørensen test measurements [ICC (2,1): 0.884; 95% CI: 0.758–0.944; SEM: 13.31 s; MDC: 18.82 s]. Compared to the Biering-Sørensen test, the newly instrumented device had a moderately positive correlation (r = 0.283).

Conclusion

The newly instrumented device demonstrated adequate reliability and validity compared with the Biering-Sørensen test. Future studies should assess its clinometric properties in patients with musculoskeletal pain also including female participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MH, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Moreland J et al (1997) Interrater reliability of six tests of trunk muscle function and endurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 26(4):200–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maselli F et al (2020) Prevalence and incidence of low back pain among runners: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21(1):343

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cady LD et al (1979) Strength and fitness and subsequent back injuries in firefighters. J Occup Med 21(4):269–272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Batıbay S et al (2020) Effect of Pilates mat exercise and home exercise programs on pain, functional level, and core muscle thickness in women with chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sci 26(6):979–985

  5. Biering-Sørensen F (1984) Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period. Spine 9(2):106–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker AD (2014) Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period. In: Banaszkiewicz PA, Kader DF (Eds) Classic papers in orthopaedics, Springer, London, pp 257–259

  7. Nicolaisen T, Jørgensen K (1985) Trunk strength, back muscle endurance and low-back trouble. Scand J Rehabil Med 17(3):121–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hultman G et al (1993) Body composition, endurance, strength, cross-sectional area, and density of MM erector spinae in men with and without low back pain. J Spinal Disord 6(2):114–123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hodges PW et al (2003) Experimental muscle pain changes feedforward postural responses of the trunk muscles. Exp Brain Res 151(2):262–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Friedlander AL et al (1991) Isokinetic limb and trunk muscle performance testing: short-term reliability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 14(5):220–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Massoud Arab A et al (2007) Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the clinical trunk muscle endurance tests in low back pain. Clin Rehabil 21(7):640–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Latimer J et al (1999) The reliability and validity of the Biering-Sorensen test in asymptomatic subjects and subjects reporting current or previous nonspecific low back pain. Spine 24(20):2085

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noelia G-G, Raquel V-C, Pablo JM-P (2020) Effect of Pilates Method on muscular trunk endurance and hamstring extensibility in adolescents during twelve weeks training and detraining. J Bodywork Mov Ther 24(2):11–17

  14. Müller R, Strässle K, Wirth B (2010) Isometric back muscle endurance: an EMG study on the criterion validity of the Ito test. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20(5):845–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Souza CPd, Monteiro-Junior RS, Silva EBd (2016) Reliability of the endurance test for the erector spinae muscle. Fisioterapia em Movimento 29(2):369–375

  16. Ito T et al (1996) Lumbar trunk muscle endurance testing: an inexpensive alternative to a machine for evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77(1):75–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Plamondon A et al (2004) Back muscle fatigue during intermittent prone back extension exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14(4):221–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2013) ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20):2191–2194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kottner J et al (2011) Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64(1):96–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 359(9305):515–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19(1):231–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Behm DG et al (2004) Conflicting effects of fatigue and potentiation on voluntary force. J Strength Cond Res 18(2):365–372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Amaro-Gahete FJ et al (2019) Changes in physical fitness after 12 weeks of structured concurrent exercise training, high intensity interval training, or whole-body electromyostimulation training in sedentary middle-aged adults: a randomized controlled trial. Front Physiol 10:451

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Neumann DA (2016) Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system-e-book: foundations for rehabilitation. Elsevier Health Sciences

  25. Hosseinzadeh M et al (2023) Rehabilitative exercise scheduling: effects on balance, functional movement performance, and pain perception in middle‐aged women with knee pain: a randomized controlled trial. PM&R 15(10):1223–1238

  26. Mohammadi H et al (2023) Evaluation of the value of the y-balance test to predict lower limb injuries in professional male footballers. J Sport Rehabil 1(aop): 1–7

  27. Junqué Jiménez A et al (2022) Impact of measurement timing on reproducibility of testing among haemodialysis patients. Sci Rep 12(1):1004

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Overend T et al (2010) Relative and absolute reliability of physical function measures in people with end-stage renal disease. Physiother Can 62(2):122–128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ries JD et al (2009) Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed “up & go” test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease. Phys Ther 89(6):569–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dontje ML et al (2018) Reliability, minimal detectable change and responsiveness to change: indicators to select the best method to measure sedentary behaviour in older adults in different study designs. PLoS ONE 13(4):e0195424

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL (2007) The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res 16(5):815–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50(8):869–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Husted JA et al (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53(5):459–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stucki G et al (1995) Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 48(11):1369–1378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Brady AO, Straight CR, Evans EM (2014) Body composition, muscle capacity, and physical function in older adults: an integrated conceptual model. J Aging Phys Act 22(3):441–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rissanen A et al (1994) Isokinetic and non-dynamometric tests in low back pain patients related to pain and disability index. Spine 19(17):1963–1967

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kankaanpää M et al (1998) Age, sex, and body mass index as determinants of back and hip extensor fatigue in the isometric Sørensen back endurance test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79(9):1069–1075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Evans K, Refshauge KM, Adams R (2007) Trunk muscle endurance tests: reliability, and gender differences in athletes. J Sci Med Sport 10(6):447–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bozorgmehr A et al (2018) Relationships between muscular impairments, pain, and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a cross sectional study. J Exerc Rehabil 14(6):1041–1047

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Shaw J et al (2023) Understanding the Biering-Sørensen test: contributors to extensor endurance in young adults with and without low back pain. medRxiv 7:23284452

  41. Silva M et al (2023) Trunk muscles influence lower limb performance in crossfit athletes: a cross-sectional study. Physiother Res Int 29(1):e2040

  42. Hager SM et al (2006) Quantification of lumbar endurance on a backup lumbar extension dynamometer. J Sports Sci Med 5(4):656

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mrs. Mahdieh Hosseinzadeh for drawing the figures in this paper.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sport Injuries and Corrective Exercises, Sport Sciences Research Institute No, 3, 5Th Alley, Miremad Street, Motahhari Street, POBox: 1587958711, Tehran, Iran

    Mahdi Hosseinzadeh

  2. Department of Biomechanics and Sport Injury, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

    Saleh Assar & Amir Letafatkar

  3. Department of Sport Injuries and Corrective Exercise, Islamic Azad University Tehran Science & Research Branch (Oloom Tahghighat), Tehran, Iran

    Shabnam Soltanirad

  4. Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

    Barbara J. Hoogenboom & Colleen Benoit

  5. Department of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanity, Vali E ASR University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

    Abdolreza Kazemi

  6. Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Nicola Smania

  7. Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Nicola Smania

  8. School of Physiotherapy, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Giacomo Rossettini

  9. Department of Human Neurosciences, University of Rome “Sapienza Roma”, Rome, Italy

    Giacomo Rossettini

  10. Musculoskeletal Pain and Motor Control Research Group, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, 28670, Spain

    Giacomo Rossettini

  11. Musculoskeletal Pain and Motor Control Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Canarias, Tenerife, Canary Islands, 38300, Spain

    Giacomo Rossettini

Authors
  1. Mahdi Hosseinzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saleh Assar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shabnam Soltanirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amir Letafatkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barbara J. Hoogenboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Colleen Benoit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abdolreza Kazemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicola Smania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Giacomo Rossettini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MH, SA, SS, BJH, CB, AK, NS, GR, and AL wrote the main manuscript text. MH prepared figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Hosseinzadeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Ethical approval

This study has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki), and was approved by the institutional review board of sport sciences research institute of Iran (IR.SSRC.REC.1399.121).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hosseinzadeh, M., Assar, S., Soltanirad, S. et al. Test–retest reliability and validity of a newly instrumented device for measuring trunk extensor muscles endurance in healthy male participants: a randomized cross-over study. Sport Sci Health (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-024-01169-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-024-01169-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation