Diego López-Plaza1, Casto Juan-Recio2, David Barbado3, Iñaki Ruiz-Pérez4, Francisco J Vera-Garcia5. 1. Sport Research Centre, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain(∗). 2. Sport Research Centre, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain(†). 3. Sport Research Centre, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain(‡). Electronic address: dbarbado@umh.es. 4. Sport Research Centre, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain(§). 5. Sport Research Centre, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Avda, de la Universidad s/n. 03202 - Elche (Alicante), Spain(¶).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Star Excursion Balance test (SEBT) has shown a good intrasession reliability, the intersession reliability of this test has not been deeply studied. Furthermore, there is an evident high influence of the lower limbs in the performance of the SEBT, so even if it has been used to measure core stability, it is possibly not the most suitable measurement. OBJECTIVE: (1) To assess the absolute and relative between-session reliability of the SEBT and 2 novel variations of this test to assess trunk postural control while sitting, ie, the Star Excursion Sitting Test (SEST) and the Star Excursion Timing Test (SETT); and (2) to analyze the relationships between these 3 test scores. DESIGN: Correlational and reliability test-retest study. SETTING: Controlled laboratory environment. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven physically active men (age: 24.54 ± 3.05 years). METHOD: Relative and absolute reliability of the SEBT, SEST, and SETT were calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM), respectively. A Pearson correlation analysis was carried out between the variables of the 3 tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum normalized reach distances were assessed for different SEBT and SEST directions. In addition, composite indexes were calculated for SEBT, SEST, and SETT. RESULTS: The SEBT (dominant leg: ICC = 0.87 [0.73-0.94], SEM = 2.12 [1.66-2.93]; nondominant leg: ICC = 0.74 [0.50-0.87], SEM = 3.23 [2.54-4.45]), SEST (ICC = 0.85 [0.68-0.92], SEM = 1.27 [1.03-1.80]), and SETT (ICC = 0.61 [0.30-0.80], SEM = 2.31 [1.82-3.17]) composite indexes showed moderate-to-high 1-month reliability. A learning effect was detected for some SEBT and SEST directions and for SEST and SETT composite indexes. No significant correlations were found between SEBT and its 2 variations (r ≤ .366; P > .05). A significant correlation was found between the SEST and SETT composite indexes (r = .520; P > .01). CONCLUSIONS: SEBT, SEST, and SETT are reliable field protocols to measure postural control. However, whereas the SEBT assesses postural control in single-leg stance, SEST and SETT provide trunk postural control measures with lower influence of the lower-limbs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
BACKGROUND: Although the Star Excursion Balance test (SEBT) has shown a good intrasession reliability, the intersession reliability of this test has not been deeply studied. Furthermore, there is an evident high influence of the lower limbs in the performance of the SEBT, so even if it has been used to measure core stability, it is possibly not the most suitable measurement. OBJECTIVE: (1) To assess the absolute and relative between-session reliability of the SEBT and 2 novel variations of this test to assess trunk postural control while sitting, ie, the Star Excursion Sitting Test (SEST) and the Star Excursion Timing Test (SETT); and (2) to analyze the relationships between these 3 test scores. DESIGN: Correlational and reliability test-retest study. SETTING: Controlled laboratory environment. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven physically active men (age: 24.54 ± 3.05 years). METHOD: Relative and absolute reliability of the SEBT, SEST, and SETT were calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM), respectively. A Pearson correlation analysis was carried out between the variables of the 3 tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum normalized reach distances were assessed for different SEBT and SEST directions. In addition, composite indexes were calculated for SEBT, SEST, and SETT. RESULTS: The SEBT (dominant leg: ICC = 0.87 [0.73-0.94], SEM = 2.12 [1.66-2.93]; nondominant leg: ICC = 0.74 [0.50-0.87], SEM = 3.23 [2.54-4.45]), SEST (ICC = 0.85 [0.68-0.92], SEM = 1.27 [1.03-1.80]), and SETT (ICC = 0.61 [0.30-0.80], SEM = 2.31 [1.82-3.17]) composite indexes showed moderate-to-high 1-month reliability. A learning effect was detected for some SEBT and SEST directions and for SEST and SETT composite indexes. No significant correlations were found between SEBT and its 2 variations (r ≤ .366; P > .05). A significant correlation was found between the SEST and SETT composite indexes (r = .520; P > .01). CONCLUSIONS:SEBT, SEST, and SETT are reliable field protocols to measure postural control. However, whereas the SEBT assesses postural control in single-leg stance, SEST and SETT provide trunk postural control measures with lower influence of the lower-limbs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Magdalena Cuenca-Garcia; Nuria Marin-Jimenez; Alejandro Perez-Bey; David Sánchez-Oliva; Daniel Camiletti-Moiron; Inmaculada C Alvarez-Gallardo; Francisco B Ortega; Jose Castro-Piñero Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 11.928