Premium
Reliability of the Star Excursion Balance Test and Two New Similar Protocols to Measure Trunk Postural Control
Author(s) -
LópezPlaza Diego,
JuanRecio Casto,
Barbado David,
RuizPérez Iñaki,
VeraGarcia Francisco J.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pmandr
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.617
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1934-1563
pISSN - 1934-1482
DOI - 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.05.012
Subject(s) - excursion , intraclass correlation , trunk , balance test , reliability (semiconductor) , medicine , standard error , sitting , physical therapy , core stability , physical medicine and rehabilitation , test (biology) , balance (ability) , mathematics , statistics , reproducibility , physics , ecology , paleontology , power (physics) , pathology , quantum mechanics , political science , law , biology
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