Original Publication Information: The article "COMPARISON OF STANDARD AND MODIFIED SIT-AND-REACH TESTS IN COLLEGE STUDENTS " appeared in the spring, 1999 I.A.H.P.E.R.D. Journal.

INTRODUCTION

The sit-and-reach test is probably the most widely used measure of flexibility and a primary component of most physical fitnesstests. The test is designed too measured the extensibility of the hamstring muscles and the lower back articulations by evaluatingthe maximal reach an individual can make in a seated position.

Some investigators claim that this method favors individuals with long arms in relation to their legs (Hopkins & Hoeger, 1992; Coleet al., 1996). Other investigators have failed to find a limb-length bias in the test (Jackson & Baker, 1986; Cole et al., 1995).Some of the differences noted in these studies may stem from differences in methodology. In one study by Cole et al. (1995), thesubjects performed the modified sit-and-reach test while sitting atop a tape measure and extended their arms along the floor. Inanother study (Cole et al., 1996), the modified sit-and-reach test was performed while reaching along the top of a standardflexibility box. In both studies, however, there seem to be some limb-length bias even when a modified sit-and-reach test was used.

If there is an influence of limb lengths on the measurement of flexibility using the sit-and-reach technique, it would be beneficialfor teachers, coaches, and participants to be aware of it and attempt to make corrections for it. Therefore, the purpose of thisstudy was to determine the extent to which arm and leg lengths influence a standard and modified sit-and-reach tests in college-agedstudents.

METHODS

Fifty members of a college wellness class (25 males and 25 females) volunteered to perform a standard and a modified sit-and-reachtest. Both tests were performed using the same commercial test box. The box was 28.5 cm high allowing the subject to place thefeet against a stop wall and move a metal indicator along a measuring scale.

For the standard sit-and-reach test, the baseline was considered the sole of the feet and was placed at the 23-cm mark. The subjectsat on the floor, placed one hand over the other, and flexed the trunk forward to push the indicator as far as possible. No bouncingwas allowed, and the subject was required to hold the indicator at the farthest position for a minimum of two seconds beforereleasing it. Sit-and-reach distance was the absolute value obtained along the ruler.

For the modified sit-and-reach test, the procedure suggested by Hoeger was used (Hoeger & Hoeger, 1995:119). An adjustable rulerwas placed atop the box and slid along the surface to be positioned at the finger tips while the subject sat erect with the backagainst a wall. Sit-and-reach distance was determined from the difference between the starting position and the maximal reach.

Arm and leg lengths were measured with a flexible tape. Arm length was measured from the acromion process to the tip of the middlefinger. Leg length was measured from the greater trochanter to the floor.

RESULTS

Males had significantly greater limb dimensions and limb ratiosthan females, except for leg length:height ratio where the femaleshad a greater proportion of their height represented by legs (Table 1). The females had significantly greater flexibility in bothtechniques. Although dependent t-tests revealed significant differences (p<0.05) between the standard and modified sit-and-reachtest, there was a significant correlation between the two tests in both genders (males, r = 0.78; females, r = 0.48). >

The correlations between the limb lengths and either sit-and-reach test were nonsignificant in both the males and females, exceptfor the correlation between modified sit-and-reach and height in males (Table 2). This indicated that taller males had slightlybetter modified sit-and-reach scores. However, the correlations for the length ratios were all nonsignificant.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to previous findings (Hopkins & Hoeger, 1992; Cole et al., 1996), this study did not demonstrate that arm and leg lengthsgreatly influence either the standard or modified sit-and-reach flexibility test. Furthermore, the correlations between limblengths and the flexibility performance were not vastly different in magnitude in both tests (Table 2). Thus, there appears to beno need to account for limb lengths to obtain an accurate measure of sit-and-reach flexibility measurements, a point previouslynoted in adolescents (Cole et al., 1995). Since the standard sit-and-reach test requires less time to perform and provides the sameinformation as a modified test, it seems prudent for teachers, coaches, and fitness enthusiasts to use this test for quick and easymonitoring of lower back and hamstring extensibility. This further support Hensleys concept of consistency in testing andevaluation referencing (Hensley, 1992).

TABLE 1. Physical Characteristics and Flexibility Measures for Males and Females.

Variable	Males M SD	Females M SD	t
Height (cm)	179.0 8.6	164.9 7.4	6.19*
Weight (kg)	79.7 12.6	59.4 8.0	6.78*
Arm Ln (cm)	76.3 4.1	67.9 3.9	7.43*
Leg Ln (cm)	92.8 6.1	89.2 6.1	2.13*
Trunk Ln (cm)	86.2 4.9	75.8 5.0	7.45*
Leg/Ht x 100	51.8 1.8	54.1 2.5	3.58*
Arm/Ht x 100	42.6 1.6	41.2 2.2	2.54*
Arm/Leg x 100	82.4 5.0	76.2 3.7	4.85*
Std S&R (cm)	42.2 7.9	48.6 9.6	2.56*
Mod S&R (cm)	38.2 7.8	43.2 6.5	2.60*

*Significant at p<0.05.

TABLE 2. Correlations between Structural Dimensions and Flexibility by Gender

Variable	Males Std	Males Mod	Females Std	Females Mod
Height (cm)	0.23	0.42*	0.06	0.16
Weight (kg)	0.11	0.24	-0.04	0.15
Arm Ln (cm)	0.37	0.36	0.05	-0.17
Leg Ln (cm)	0.18	0.35	0.25	0.06
Trunk Ln (cm)	0.18	0.30	-0.21	0.17
Leg/Ht	0.03	0.06	0.31	-0.08
Trunk/Ht	-0.03	-0.06	-0.31	0.08
Arm/Ht	0.21	-0.01	0.01	-0.31
Arm/Leg	-0.03	0.11	-0.30	-0.28

Std = standard S&R
Mod = modified S&R
*r = 0.40 significant at p<0.05.

REFERENCES

·       Cole, M. L., Mayhew, J. L., Boleach, L. W. & Piper, F. C. (1995). Comparison of two methods of measuring sit-and-reach flexibilityin junior high and high school students. IAHPERD Journal, 28:22-23.

·       Cole, M. L., Mayhew, J. L., Boleach, L. W. & Piper, F. C. (1996). Relationship between a sit-and-reach and a modified sit-and-reachtest among high school students. Missouri Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 6:47:52.

·       Hensley, L. D. (1992). Evaluating the fitness of Iowa children: findings of the Iowa Youth Fitness Project. IAHPERD Journal,25:5-16.

·       Hoeger, W.W.K. & Hoeger, S. A. (1995). Lifetime Physical Fitness & Wellness (4th ed.). Englewood, CO: Morton.

·       Hopkins, D. R & Hoeger, W. W. K. (1992). A comparison of the sit-and-reach test and the modified sit-and-reach test in themeasurement of flexibility in males. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 6:7-10.