Comparing reach distance between the Y-Balance Test-Lower Quarter and Star Excursion Balance Test: Are practitioners using the correct protocol?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare reach distances between the YBT-LQ and SEBT using the correct protocols as outlined by the developers. This will provide an accurate insight on the actual magnitude differences in reach distance between the movement screen tests and will safeguard practitioners on the subsequent use of these outcomes to inform clinical decision making. DESIGN: Observational. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included sixteen healthy female subjects from the university and amateur sports teams. MAIN OUTCOME: Reach distances in the anterior direction (ANT), posterior medial (PM) and posterior lateral (PL) between participants on the YBT-LQ and SEBT. RESULTS: The principal findings highlighted that a statistically significantly greater reach distance on the left and right side for the YBT-LQ compared to the SEBT in the ANT, PM, and PL directions (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the YBT-LQ and SEBT are not comparable tests due to the differences in reach distance and methodological differences. Therefore, previous, and future research using the YBT-LQ and SEBT cannot be used interchangeably. Not following developed guidelines questions the applicability of the findings of reach distance scores to infer on performance and assessment of injury risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".