Reliability and validity of trunk strength and endurance tests in athletes with low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem in athletes including those in Gaelic games. Valid, reliable and feasible clinical tests to evaluate trunk function are necessary for practitioners working in the field. Objectives This pilot study aimed to investigate the intra-rater reliability and known-groups validity of tests for isometric trunk muscle strength using a hand-held dynamometer (HHD) and trunk endurance using the McGill protocol and novel ‘long-lever’ tests in a group of male Gaelic games athletes, with and without LBP. Methods Nine participants with and without LBP were recruited. All completed a battery of strength and endurance tests. Intra-tester (relative and absolute) was determined by calculating the intraclass coefficients (ICC 2,1), standard error of measurement and minimal detectible change. Known-groups validity was investigated using independent T-tests and measuring the effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) of the tests. Results Isometric strength testing using an HHD for flexion, extension and rotation showed excellent reliability for both groups (ICC = 0.78–0.89). All endurance tests, except the long-lever lateral flexion tests, showed excellent intra-tester reliability in both groups (ICC = 0.76–0.98). Three tests, right isometric lateral flexion strength, isometric extension strength and the Biering-Sorensen endurance test, were shown to discriminate between those with and without LBP in this cohort ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Isometric strength testing using an HHD and certain endurance tests are reliable, valid and feasible for use in athletes with and without LBP. Isometric extension strength and endurance can discriminate between those with and without LBP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".