-&ea& Cluarterly for Exercise and Sport

81998 by the American Alliance for Health,

a
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 338-343 &
-.

~r .
6% ..-. .

The Reliability and Validity of a Chair Sit-and-Reach Test

as a Measure of Hamstring Flexibility in Older Adults
C. Jessie Jones, Roberta E. Rikli, Julie Max, and Guillermo Noffal

The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability and the n'terimr validity ofa newly developed chair sit-and-
reach (CSR) test as a measure of hamstringflexibility in older adults. CSR perfonance was also compared to sit-and-reach (SR)
and back-saver sit-and-reach (BSR) measures of hamstringflnnbtlity. To estimate ~el.iability,76 ma and wmna age = 70.5
years) p e r f m d the CSR on 2 different days, 2-5 days apart. I n the validity phase ofthe study, scores o f 8 0 men and w o r n
age = 74.2 years) were obtained on threefield test measures of hamstringflexibility (CSR, SR, and BSR) and on a cracraimion test
(piometer measurement of a passive straight-leg raise). Results indicate that the CSR has good intrclass test-retest reliability (R
= .92for ma; r = .96for w o r n ) , and has a moderate-to-good relationship with the criterion measure (r = .76f m men; r = .81
for w m ) . The crilaon validity ofthe CSRfor the male and female participants is comparable to that ofthe SR (r = .74 and r
=. 71, respectively) and BSR (r =. 70 and r =. 71, respectively). Results indicate that the CSR test produces reasonably accurate
and stable measures of hamstringflexibility. In addition, it appears t h k the CSR is a safe and socially acceptabk alterndiue to
traditionalfloor sit-and-mh tests as a measure of hamstringjhzbility in older aduki.

Key wards: aging, field test, assessment, mobility the Ys Way to Physical Fitness (Gelding, Myers, & Sin-
ning, 3989), the AAHPERD Functional Fitness Test for

L ack of hamstring flexibility has been associated with

low back pain, postural deviations, gait limitations,
risk of falling, and susceptibility to musculoskeletal in-
Adults Qver 60 (Osness et al., 1996),and the President's
Challenge Fimess Test (President's Council on Physical
Fitness and Sports, 1990).
juries (American College of Sports Medicine, 1995; - The most common method of assessing hamstring
Grabiner, Koh, Lundin, &Jahnigen, 1993; Kendall, Mc- flexibility in the field setting has been the floor sit-and-
Creary & Proyance, 1993;Liemohn, Snodgrass, & Sharpe, reach (SR) test, originally reported by Wells and Dillon
1988). In older adults, tight .hamstrings especially can (1952). Recently, a modified one-leg version of the SR,
lead to reduced stride length and walking speed, which the back-saver sit-and-reach (BSR), has been recom-
in turn can cause problems with dynamic balance mended as an altemative to the two-leg SR (Cooper In-
(Brown, 1993).Due to the importance of hamstring flex- stitute for Aerobics Research, 1994). The rationale for
ibility, its measurement is included in most current fit- the BSR is based on the work of Cailliet (1988) who sug-
ness test programs including the AAHPERD Physical gested that stretching one hamsuing at a time, instead
Best (AmericanAlliance for Health, Physical Education, of both at once, results in less stress and risk of injury for
Recreation and Dance, 1988), the Prudential FITNESS the low back and spine. Studies have shown that both the
GRAM (Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, 1994), SR and BSR tests are highly reliable, with R values con-
sistently above .90, and they have at least moderate cri-
terion validity relative to goniometer-measured hamstring
Submitted: January 27, 1998
Accepted: May 4, 1998 flexibility (rtalues range from .51 to 39;Jackson & Baker,
1986;Jackson & Langford, 1989;Patterson, Wiksten, Ray,
C. Jessie Jones, Roberta E. Rikli, Julie Max, and Guillermo Noffal Flanders, & Sanphy, 1996).
are with the Division of Kinesiology and Health Promotion at Although the SR and BSR are generally considered
California State University-Fullerton. acceptable field test measures of hamstring flexibility for
 &~ca, w, Max;-.

-A-
-:- . .
most age groups, many older people, due to their medi- different technicians were used to c&
cal conditions or functional limitations (e.g., obesity, Day 1 and Day 2. Day 2 technicians w
lower back pain, lower body weakness, hip and knee re- the scores obtained on Day 1.
placements, and severely reduced flexibility), find it dif- Participants in the validity study were asskssed on the
ficult or impossible to get down and up from the floor CSR, SR, and BSR in a counterbalanced (rotating) or-
position for these tests. Also, we have found that some der determined prior to the test day and indicated on
older adults, possibly due to weak abdominal musclq as the score card. The CSR, SR, and BSR tests were con-
well as tight hamstrings, cannot hold a sitting posi&a.f h c & d by a team of six graduate students and six older
on a flat surface, especially with both legs extended, and adult volunteer technicians, all of whom had participated
will start to fall backward during testing. Therefore, to in a group training session led by the study coordinators.
increase the rate of participation for our older adult cli- During the h i n h g , technicians practiced on each other
ents and decrease the risk of injury, we experimented until they demonstrated proper procedures to the study
with a chair sit-and-reach (CSR) test as an alternative to coordinators. The goniometer assessment of hamstring
the SR and BSR The CSR test might best be described flexibility, administered after completion of the other
as a modified version of the BSR test, in that only one three tests, was administered by three experienced clini-
leg at a time is involved in the testings thus, reducing the cians (two physical therapy aides and one athletic
stress on the lower back and spine. The CSR requires trainer). A pilot study, utilizing a subsample of 19 par-
participants to sit near the front edge of a chair, extend- ticipants, indicated that the interrater reliability of the 3
ing one leg straight out in front ofthe hip, with the other clinicians was .92. The clinicians administering the g u
leg bent and slightly off to the side. The two-fold purpose niometer tests were unaware of scores received on the
of this study was to (1) determine the test-retest reliabil- CSR, SR, and BSR tests.
ity of the CSR, and (2) to evaluate the validity of the CSR Only the p-4med leg score (the leg yielding the best
by comparing CSR scores to a criterion (goniometer) score) was used for the CSR, BSR and goniometer tests.
measure of hamstring flexibility in older adults. CSR Once the preferred leg was determined, that score was
pe?formance also was compared to other common field held constant throughout all three of the single-leg mea-
test measures of hamstring flexibilivhe SR and BSR. sures. Following a demonstration of each test, 2 practice
trials and two test trials were given for each of the mea-

Methods
m sures. Participants were reminded to exhale as they bent
forward, avoid bouncing or rapid, forceful movement,
and never stretch to the point of pain. On all sit-and-
reach measures, if the knee(s) started to bend, the par-
ticipants were asked to slowly sit back until the knee(s)
Participants
were straight before scoring. The best of the two test tri-
Seventy-six older adults (34 men and 42 women, M als' (scored to the nearest 1/2 in.) was used for subse-
age = 70.5 years) were solicited from a university-based quent analysis on the SR, BSR, and CSR. The average of
exercise program to participate in the reliability phase the two test trials (scored to the nearest degree) was used
of the study. A different group of 80 volunteers (32 men k r the goniorneter test. All measures were administered
and 48 women, Mage = 74.2 years) were recruited from on the same day, and all tests were conducted with the
nutrition and exercise classes at a nearby retirement participants' shoes on. With older adults, -the time re-
community. The criteria for inclusion in the study were quired for removing shoes can be extensive and is often
that the participants be over the age of 60 years, have prohibitive when testing groups within the field setting.
no musculoskeletal limitations which would prohibit
their performance on the tests, and agree to sign astate-
Measures
ment of informed consent.
Chair Sit-and-Reach. Following a demonstration, par-
ticipants sat on a folding chair (17-in. high seat) and
Procedures
moved forward until they were sit- near the front edge.
Prior to all testing, participants performed an 8-min (The chair was placed against a wall and checked to see
warm-up and static stretch routine emphasizing the lower that it would remain stable throughout the testing). Par-
body. Participants in the reliability study, conducted a p ticipants were asked to extend their preferred leg in front
proximately 4 weeks prior to the validity study, performed of their hip, with the heel on the floor and foot
the CSR on 2 different days, 2-5 days apart-Testing p r u dorsiflexed (at approximately a 90"angle), and bend the
tocols during reliability testing, including technician other leg so that the sole of the foot was flat on the floor
training procedures, were the same as those described about 6-12 in. to the side of the body's midline. With the
below in the validity phase of the study. So that interrater extended leg as straight as possible and hands on top of
reliability would be reflected in the reliability analysis, each other with palms down (tips of the middle fingers
Jones~iddi,Max, and Noffal

em@, participants were to "slowly bend forward at the NESSGRAM (Coo- In.sti~~~prh&pbPics Research,
hip joint, keeping the spine as straight as possible and 1994),with the major e x c e ~ ; .$at w the foot was
the head in normal alignment with the spine (not not positioned agaihst a sit-and-reach bx.'~nscea$,foot
tucked)."Participants were instructed to reach down the placement was similar to that used for the SR (i.s,, heel
extended leg in an attempt to touch the toes. The par- positioned even with the 20-in, mark on a yardstick and
ticipant heM a brief static pwktion (for 2 s), while the 6 in. to the side). Participants were asked to extend their
adminitrator recorded the "reached score" using an 18- preferred leg only and bend the other leg so that the sole
in. ruler positioned p a e l to the lower leg (shin; see of the foot was flat on the floor, 6712 in. to the side of
Figure 1). The mki& of the toe at the end of the shoe the yardstick. The 2Wi. mark represented a zero score,
represented a "aeso*WQre.Reaches short of the toes were with reaches short of the mark recorded as minus scores
recorded as minus scores*and reaches beyond the toes and reaches beyond,the mark as plus scores. BSR mea-
were recorded as plus scores. Test-retest reliability esti- sures have been found to be highly reliable for both male
mates for the CSR are reported in the results section of and female participants (R= 99)(Patterson et al., 1996).
this paper, Gmkmetm-Mau-. The goniometer assess-
Sitand-Reuch.The SR test was administered using the ment of hamstring flexibility was administered after
procedures outlined in the Osness et al. manual (1995). completion of the other three tqts by experienced ex-
A yardstick was placed on the floor, with a 12-in. strip of aminers who were unaware of ,&e %ores participants
masking,tape positioned at the 20-in. mark (6 in. on each - received on the earlier tests, Follqwj~gpracedures out-
side of the yardstick).Following a demonstration,partici- lined by the American ~cade&~.of.~rtho~edic Surgeons
pants sat on the floor with their shoes on, legs M y ex- (1966),a goniometer was used to measure hamstringflex-
tended, a yardstick between their legs ("On mark of ibilig during a passive straightlleg raise, This test was
yardstick toward the hips), and their heels 12 in. apart. selected because of its prevalent acceptance as a crite-
Throughout testing, the administrator checked to ensure . .rionmea,sure . f ~hanns;tring.flexibility
r and its high reli-
that the heels remained at the 2&n. mark. With the ex- <
a W $ $95 < R .99) (Jackson & Baker, 1986;Jackson &
tended leg as stiaight as possible, hands on top of e ~ h bngford, 1989; Patterson, et al., 1996). As indicated
other (tips of the middle fingers even), and palms do.4ln, e&ikr;$ke irrtemrer reliability for the examiners in this
the participant slowly reached forward sliding the hack 4m4ii3#z$, .92,&sed on a subsample of 19 participants.
along the yardstick as far as possible. In this study, die,. && $r6tdc~~J~involved ahgmng the axis of the goni-
20-in.mark represented a zero scare, with reaches sh& ' -'a&ter
- .- - with the axisof the hip joint The stationary arm
of the mark recorded as mfnb scores and reaches b was placed in hel&ith the trunk, with the movable arm
yond 20 in. as plus scores. Scores were recorded to t b positioned in line with the femur. With the knee held
nearest 1/2 inch. Previous studies indicate that reliabiil- - straig>t, the participant's preferred leg was passively
ity estimates for the SR are consistently high (.% 1: R< 'moved into hip flexion until tightness was felt. A techni-
.99; Bravo et al., 1994;Jackson & Baker, 1986;~ a c G o a & cian assisted *th"moving the leg through flexion and
Langford, 1989; Shaulis, Golding, & Tandy, 1994). keeping the participant in the correct position, while the
Back SaverSit-and-Reach.The procedures for the BSR clinician recorded the scores to the nearest degree.
were similar to those described in the Prudential FIT-
Data Analysis
Test-retest reliability was estimated by calculating the
intraclass coefticiknt (R) using one-way analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) procedures appropriate for a single trial
(Baumgartner &Jackson, 1995). Pearson correlation
analysiswas used to determine the relationships between
the (2% SR, BSR, a n d h e criterion goniometer measure-
ment. Niiety-five percent confidence intervals were com-
puted for all correlation coefficients using Fisher's "Z
transformation" procedures (Glass & Hopkins, 1984;
Morrow &Jackson, 1993).

Results
Descriptive statistics of participants in the reliaviity
Figure 1: Chair sit-and-reach. phase of the study are presented in Table 1. Test-retest

nnrlr. n ---- L-- rnna

 means and standard deviations, inuaclass R d u e s ; &d ~ I I B S pmwd-diffem
S I ~ ~somewbat from the SR and
reliability confidence intervalsare prese~nkd5n~akde"2 . BSR. @i4BedCSSs c o r e s - r e p r e tthe distance reached
The high intraclass cortehrim t R 2292 f ' r men and R relative t;cr the tip oftk toes. On the SRand MR, scores
=.96for women), t o g e ~ e ' r ~ : ac h' q~e ~ r~e p~r e n t t the dis-e reached rehtive to a k e on the
in scores from '& 1itesting
f to Iday 2 { p > .05),'irrdicate floor even with the heel@)of the foot,
that irlmurements are highly stable. Mthough data Table 4 contains the correlation r values and 95%
i n i d l y werk recorded hi in. ( f o ~ease in interpreting c d d e n c e intervals indicating the relationship between
results to ofder adults), scores weie transformed into cm the field sit-and-reach tests and the criterion measure.
for data an* and repoi-ti%. As indi&ed m the table, the correlations between the
'
Descriptive chzmkteiisti'csand mean flexibilityscores CSR-and the caerion (goniometer-measured flexibility)
of the validity study partiC:lpmts are presented in Table for both male and female participants ( r = .76 and 31,
?.'independent t test analyses 'of the data indicate that respectivdxy) Ws comparable to and, in fact, slightly
fie women were more flexibk than irhe men on all four greater than-the correlations of the SR (r = .74 and .71,
ha;nscriclg measures ( p < .~obl').'&o, M W A analysis respectively) and BSR with the criterion measures ( r =
inqcates significant differknkes in Sedbility scores p r e ; f ,

duced by the CSR, SR,a .) I

98.2,p < .0001.Post hoc co

ibilii scores are better with
or B!3R (pc .OOT). Gores
not significantly'different &;'a, iii Sc?t.&,
within participant groups
all flexibility measures).
ever, should be i n t q r e
74.53 (5.69) 74.02 (6.67)
175.18 (11.67) 159.38 (7.96)
79.36 (10.71) 62.07 (9.29)

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of descriptive and-reach (cm) -9.69 (13.43)' 3.18 (12.27) 4.41"
characteristics for reliability study participants Sit-and-reach (cm) -20.84 (12.81)? -5.73 (11.57) 5.48"
Back saver (cm) -20.90 (14.4412 -5.37 (12.04) 5.21"
Men (n = 34) Women ( n = 42) Goniometer (") 74.72 (14.24) 91.29 (12.04) 5.50"
M SD M SD
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Chair sit-and-reach and
Age (years) 72.62 (6.57) 69.11 (5.12) backsaver scores represent only the preferred leg (defined as
Height (cm) 177.01 (7.37) 163.14 (5.79) the leg which results in the better score).
Weight (kg) 83.14 (16.61) 71.19 (14.33) 'Scores represent distance reached relative to tip of toes
'Scores represent distance reached relative to line on the floor
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. even with heel(s)of the feet
* t ratios comparing flexibility scores of men and women are
statistically significant ( p < .0001, df= 78).

Table 2 Test-retest means, standard deviations, intraclass -- --

reliability estimates, and 95% confidence intervals for the chair

sit-and-reach reliability study Table 4. Correlations and 95% confidence intervals of chair sit-
and-reach, sit-and-reach,and back-saver sit-and-reachscores
Test 1 Test 2" R GI with goniometer-measured flexibility
M SD M SD
Men ( n = 32) Women (n = 48)
Chair sit-and-reach (cm) r CI r CI
Total (n = 76) -4.83 (14.48) -5.33 (14.22) .95 (.92-.97)
CSR .76 (.57-.88) .81 (.69-.89)
Men (n = 34) -13.46 (13.72) -12.45 (14.22) -92 (.85--96)
SR .74 (.54-.86) .71 (.54-.83)
Women ( n = 42) .23 (12.20) .25 (11.68) .96 (.93-.98)
BSR .70 (.48-.84) .71 (.54-.83)
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; R = intraclass reliability
estimate; CI = 95% confidence interval. Note. r = correlation; CI = 95% confidence interval; CSR = chair
"ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences between sit-and-reach;SR = sit-and-reach;BSR = back-saver sit-and-
Test 1 and Test 2 scores for male or female participants ( p > .05). reach.
.lone% R i a Max, and Noifal

.70 m d .71, respectively). However, none of the differ- for some older adults to-.maim& a straight-leg sitting
'ences between the correlation values reached statistical position on the fioor. No injuries occurred during test-
significance at the .05 level. ing on the CSR. However, careful spotting is recom-
mended when assessing frail participants or individuals
with balance problems.
In concl~~sion, the measurement of hamstring flex-
Discussion aT i
ibility is an important component of health-related fit-
ness. Results of this study indicate that the CSR is highly
Although the SR and the BSR are the most com- reliable and has moderate validity as a measure of ham-
monly used field measures of hamstring flexibility in string flexibility. Further, the CSR appears to be a safe
current fitness test batteries, both tests have inherent and socially acceptable assessment procedure for older
limitations for older adults who may have difficulty get- adults and can measure each leg separately to detect any
ting down and up from the floor or have difficulty sit- bilateral differences in hamsuing flexibility. Early detec-
ting on a level surface with legs extended. Therefore, a tion of shortened hamstrings would be valuable for the
chair sit-and-reach was proposed as an alternative pro- practitioner in providing feedback for exercise prescrip
cedure for psessiog hamstring flexibiliya procedure tion to help correct or reduce imbalances that may lead
which would presumably enable more older adults to to mobility problems and potential injuries. Furthermore,
participate and minimize the possibility'of injury during in an era of assessment and accountability for health care
testing. The purpose of this study was to examine the (Russek,Wooden, Ekedahl &Bush, 1997), the CSR could
relationship of the CSR to other measures of hamstring potentially provide practitioners an excellent outcome
flexibility in older adults, particularly with respect to the measure for assessing the benefits of therapeutic inter-
test-retest reliability and criterion validity of the CSR. vention with this population, although additional stud-
Results indicate that the CSR test has good stability ies are needed to test the ability of the CSR to detect
reliability for both men (R =.92) and women (R = .96) cbange over time. Also, more studies are recommended
and that its criterion validity correlations (r=.76 for men to investigate the reliability and validity of the CSR with
and .81 for women) are slightly greater (although not physically frail and disabled populations. The relation-
statistically different) than for SR or BSR procedures ship of the CSA in this study to other hamstring flexibil-
(seeTable 4). The validity coefficients faund in this stu$ i q meisures must be delimited to the population
for CSR, SR, and BSR (.70 > R> .81) are similar to those studied, apparently healthy older adults with no major

-
found in other studies with other age groups. Jacksun orthopedic limi
and Baker (1986) andJackson and Langford (1989) re-
ported validity coefficients for the SR test ranging from
.64 to .88 in studies involving teenage and middle-age - w
participants, respectively. Also, Patterson et al. (1996), . ~ d ~
~efreiences
in a study involving 11-15-year-olds, reported fairly com-
parable BSR coefficients for male participants (left leg American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation
= .68; right leg = .72 ), but somewhat lower values for and Dance. (1988).AAHPERD Physical Best. Reston, VA:
female participants (left leg = .51; right leg =.52). The Author.
.
high CSR reliability values for the older adults in this American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. (1966).Joint
study were also similar to the SR and BSR values reported motion: Method of mewring and recording. Edinburgh, UK:
in other studies, with R coefficients in all cases consis- Livingstone.
tently above .90. American College of Sports Medicine. (1995). Guidelims for
Although the findings of this study and others indi- exercise testing and pmcription. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
cate that the CSR, SR, and BSR all have comparable re- Baumgartner, T.A., &Jackson,A. S. (1995).Measuremat f w
liability and validity coefficients for participants who can Eoaluation in physical educalion and exercise sciozce. Dubuque,
perform the tests, 8 (approximately 10%) of the origi- IA: Brown & Benchmark.
nal volunteer participants in the validity study had to be Bravo, G., Gauthier, P., Roy, P., Tessier, D., Gaulin, P., Dubois,
excluded because they either could not or would not get M., & Peloquin. L. (1994).The functional fitness assess-
ment battery: Reliability and validity data for elderly
down on the floor for sit-and-reach testing. No partici-
women. Journal $Aging and Physical Activity, 2,67-79.
pants, on the other hand, were eliminated due to their Brown, M. (1993).The well elderly. In A. Guccione (Ed.): Ge-
inability to perform the chair sit-and-reach test. Also, in riatricph~~calthmapy (pp. 391401).St. Louis, MO:Mosby.
spite of our emphasis on proper spotting of the partici- Cailliet, R (1988).Low back pain syndrome. Philadelphia: F. A.
pants in this study, one female participant did fall back- Davis.
ward during the SR testing, hitting her head on the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research. (1994). The A w l a t i d
gymnasium floor. As indicated earlier, weakened uunk FiTWSSGRAM test &ministration manual. Dallas, TX: Au-
muscles or tight hamstrings, or both, make it difficult thor.
Glass, G. V, & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in edw Shaulis, D., M d i n g , L.A., & Tandy, R D. (1994). Reliabiity
carimc and PsychorOgY. Englewood Clifh, NJ: RenticeHall. of the AAHPERD functional fitness assessment across
Golding, L. A, Myers, C. R,& Sinning, W. E. (1989). The Y's multiple practice sessions in older men and women. Jour-
way to physicatfines. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Publishers.
Grabiner, M. IL,Koh,T. J., Lundin, T. M., & Jahnigen, P. W.
nal of Aging and Physical Activify, 2,273-279.
Wells, R F., & Dillon, E. K. (1952). The sit-and-reach t e s d
test of back and leg flexibility. Research Qua&$, 23, 115-
,
(1993). Binematics of recovery from a stumble. Journal of 118.
Geronfdtgy, 48, M97-M102.
Jackson, A.W.,& Baker, A. A. (1986). The relationship of the
sit and reach test to criterion measures of hamsuing and
back flexibility in young females. Research Quurterlyforfi- Note
&e and Spmt, 57,183-186.
Jackson, A,& Langford, N. J. (1989). The criterion-related 1. Test theory suggests that with multiple trials the aver-
validity of the sit-and-reachtest: Replication and extension age score is normally a more reliable indication of per-
of previous findings. Research QuarterlyfarE& and formance than the best score. However, because SR, BSR,
60,384-387. and CSR performance has been found to be quite reli-
Kendall, F. P., McCreary, E. K, & Provance, P. G. (1993). able using the "best score" protocol (above .90), we be-
M u c k : Testing and function (4th ed.) . Baltimore, MD:
Williams & W1lkins.
lieve this method isjustified and, in fact, recommended
Liemohn, W., Snodgrass, L. B., & Sharp=, G. L. ( 1 9 8 8 1 r F in gouptestingsituations where efficiency in testing time
,solved controversies in back management-* r c v i e ~ J w - L &tical.
nal of Orthqpaedic and Sports Physical Thwafi, 9,2354-244:
Morrow,J. R, &Jackson,A W. (1993).How "significant6is ybw
reliability? Reswch QyrierlyfwEawcise and Sport, 64,352-
355.
Osness, W.H., Adrian, M., Clark, B., Hoeger, W., Rabb, D., &
Wiswell, R (1996). Fumtiodfiilnessa,wmmnt fmadults wer This research was supported by a grant from Pacificare
60 years. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Health Systems: The authors thank the s-and all voI-
Patterson, P., Wiksten, D. L., Ray, L., Flanders, C, & Sanphy, unteer partkipants from the Leisure World and
D. (1996). The didity and reliability of the back saver sit- Morningside Retirement Communities and from the
and-reach test in middle school girls and boys. Research Lifespan Wellness Clinic f o their
~ assistance with this
Qtw~terly far Ewzise and Spuyt, 64,448-45 1. study. Please address all correspondence regarding this
President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. (1990).
article to C. Jessie Jones, Division of Kinesiology and
PCPFS President's chnllages physical fitness program test
manzral Washington, DC: Author. Health Promotion, California State University-Fullerton,
Russek, L., Wooden, M., Ekedahl, S. & Bush, A (1997). Atti- Fullerton, CA 92834.
tudes toward standardized data collection. Phymat T h h ,
77, 714-729. E-mail: [email protected]