Is the side bridge test valid and reliable for assessing trunk lateral flexor endurance in recreational female athletes?
The upshot
Is the side bridge test a valid and reliable way to measure trunk lateral flexor endurance in physically active women?
The side bridge test has good relative reliability but poor absolute reliability, and its validity for specifically measuring trunk lateral flexor endurance is questionable because shoulder (deltoid) muscle fatigue and body mass both significantly drive test performance, meaning the test does not isolate the trunk muscles it is meant to assess.
ChallengesRead paper
Primary study24 ParticipantsLimited evidence
Key points
- Deltoid muscle activation and fatigue were not significantly different from trunk lateral flexor activity, meaning the shoulder plays as large a role as the trunk in test performance.
- Deltoid and external oblique fatigue together predicted 67.3% of the variance in side bridge test endurance time (adjusted R2 = 0.673).
- Body mass and trunk height predicted an additional 22.3% of endurance time variance, so heavier and taller participants consistently scored lower regardless of trunk strength.
- Relative reliability was good (ICC = 0.81), but absolute reliability was low with a typical error of 10.95 seconds and a coefficient of variation of 30.75%, making it unsuitable for detecting small within-person changes.
- A significant drop in endurance time was observed between session 1 (77.25 s) and session 2 (68.96 s), p = 0.015, suggesting a learning or motivation effect.
How it was conducted
- Design
- Cross-sectional validity study with one-week test-retest reliability component
- Participants
- 24 physically active women, mean age 24.58 +/- 3.92 years, mean mass 60.90 +/- 2.90 kg
- Primary outcome
- Side bridge test endurance time (seconds) and EMG-derived normalized median frequency slopes (NMFslope) for 8 muscles
- Muscles assessed
- External oblique, internal oblique, rectus abdominis, erector spinae, deltoids, gluteus medius, latissimus dorsi, rectus femoris
- Reliability metrics
- ICC(3,1), typical error with 95% confidence limits, and coefficient of variation
What they found
- Mean endurance time was 77.25 +/- 26.62 s in session 1 and 68.96 +/- 21.21 s in session 2 (significant decrease, t = 2.624, p = 0.015); range 38-132 s.
- Relative reliability was good: ICC(3,1) = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.60-0.91).
- Absolute reliability was low: typical error = 10.95 s (95% CI: 8.51-15.36 s); coefficient of variation = 30.75%.
- Deltoid NMFslope showed the greatest median frequency decline (-0.50%/s) and was significantly greater than latissimus dorsi, gluteus medius, and rectus femoris (p < 0.05); no significant difference was found between deltoid and trunk lateral flexors.
- Normalized EMG amplitudes: external oblique 50.2% MVIC, rectus abdominis 41.9% MVIC, deltoid 36.3% MVIC, erector spinae 28.2% MVIC, gluteus medius 21.2% MVIC, latissimus dorsi 14.0% MVIC, rectus femoris 5.85% MVIC.
- Significant high correlations between endurance time and NMFslope: external oblique r = 0.722 (p < 0.01), erector spinae r = 0.664 (p < 0.01), deltoid r = 0.650 (p < 0.01).
- Multiple regression with NMFslopes: EO and deltoid together predicted endurance time with adjusted R2 = 0.673 (equation: 102.120 + 55.434 x NMFslope_EO + 25.832 x NMFslope_DE).
- Multiple regression with anthropometrics: body mass and trunk height predicted endurance time with adjusted R2 = 0.223 (significant, p < 0.05); body mass correlation r = -0.416 (p < 0.05).
Limitations
- All participants were young, healthy, physically active females; results cannot be generalized to males, sedentary populations, athletes, or clinical patients.
- EMG crosstalk may have affected internal and external oblique signals due to their overlapping anatomical positions.
- High inter-participant variability in EMG amplitude and NMFslope values limits the precision of individual-level conclusions.
- The endurance time drop in session 2 was likely influenced by the extra burden of the EMG protocol (electrode placement, MVIC testing), not a true reliability characteristic.
Why it matters
- For patients
- People who have been given the side bridge test during rehabilitation or fitness assessment should know that a single score may not accurately reflect their trunk muscle endurance, especially if they have shoulder weakness or are heavier or taller.
- For clinicians
- Clinicians using the side bridge test should account for body mass as a confounder and recognise that a typical error of nearly 11 seconds (CV 30.75%) means meaningful within-person change requires a large improvement before it can be distinguished from noise.
- For readers
- This study provides EMG evidence that the side bridge test is a multi-joint test where shoulder fatigue is as limiting as trunk fatigue, which challenges its face validity as a trunk-specific endurance measure.
Source
doi:10.3390/biology11071043
Read the original paperMore General Musculoskeletal studies
- Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic treatment for triangular fibrocartilage complex lesions in adolescent elite athletesPrimary study
- More frequent empathic communication by physical therapists is associated with improved outcomes for low-impact chronic painPrimary study
- Calf strains in athletes: a narrative review of management, injury grading, and return to sportNarrative review
- Neuroimmune interactions in musculoskeletal conditions: an introduction for cliniciansPrimary study
- Screening psychological factors in pelvic pain: validation of the Pelvic Pain Psychological Screening Questionnaire (3PSQ)Primary study
- Clinical presentation and rehabilitation progression following hamstring injury assessed by BAMIC in elite track and fieldPrimary study