RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test

Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test

Last Updated

Purpose

The Y Balance Test is a portion of the Functional Movement Systems screen used to evaluate dynamic balance and functional symmetry in order to determine a person's risk for injury or return to sport readiness. This measure was developed from the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) and assesses performance during single-leg balance with reaching in the 3 directions: anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral. Though the Y Balance Test is often equated to the modified SEBT which tests only the 3 aforementioned directions, the Y Balance Test follows a specific protocol that uses standardized instrumentation and requires an online training certification.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym LQYBT

Area of Assessment

Bodily Functions

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Computer

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$269.95

Populations

Non-Patient
Mixed Conditions

Key Descriptions

  • Start by having the subject’s barefoot in the center of the foot plate with toes just behind the red starting line.
  • While maintaining a single leg stance, have the subject practice by reaching in each of the three directions - anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral - with his/her free leg and then return to the starting position.
  • When the practice trials are completed, have the subject start with his/her right foot in the center of the foot place and perform 3 trials of the direction being tested.
  • Repeat with the subject’s left foot in the center of the foot plate. The testing order is:
    1) right anterior
    2) left anterior
    3) right posteromedial
    4) left posteromedial
    5) right posterolateral
    6) left posterolateral
  • The maximal reach for each leg in each direction is often used, but some studies also report the average of 3 trials. The maximal reach is measured by reading the distance at the edge of the reach indicator closest to the subject to the nearest half centimeter. The limb being tested is the stance limb.
  • The composite score is calculated by taking the sum of 3 reach directions divided by 3 times the limb length then multiplied by 100.
  • Subject cannot touch down during the test or place his/her foot on top of the reach indicator.
  • Subject also needs to maintain contract with the red target area on the reach indicator until the reach is finished.

Number of Items

6

Equipment Required

  • Y Balance Testing Kit

Time to Administer

10-15 minutes

Required Training

Training Course

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Instrument Reviewers

Reviewed 10/29/2015 by Dak Adamson, SPT; Avi Bagley, SPT; Adam Dalbo, SPT; Anthony Evans, SPT; Hannah Josephson, SPT; Karla Martin, SPT; Amy Schepers, SPT; Rachel Shepherd, SPT; Taylor Stern, SPT; Lindsay Southam, SPT; Ashton Wedemeyer, SPT; & Rachael Zdeb, SPT. Updated October 2024 by Farah Amer, Student PT; Jesse Davis, Student PT; Alyssa Funt, Student PT; Felicito Garcia, Student PT; Anne Gold, Student PT; Tyler Macanka, Student PT; Amanda Ospina, Student PT; Julia Smith, Student PT; Stephanie Solano, Student PT; & Hailey Tuohy, Student PT under the direction of Irene Ward, PT, DPT, NCS.

Body Structure

Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

  1. Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient: Not Established
  2. Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken: Not Established
  3. Recommendations based on SCI AIS Classification: Not Established
  4. Recommendations based on EDSS Classification: Not Established
  5. Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

Further studies needed to address differences in construct and predictive validity of YBT and modified SEBT. 2. Establish the responsiveness of the YBT, including minimal detectable change, minimally clinical important difference, and population specific cut off points

Healthy Adults (Fullman et al, 2014; n = 29 healthy adults 19-25 years of age; Healthy Adults)

  • The study showed significant reach differences in the anterior reach direction between the YBT and SEBT and claims that clinicians should not use these tests interchangeably.

 

Considerations

Healthy Adults (Fullman et al, 2014; n = 29 healthy adults 19-25 years of age) 

  • This study was only looking at sagittal plane motion when in reality the movements made during the YBT are multiplanar. There is also a difference in performance between genders that needs to be taken into account when analyzing data from the YBT.
  • Use caution when making firm conclusions based on the results of a PPT alone. An observed change based on scoring may or may not be meaningful.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age)

 

Type

Direction

YBT Interrater Reliability SEM (cm)

Maximal Reach

Anterior

3.1

 

Posteromedial

3.7

 

Posterolateral

4.2

 

Composite

9

Average Reach of 3 Trials

Anterior

2.0

 

Posteromedial

2.7

 

Posterolateral

3.5

 

Composite

7.0

 

Athletes (Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)

Type

Measurement

Modiefied SEBT Intrarater Reliability SEM (cm)

SEM Coefficient of Variationa 
(CVME, %)

Maximal Reach

Anterior

2.0

2.9

 

Posteromedial

2.5

2.9

 

Posterolateral

2.9

3.4

 

Limb Length

0.2

0.2

 

aSEM Coefficient of Variation (CVME) is the percent of variation from the preseason to the postseason measurement, reflecting the difference between the 2 scores.

(Plisky et al, 2009; n = 15 male collegiate soccer players; mean age 19.7 ± 0.81)

Maximal Reach Direction

YBT Intrarater Reliability SEM (cm)

Anterior

2.01

Posteromedial

2.83

Posterolateral

3.11

Composite

5.84

 

Maximal Reach Direction

Limb

YBT Interrater Reliability SEM (cm)

Anterior

Left

Right

0.69

0.71

Posteromedial

Left

Right

0.68

0.78

Posterolateral

Left

Right

0.73

0.85

Composite 

Left

Right

3.31

2.08

College students: (Zheng et al., 2024; n = 30 (16 female, 14 male); mean age = 21.53 (0.32) years; flexible flat-foot ). 

Note: Anterior (AT); posteromedial (PM); posterolateral (PL); Composite Score (CS)

  • Inter-rater reliability SEM:
    • AT = 2.67%
    • PM = 2.44%
    • PL = 3.10%
    • CS = 2.01%
  • Test-retest reliability SEM:
    • AT = 2.76%
    • PM = 2.97%
    • PL = 2.92%
    • CS = 1.80%

High school athletes: (Smith et al., 2018; n = 110 (51 males, 59 females); mean age males = 15.9 (1.2) years; mean age females = 16.1 (1.2) years 

  • SEM (anterior) = 1.94
  • SEM (posteromedial) = 4.19
  • SEM (posterolateral) = 4.17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age)

YBT Measurement Type

Direction

MDC (cm)

Maximal Reach

Anterior

8.7

 

Posteromedial

10.3

 

Posterolateral

11.5

 

Composite

24.8

Average Reach of 3 Trials

Anterior

5.5

 

Posteromedial

7.5

 

Posterolateral

9.7

 

Composite

19.5

 

Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability (Hall et al, 2015; n = 39 college-aged individuals with chronic ankle instability)

  • MDC = 7.7 for composite, normalized to limb length

College students: (Zheng et. al., 2024) MDC95% inter-rater reliability: 

  • Inter-rater reliability MDC95:
    • AT = 7.39%
    • PM = 6.75%
    • PL = 8.60%
    • CS = 5.58%
  • Test-retest reliability MDC95:
    • AT = 7.64%
    • PM = 8.24%
    • PL = 8.08%
    • CS = 4.98%

 

High school athletes: (Smith et al., 2018)

  • MDC95% (anterior) = 5.38%
  • MDC95% (posteromedial) = 11.60%
  • MDC95% (posterolateral) = 11.56%



 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Athletes (Chimera et al, 2015; n=190 Division I Collegiate Athletes; mean age = 20 ± 1.5)

  • MCID = 3.5%

Cut-Off Scores

Athletes (Butler et al, 2013; n = 59 male collegiate American football players; mean age 19.4 ± 1.1 years of age)

  • Cut-off score: Composite score of < 89% (100% sensitivity; 71.7% specificity) in collegiate American football players
  • Composite scores were calculated by averaging the maximal reach distance for each reach direction after being normalized to limb length.

Normative Data

Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age; Service Members)

 

Type

Direction

Lower Extremity

Absolute Reach (cm) Mean ± SD (95% CI)

Normalized Reacha (%) Mean ± SD (95% CI)

Maximal Reach

Anterior

Left 
Right

60.0 ± 7.4 
59.8 ± 7.1

66.0 ±7.8
65.8 ± 7.6

 

Posteromedial

Left

Right

95.7 ± 8.3
95.0 ± 8.7

105.3 ± 8.3
104.6 ± 8.9

 

Posterolateral

Left 
Right

91.3 ± 8.5

92.1 ± 9.4

100.5 ± 9.1 
101.4 ± 9.6

 

Composite

Left

Right

246.9 ± 21.8
246.8 ± 23.0

90.6 ± 7.5
90.6 ± 7.9

Average Reach of 3 Trials

Anterior

Left

Right

57.8 ± 6.8
57.6 ± 7.1

63.6 ±7.2
63.5 ±7.7

 

Posteromedial

Left

Right

93.2 ±8.5
92.5 ± 9.0

102.7 ±8.6
102.0 ±9.4

 

Posterolateral

Left

Right

88.3 ±8.5
89.1 ± 9.4

97.2 ± 9.4
98.2 ± 10.0

 

Composite

Left

Right

239.3 ± 21.5
239.4 ± 23.5

87.8 ± 7.6
87.9 ± 8.3

 

aNormalized reach was calculated as reach distance/limb length (anterior superior iliac spine to medial malleolus X 100).  

 

Healthy Adults: (Coughlan et al., 2012; n = 20 male participants; mean age = 22.05 (3.05))

Normalized Mean Maximal Reach Distances for SEBT and YBT

 

 

 

Direction

Limb

YBT Mean ± SD (%)

SEBT Mean ± SD (%)

Anterior

Right

Left

64.90 ± 6.96*

64.84 ± 7.47*

69.49 ± 7.14*

69.92 ± 7.29*

Posteromedial

Right

Left

110.48 ± 7.31

110.58 ± 7.56

110.82 ± 7.23

111.51 ± 5.76

Posterolateral

Right

Left

104.79 ± 7.61

103.97 ± 6.42

104.03 ± 6.89

104.00 ± 6.42

 

Composite

Right

Left

89.74 ± 5.43

90.89 ± 4.91

90.72 ± 5.33

108.98 ± 5.54

*The distance that participants reached on the SEBT in the anterior direction was significantly greater than on the YBT (Left: p = 0.0002; Right: p = 0.003). No other differences were found.

 

(Fullman et al, 2014; n = 29 healthy adults 19-25 years of age)

Normalized Reach Distance Results for the YBT and SEBT

 

 

 

Direction

SEBT

Mean ± SD (%)

YBT

Mean ± SD (%)

P Value

Anterior

67.05 ± 4.97

59.74 ± 4.85

< 0.017

Posteromedial

99.71 ± 8.67

99.53 ± 9.81

> 0.05

Posterolateral

106.14 ± 7.94

102.87± 9.24

> 0.05

 

Joint Motion

Sagittal-Plane Angular Displacement Anterior Reach (in degrees)

Hip Flexion

28.32  13.19

Knee Flexion

59.59  13.05

Ankle Dorsiflexion

32.6  6.20

 

Athletes (Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)

Modified SEBT

Reach Distance

Total Mean ± SD (cm)

Girls Mean ± SD (cm)

Boys Mean ± SD (cm)

Anterior

78.2 ± 8.2

73.1 ± 5.8

82.3 ±7.6

Posteromedial

107.0 ± 11.7

98.9 ± 9.3

113.6 ± 8.9

Posterolateral

100.4 ± 12.0

93.0 ± 9.7

106.4± 10.3

Compositea

285.6 ± 30.0

265.0 ± 22.8

302.2 ± 24.3

Limb Length

94.3 ± 6.1

89.9 ± 3.9

97.9 ± 5.1

Modified SEBT Normalized Reach Distance

Total Mean ± SD (%)

Girls Mean ± SD (%)

Boys Mean ± SD (%)

Anterior

83.9 ± 7.1

81.4 ± 6.2

84.1 ± 7.6

Posteromedial

113.4 ± 9.7

110.1 ± 10.0

116.1 ± 8.5

Posterolateral

106.4 ± 10.8

103.6 ± 10.7

108.7 ± 10.3

Compositeb

100.9 ± 8.4

98.4 ± 8.2

103.0 ± 8.0

 

aSum of the 3 reach distances (anterior, posteromedial, posterolateral) in cm.

bSum of the 3 reach distances, divided by 3 times limb length, multiplied by 100.

 

(Plisky et al, 2009; n = 15 male collegiate soccer players; mean age 19.7 ± 0.81)

 

Direction

Non-normalized Mean ± SD (cm)

Normalized* Mean ± SD (%)

Rater 1

Anterior

71.5 ± 6.9

76.7 ±4.4

 

Posteromedial

114.0 ± 7.1

122.5 ± 4.3

 

Posterolateral

110.2 ± 7.2

118.5 ±5.0

 

Composite

295.1 ± 19.8

105.7 ± 3.4

Rater 2

Anterior

71.7 ± 7.1

76.9 ± 4.4

 

Posteromedial

114.0 ± 7.1

122.5 ±4.3

 

Posterolateral

110.3 ± 7.2

118.5 ± 4.9

 

Composite

296.7 ± 20.3

106.2 ± 3.8

Repeated Measurement

Anterior

 

72.9 ± 5.8

 

78.3 ± 3.9

 

Posteromedial

114.9 ± 7.3

123.5 ± 5.0

 

Posterolateral

112.3 ± 6.5

120.8 ± 5.3

 

Compositeb

300.1 ± 17.7

107.5 ± 3.5

*Normalized to limb length expressed as a percentage

 

(Smith et al, 2014; n = 184 Division I collegiate athletes 18-24 years of age)

Demographic Data and YBT Anterior, Posteromedial, and Posterolateral Reach Asymmetry and Composite Scores for Injured and Uninjured Athletes

 

 

Variable

Injured (n = 81)

Mean ± SD

Uninjured (n = 103)

Mean ± SD

Age (yr)

20.6 ± 1.6

20.0 ± 1.4*

Height (cm)

174.0 ± 0.1

180.3 ± 0.1*

Weight (kg)

73.6 ± 19.6

85.3 ± 20.8*

Anterior Asymmetry (cm)

3.6 ± 3.9

3.2 ± 3.3

Posteromedial Asymmetry (cm)

3.9 ± 3.5

3.1 ±2.7

Posterolateral Asymmetry (cm)

3.5 ± 2.7

3.7 ± 2.8

Composite Scorea (%)

101.3 ± 7.8

101.2 ± 7.1

* p < 0.05

aAverage of right and left reach directions, normalized to leg length, and multiplied by 100.

 

(Chimera et al, 2015; n=190 Division I Collegiate Athletes; mean age = 20 ± 1.5)

YBT Composite Scoresa Classified by Sport and Sex

 

 

 

 

 

Women

 

Men

 

Sport

No.

Mean ± SD

No.

Mean ± SD

Basketball

2

98 ± 0

9

98 ± 6

Cheer and Dance

4

97 ± 8

N/A

N/A

Cross Country

17

99 ± 5

13

101 ± 12

Football

N/A

N/A

69

102 ± 7

Golf

3

97 ± 3

N/A

N/A

Soccer

28

102 ± 6

N/A

N/A

Swimming and Diving

17

102 ± 7 

N/A

N/A

Tennis

5

99 ± 6

5

107 ± 5

Track and Field

3

92 ± 14

7

106 ± 6

Volleyball

8

99 ± 8

N/A

N/A

Total

87

 

103

 

aNormalized to % lower extremity length

 

YBT Performance Classified by Injury History

 

 

 

 

Composite Score

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Trunk

Previous Injury

101 ± 8

101 ± 7

100 ± 10

102 ± 10

No Previous Injury

101 ± 8

101 ± 8

101 ± 8

101 ± 7

P Value

0.68

0.49

0.53

0.37

t Value

0.416

0.695

-0.635

0.902

Anterior Reach Asymmetry

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Trunk

Previous Injury

4.5 ±8.9

5.1 ± 11.6

3.1 ± 2.3

6.3 ± 14.3

No Previous Injury

4.2 ± 8.5

4.0 ± 6.9

4.5 ± 9.1

3.9 ± 6.9

P Value

0.78

0.40

0.51

0.34

t Value

0.274

0.841

-0.616

0.976

Posteromedial Reach Asymmetry

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Trunk

Previous Injury

4.4 ± 9.6

3.1 ± 2.6

4.3 ± 2.9

5.8 ± 15.6

No Previous Injury

3.5 ± 3.2

4.4 ± 8.7

3.9 ± 7.6

3.5 ± 3.2

P Value

0.39

0.24

0.83

0.40

t Value

0.857

-1.171

0.211

0.864

Posterolateral Reach Asymmetry

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Trunk

Previous Injury

3.6 ± 2.8

3.9 ± 3.1

3.9 ± 3.9

3.5 ± 2.7

No Previous Injury

3.7 ± 2.7

3.5 ± 2.6

3.6 ± 2.6

3.7 ± 2.8

P Value

0.91

0.4

0.78

0.74

t Value

-0.116

0.851

0.290

-0.335

 

YBT Performance Classified by Surgery History

 

 

 

Composite Score

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Previous Injury

96 ± 4

100 ± 8

95 ± 3

No Previous Injury

101 ± 8

101 ± 8

101 ± 1

P Value

0.20

0.56

0.20

t Value

-1.286

-0.586

-1.285

Anterior Reach Asymmetry

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Previous Injury

2.1 ± 1.4

6.7 ± 15.8

2.5 ± 3.5

No Previous Injury

4.4 ± 8.8

4.3 ± 7.4

4.4 ± 8.8

P Value

0.61

0.44

0.71

t Value

-0.512

0.790

-0.368

Posteromedial Reach Asymmetry

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Previous Injury

1.6 ± 0.5

3.2 ± 2.6

3.0 ± 1.3

No Previous Injury

4.0 ± 7.3

4.1 ± 7.7

4.0 ± 7.3

P Value

0.52

0.61

0.82

t Value

-0.648

-0.517

-0.230

Posterolateral Reach Asymmetry

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

 

 

 

 

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Previous Injury

2.4 ± 1.9

3.1 ± 3.0

2.8 ± 1.8

No Previous Injury

3.4 ± 2.8

3.7 ± 2.7

3.7 ± 2.8

P Value

0.36

0.34

0.61

t Value

-0.925

-0.952

-0.509

 

 

YBT Performance Classified by Sex

 

 

 

 

Women

Men

P Value

Composite Score

(Mean ± SD, cm, 95% CI)

100 ± 6

102 ± 8

0.052

 

Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability (Hall et al, 2015; n = 39 college-aged individuals with chronic ankle instability)

Intervention Group

YBT Pre-Test Normalized Composite Score (%)

YBT Post-Test Normalized Composite Score (%)

Resistance Band

97.4 ± 7.2

102.0 ± 7.2

PNF

96.9 ± 7.0

101.5 ± 7.2

Control

99.6 ± 7.7

99.9 ± 4.6

College Students: (Zheng et al., 2024) - Absolute Reach Distance (cm) Mean +/- SD [95%CI]

  • Rater A
    • Anterior: 58.65 +/-5.16 [56.72, 60.58]
    • Posteromedial: 97.6 +/- 9.99 [93.87, 101.33]
    • Posterolateral: 94.32 +/- 8.83 [91.02, 97.61]
    • Composite score: 250.57 +/- 20.16 [243.04, 258.09]
  • Rater B
    • Anterior: 57.80 +/- 5.55 [55.73, 59.87]
    • Posteromedial: 96.8 +/- 8.70 [93.55, 100.05]
    • Posterolateral: 94.08 +/-8.20 [91.02, 97.14]
    • Composite score: 248.68 +/-17.94 [241.99, 255.38]
  • Retest
    • Anterior: 58.15 +/- 5.17 [56.22, 60.08]
    • Posteromedial: 97.07 +/- 9.89 [93.37, 100.76]
    • Posterolateral: 93.32 +/- 8.65 [90.09, 96.55]

    • Composite score: 248.53 +/- 18.62 [241.58, 255.49]

       

College female volleyball athletes: (Walbright et al., 2017; n = 35; female college volleyball athletes) 

  • Right leg composite score: 2.471 +/- 0.164
  • Left leg composite score: 2.503 +/- 0.167
  • Lower Quarter Injury (LQI) score (n = 24)
    • Left composite: 2.501 +/- 0.148
    • Right composite: 2.463 +/- 0.148
  • No LQI score (n = 11)
    • Left composite: 2.493 +/- 0.210
    • Right composite: 2.488 +/- 0.202 

 

High school athletes: (Smith et al., 2018)

  • Anterior direction (normalized score)
    • Test 1: 65.34 +/- 5.14
    • Test 2: 65.90 +/- 6.72
  • Posteromedial direction (normalized score)
    • Test 1: 106.54 +/- 7.33
    • Test 2: 108.71 +/- 6.47
  • Posterolateral direction (normalized score)
    • Test 1: 101.95 +/- 8.45
    • Test 2: 105.70 +/- 8.51
  • Reach asymmetries
    • Anterior direction (>4 cm) = 15 (29.4%) male, 14 (23.7%) female (p = 0.523)
    • Posteromedial direction (>4 cm) = 28 (54.9%) male, 30 (50.8%) female (p = 0.705)
    • Posterolateral direction (>4 cm) = 24 (47.0%) male, 27 (45.8%) female (p = 1.00)

 

Baseball players: (Ryu et al.; 2019; n = 42 (19 pitchers, 16 infielders, 7 outfielders); mean age = 27.5 (4.6), age range = 21-34)

  • Normalized Reach Distances by Position
    • Pitcher
      • Anterior (%):
        • R: 62.7 (5.15)
        • L: 60.2 (5.28)
      • Posteromedial (%):
        • R: 107.7a (6.83)
        • L: 107.8 (5.76)
      • Posterolateral (%):
        • R: 103.5 (5.61)
        • L: 105.8 (5.61)
      • Composite (%):
        • 92.3a (4.25)
    • Infielder
      • Anterior (%):
        • R: 66 (7.74)
        • L: 64.2 (7.50)
      • Posteromedial (%):
        • R: 113.7a (6.77)
        • L: 110.2 (7.91)
      • Posterolateral (%):
        • R: 106.8 (9.64)
        • L: 105.8 (8.82)
      • Composite (%):
        • 96.6a (6.18)
    • Outfielder
      • Anterior (%):
        • R: 63.2 (6.25)
        • L: 63.4 (7.32)
      • Posteromedial (%):
        • R: 111.7 (3.50)
        • L: 110.1 (7.94)
      • Posterolateral (%):
        • R: 102.5 (9.08)
        • L: 105.7 (7.19)
      • Composite (%):
        • 95 (5.31)
    • Total
      • Anterior (%):
        • R: 64 (6.03)
        • L: 62.3 (6.65)
      • Posteromedial (%):
        • R: 110.7 (6.85)
        • L: 109.1 (6.94)
      • Posterolateral (%):
        • R: 104.6 (7.94)
        • L: 104 (7.32)
      • Composite (%):
        • 94.4 (5.49)

aSignificant difference between pitchers and infielders (p < 0.05)

 

 

 

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Athletes (Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)

Measurement Type

Modified SEBT Test- Retest Reliability (ICC, 95% CI)

Maximal Reach (n = 40)

Excellent (0.89-0.93)

College Students: (Zheng et al., 2024)

  • Acceptable for Anterior: ICC = 0.81; (95% CI = 0.63, 0.90)
  • Excellent for Posteromedial: ICC = 0.90; (95% CI = 0.80, 0.95)
  • Acceptable for Posterolateral: ICC = 0.89; (95% CI = 0.79, 0.95)
  • Excellent for Composite score: ICC = 0.92; (95% CI = 0.83, 0.96)

 

High school athletes: (Smith et al., 2018) 

  • Acceptable for Anterior: ICC = 0.89; (95% CI = 0.73, 0.96)
  • Poor for Posteromedial: ICC = 0.63; (95% CI = 0.24, 0.85)
  • Acceptable for Posterolateral: ICC = 0.76; (95% CI = 0.30, 0.92)

 

 

 

 

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Service Members (Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age)

 

Measurement Type

YBT Interrater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI)

Maximal Reach

Excellent (0.80-0.85)

Average Reach of 3 Trials

Excellent (0.85-0.93)

 

Healthy Adults (Gribble et al, 2013; n = 29 adults 18-50 years of age; mean age = 31.72)

Measurement Type

Modified SEBT Interrater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI)

Maximal Reach

Excellent (0.86-0.94)

Average Reach of 3 Trials

Excellent (0.88-0.92)

Limb Length

Excellent (0.92)

 

Athletes (Plisky et al., 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players)

Measurement Type

Modified SEBT Intrarater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI)

Maximal Reach

Excellent (0.82-0.87)

Limb Length

Excellent (0.92)

 

(Plisky et al., 2009; n = 15 male collegiate soccer players; mean age 19.7 ± 0.81)

Measurement Type

YBT Intrarater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI)

YBT Interrater Reliability (ICC, 95% CI)

Maximal Reach

Excellent (0.85-0.89)

Excellent (0.97-1.0)

College Students: (Zheng et al., 2024)

  • Excellent interrater reliability for all test directions and composite score
    • Anterior: ICC = 0.84; (95% CI = 0.69, 0.92)
    • Posteromedial: ICC = 0.92; (95% CI = 0.84, 0.96)
    • Posterolateral: ICC = 0.87; (95% CI = 0.74, 0.94)
    • Composite score: ICC = 0.89; (95% CI = 0.79, 0.92)

 

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Service Members:

(Shaffer et al, 2013; n = 64 adults 21-29 years of age; Service Members)

  • 31.3% of the subjects had greater than 4cm differences in anterior limb reach differences suggesting a balance asymmetry and potential for increased risk of injury (p < 0.05). 

 

Athletes:
(Plisky et al, 2006; n = 235 high school basketball players; Athletes)

Adjusted Odds Ratios for Potential Lower Extremity Injury Risk Factors Among High School Basketball Players From Performance on the Modified SEBT

 

 

 

Population

Risk Factor

Category

LE Injury Adjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)

All Players

Normalized Composite Right Reach Distancea

≤ 94%

3.0 (1.5, 6.1)

 

Anterior Reach Distance Differenceb

≥ 4cm

2.7 (1.4, 5.3)

Girls

Normalized Composite Right Reach Distancea

≤ 94%

6.5 (2.4, 17.5)

Boys

Anterior Reach Distance Differenceb

≥ 4cm

3.0 (1.1, 7.7)

aReach distance is reach distance divided by limb length multiplied by 100. Right reach done by standing on left limb and reaching with right limb.

bDifference between right and left anterior reach distances.

*Adjusted odds ratio for gender, grade, previous injury, and participation in a neuromuscular training program since initial measurement, and lower extremity tape/brace use.

  • Players with an anterior reach distance difference of greater than or equal to 4cm were 2.7 times more likely to sustain a LE injury.
  • Players with a decreased normalized composite right reach distance (≤ 94% of their limb length) 3 times more likely to sustain a LE injury, with the risk being 6.5 times more likely in girls.

 

(Smith et al, 2014; n = 184 Division I collegiate athletes 18-24 years of age; Athletes)

Association between Composite Scores and Asymmetry and Injury in Collegiate Athletes During Competitive Season

 

 

YBT Variable

Odds Ratio, 95% CI

P Value

Anterior Asymmetry (≥4cm)

2.20

0.03

Posteromedial Asymmetry (≥ 4cm)

1.15

0.69

Posterolateral Asymmetry (≥ 4cm)

0.57

0.11

Composite Scorea (%)

1.00

0.69

aAverage of right and left reach directions, normalized to leg length, and multiplied by 100.

  • Participants with anterior asymmetry greater than or equal to 4cm were at increased risk of injury compared to those without anterior asymmetry. No significant associations between noncontact injury and composite score or asymmetry in the posteromedial or posterolateral directions were found.

 

(Chimera et al, 2015; n=190 Division I Collegiate Athletes; mean age = 20 ± 1.5; Athletes)

  • Injury and surgery history did not influence performance on the YBT.
  • The male athletes tested in this study had greater anterior reach asymmetry than the female athletes (t188=-1.920; p=0.02). As the result, evaluating sex as a potential confounder may be necessary when testing performance on the YBT.

 

(Butler et al, 2013; n = 59 male collegiate American football players; mean age 19.4 ± 1.1 years of age; Athletes)

YBT Cut-off Point and Noncontract LE Injury Occurrence

 

 

Composite Reach Cut-Off Score

Noncontact LE Injury Present (+)

Noncontact LE Injury Absent (-)

(+) YBT (<89%)

6 (true positive)

15 (false positive)

(-) YBT (≥89%)

0 (false negative)

38 (true negative)

  • Using a composite score of <89% as the cut-off point, all athletes who developed a noncontact LE injury were identified, along with 15 athletes who did not get injured (positive likelihood ratio: 3.5, 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).
  • In this study’s ROC analysis, reach asymmetry on the YBT and previous injury did not contribute to identifying athletes at risk for an injury during the season.

Construct Validity

Healthy Adults:

(Kang et al, 2015; n = 30 adults; mean age 22.57 ± 2.3 years of age; Healthy Adults)

  • Linear regression between ankle dorsiflexion on the anterior reach portion of the LQYBT and the inclinometer and tape measurement of the weight bearing lunge test. Inclinometer: r2 = 0.55; Tape measurement: r2= 0.40

(Coughlan et al, 2012; n = 20 healthy male participants; mean age 22.05  3.05; Healthy Adults) 

SEBT and YBT Paired-Samples Correlations (n=20)

 

 

 

 

Direction

Limb

Correlation

P Value

Anterior

Right

Left

0.638

0.781

0.002

0.000

Posteromedial

Right

Left

0.781

0.572

0.000

0.008

Posterolateral

Right

Left

0.651

0.624

0.002

0.003

 

(Fullman et al, 2014; n = 29 healthy adults 19-25 years of age; Healthy Adults)

  • Participants reached farther on the anterior reach direction of the SEBT compared with the YBT (p < 0.017).
  • No statistically significant relationship between sagittal-plane angular displacement at the hip, knee, and ankle joints and anterior reach distance were found. However, there was a negative correlation (r = –0.06, r2 = 0.36, n = 29, P > .01) between hip joint flexion angle and anterior reach distance on the SEBT and a positive correlation (r = 0.43, r2 = 18.49, n = 29, P > .01) between hip-joint flexion angle and anterior reach distance of the YBT.

Responsiveness

Healthy Adults (Coughlan et al, 2012; n = 20 healthy male participants; mean age 22.05 + 3.05) 

SEBT and YBT Effect Size

 

 

Reach Direction

Right Leg

Left Leg

Anterior

Moderate, 0.76

Strong, 1.04

Posteromedial

Weak, 0.07

Weak, 0.15

Posterolateral

Weak, -0.13

Weak, 0.00

Composite

Moderate, 0.3

Strong, 2.55

 

Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability (Hall et al, 2015; n = 39 college-aged individuals with chronic ankle instability)

Intervention Group

YBT Effect Size (95% CI)*

Resistance Band

Moderate, 0.6 (-0.2, 1.4)

PNF

Moderate, 0.6 (-0.2, 1.4)

Control

Weak, 0.1 (-0.7, 0.8)

 *No clinical significance from pre-test to post-test.

Non-Patient

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund, 2019; n = 60; mean age = 64.3 (8.3); n = 20 per age group 50-59, 60-69, 70-79)

  • Absolute Maximal Reach (by direction):
    • Interrater Reliability SEM
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 0.94 cm
        • L: 0.20 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 0.00 cm
        • L: 0.00 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 0.84 cm
        • L: 0.71 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 0.94 cm
        • L: 0.80 cm
    • Test-Retest Reliability SEM
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 1.68 cm
        • L: 1.89 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 4.68 cm
        • L: 2.25 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 5.41 cm
        • L: 5.11 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 5.32 cm
        • L: 4.66 cm
  • Normalized Maximal Reach (by direction):
    • Interrater Reliability SEM
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 0.57 cm
        • L: 0.29 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 0.00 cm
        • L: 0.00 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 0.96 cm
        • L: 0.79 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 0.35 cm
        • L: 0.28 cm
    • Test-Retest Reliability SEM
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 1.96 cm
        • L: 2.08 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 5.22 cm
        • L: 2.65 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 6.323 cm
        • L: 6.22 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 2.09 cm
        • L: 1.93 cm

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund, 2019)

  • Absolute Maximal Reach (by direction):
    • Interrater Reliability MDC
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 2.60 cm
        • L: 0.56 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 0.00 cm
        • L: 0.00 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 2.33 cm
        • L: 1.97 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 2.60 cm
        • L: 2.21 cm
    • Test-Retest Reliability MDC
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 4.66 cm
        • L: 5.24 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 12.96 cm
        • L: 6.24 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 15.01 cm
        • L: 14.15 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 14.74 cm
        • L: 12.91 cm
  • Normalized Maximal Reach (by direction):
    • Interrater Reliability MDC
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 1.58 cm
        • L: 0.80 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 0.00 cm
        • L: 0.00 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 2.65 cm
        • L: 2.19 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 0.97 cm
        • L: 0.78 cm
    • Test-Retest Reliability MDC
      • Anterior:  
        • R: 5.44 cm
        • L: 5.77 cm
      • Posteromedial:
        • R: 14.46 cm
        • L: 7.35 cm
      • Posterolateral:
        • R: 17.53 cm
        • L: 17.25 cm
      • Composite:
        • R: 5.80 cm
        • L: 5.36 cm

 

Cut-Off Scores

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund et al., 2019)

  • Scores greater than 1–2 standard deviations below the mean may indicate impaired postural control.

 

Normative Data

Healthy Adults: (Kang et al., 2015; n = 30 (20 males, 10 females); mean age = 22.57 (2.3) years)

  • Normalized Anterior Reach Distance on the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (%): 59.58 (5.26), 95% CI: 57.61-61.54
  • Normalized Posteromedial Reach Distance on Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (%): 100.44 (7.98), 95% CI: 97.46-103.42
  • Normalized Posterolateral Reach Distance on Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (%): 98.79 (10.00), 95% CI: 95.06-102.53
  • Ankle dorsiflexion at Anterior Reach on the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (degrees): 39.29 (4.82), 95% CI: 37.48-41.09
  • Ankle dorsiflexion at Posteromedial Reach on the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (degrees): 35.15 (5.96), 95% CI: 32.93-37.38
  • Ankle dorsiflexion at Posterolateral Reach on the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (degrees): 36.13 (6.39), 95% CI: 33.74-38.51

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund et al., 2019)

  • 50-59 years old (mean (SD))
    • Anterior
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 57.95 (5.67)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 66.35 (5.37)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 56.80 (6.08)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 64.59 (5.55)
    • Posteromedial
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 92.10 (9.59)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 105.61 (10.96)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 91.10 (8.45)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 103.76 (9.28)
    • Posterolateral
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 88.95 (7.24)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 102.05 (8.90)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 87.90 (8.40)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 100.09 (8.95)
    • Composite
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 239.00 (20.21)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 91.34 (7.48)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 235.80 (20.74)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 89.48 (7.00)
  • 60-69 years old (mean (SD))
    • Anterior
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 53.80 (6.81)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 61.30 (7.76)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 54.55 (6.67)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 61.83 (6.84)
    • Posteromedial
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 84.75 (10.86)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 96.58 (12.23)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 84.55 (9.33)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 95.88 (9.74)
    • Posterolateral
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 79.50 (10.87)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 90.62 (12.40)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 80.60 (11.06)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 91.51 (12.86)
    • Composite
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 218.05 (27.43)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 82.83 (10.38)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 219.70 (25.24)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 83.08 (9.19)
  • 70-79 years old (mean (SD))
    • Anterior
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 52.15 (5.29)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 60.86 (5.95)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 51.30 (5.49)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 59.73 (6.17)
    • Posteromedial
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 80.25 (9.26)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 93.65 (10.50)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 82.30 (8.60)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 95.77 (9.32)
    • Posterolateral
      • Right:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 70.55 (19.62)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 82.37 (22.56)
      • Left:
        • Absolute Reach (cm): 73.95 (9.88)
        • Normalized Reach (%): 86.10 (11.51)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund et al., 2019)

  • Absolute Maximal Reach Test-Retest ICC (by direction):
    • Anterior: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.930
      • L: 0.913
    • Posteromedial: Acceptable to Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.817
      • L: 0.943
    • Posterolateral: Acceptable reliability
      • R: 0.876  
      • L: 0.794
    • Composite: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.968
      • L: 0.966
  • Normalized Maximal Reach Test-Retest ICC (by direction):
    • Anterior: Acceptable to Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.917
      • L: 0.895
    • Posteromedial: Acceptable to Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.817
      • L: 0.930
    • Posterolateral: Acceptable reliability
      • R: 0.869
      • L: 0.751
    • Composite: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.964
      • L: 0.953            

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund et al., 2019)

  • Absolute Maximal Reach Interrater ICC (by direction):
    • Anterior: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.993
      • L: 0.999
    • Posteromedial: Excellent reliability
      • R: 1.000
      • L: 1.000
    • Posterolateral: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.997
      • L: 0.996
    • Composite: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.999
      • L: 0.999
  • Normalized Maximal Reach Interrater ICC (by direction):
    • Anterior: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.993
      • L: 0.998
    • Posteromedial: Excellent reliability
      • R: 1.000
      • L: 1.000
    • Posterolateral: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.997
      • L: 0.996
    • Composite: Excellent reliability
      • R: 0.999
      • L: 0.999

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Healthy Adults: (Kang et al., 2015)

  • Anterior Reach Direction on the YBT-LQ and Ankle DF:
    • Excellent concurrent validity as measured by the Inclinometer on the Weight-Bearing Lunge Test (WBLT) (r = 0.74,  r2 = 0.55, P < 0.001)
    • Excellent concurrent validity as measured by the Tape Measurement on the WBLT (r = 0.64, r2 = 0.40, P < .001)
  • Posteromedial Reach Direction on the YBT-LQ and Ankle DF:
    • Excellent concurrent validity as measured by the Inclinometer on the WBLT (r = 0.69,  r2 = 0.48, P < 0.001)
    • Excellent concurrent validity as measured by the Tape Measurement on the WBLT (r = 0.64, r2 = 0.41, P < .001)
  • Posterolateral Reach Direction on the YBT-LQ and Ankle DF:
    • Adequate concurrent validity as measured by the Inclinometer on the WBLT (r = 0.46,  r2 = 0.22, P < 0.01)
    • Adequate concurrent validity as measured by the Tape Measurement on the WBLT (r = 0.36, r2 = 0.13, P < .05)

 

Predictive validity:

Firefighters: (Vaulerin et al., 2020; n = 39 (history of injury = 9, uninjured = 30); mean age = 34.5 (4.9) years; French firefighter population))

  • Excellent validity of posteromedial LQYBT asymmetry between limbs in predicting ankle sprain injury (AUC = .902; 95% Cl, .846-958), cut-off of >2 cm (100% sensitivity; 80.0% specificity; OR. 71.6: 95% Cl, 3.7-1399.3)
  • Adequate validity of posterolateral LQYBT asymmetry between limbs in predicting ankle sprain injury (AUC = .835; 95% Cl, ,744-.927), cut-off of >2 cm (88.9% sensitivity; 80.0% specificity; OR, 32; 95% Cl, 4.6-222.5)
  • Adequate validity of anterior LQYBT asymmetry between limbs in predicting ankle sprain injury (AUC = .761; 95% CI, .618-.905), cut-off of >3 cm (77.8% sensitivity; 80.0% specificity; OR, 14; 95% Cl, 2.6-74.4) 

 

 

Construct Validity

Healthy women aged 50–79 years: (Freund, 2019)

  • Adequate: correlation between forward gait speed and LQYBT composite in both directions (R (r = 0.460); L (r = 0.307, and for the left direction for anterior (r = 0.469) and posteromedial (r = 0.436)
  • Adequate: correlation between backward gait speed and LQYBT composite, anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral in both directions (r = 0.427-0.505)
  • Adequate: correlation between same side single-leg stance and LQYBT composite and posterolateral in both directions (r = 0.412-0.535)

 

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Older Adults: (Sipe, 2019; n = 30; mean age = 66.8 (5.4) years; age range = 61-84; female: n = 15)

  • SEM = 0.02

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Older Adults: (Sipe, 2019)

  • MDC95 = 0.05

Test/Retest Reliability

Older Adults: (Sipe, 2019)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = 0.95,   95%CI (.89, .97))

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Older Adults: (Sipe, 2019)

  • Excellent interrater reliability: (ICC = 0.93-0.94)
  • Excellent intrarater reliability: (ICC = 0.92)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Older Adults (Sipe, 2019) 

  • Adequate correlation between LQYBT and TUG test (r = -0.52, p = 0.003)
  • Excellent correlation between LQYBT and 8UG test (r = -0.72, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between LQYBT and CST (r = 0.65, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between LQYBT and ABCS (r = 0.54, p = 0.002)
  • Adequate correlation between LQYBT and SLS Left Leg (r = 0.50, p = 0.005)
  • Adequate correlation between LQYBT and SLS Right Leg (r = 0.39, p < 0.03)

Note: Single Leg Stance (SLS); Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABCS); 30-second Chair Stand Test (CST); 8-foot Up and Go Test (8UG Test); Timed Up and Go (TUG)

 

Bibliography

Butler R.J., Lehr M.E., et al. (2013). Dynamic Balance Performance and Noncontact Lowe Extremity Injury in College Football Players: An Initial Study. Sports Health 5(5): 417-422.

Chimera N.J., Smith C.A., & Warren M. (2015). Injury History, Sex, and Performance on the Functional Movement Screen and Y Balance Test. J Athl Train 50(5): 475-485.

Coughlan G.F., Fullam K., et al. (2012). A Comparison Between Performance on Selected Directions of the Star Excursion Balance Test and Y Balance Test. J Athl Train 47(4): 366-371.

Freund, J.E., Stetts, D.M., Oostindie, A., Shepherd, J., Vallabhajosula, S. (2019). Lower quarter Y-balance test in healthy women 50-79 years old. J Women Aging. 31(6), 475-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2018.1510248

Fullman K., Caulfied B, et al. (2014). Kinematic Analysis of Selected Reach Directions of the Star Excursion Balance Test Compared with the Y Balance Test. J Sports Rehab 23: 27-35.  

Gribble P.A., Kelly S.E., et al. (2013). Interrater Reliability of the Star Excursion Balance Test. J Athl Train 48(5): 621-626   

Hall E.A., Docherty C.L., et al. (2015). Strength-Training Protocols to Improve Deficits in Participants with Chronic Ankle Instability: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Athl Train 50(1): 36-44.   

Kang M-H., Lee D-K., et al. (2015). Association of Ankle Kinematics and Performance on the Y-Balance Test With Inclinometer Measurements on the Weight-Bearing-Lunge Test. J Sport Rehab 24: 62-67.   

Plisky P.J., Rauh M. J., et al. (2006). Star Excursion Balance Test as a Predictor of Lower Extremity Injury in High School Basketball Players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36(12): 911-919.  

Plisky P.J., Gorman P. P., et al. (2009). The Reliability of an Instrument Device for Measuring Components of the Star Excursion Balance Test. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 4(2): 92-99.

Ryu, C.H., Park, J., Kang, M., et al. (2019). Differences in lower quarter Y-balance test with player position and ankle injuries in professional baseball players. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 27(1), 2309499019832421. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019832421

Shaffer S.W., Teyhen D.S., et al. (2013). Y-Balance Test: A Reliability Study Involving Multiple Raters. Military Med 178(11): 1264-1270.

Sipe, C.L., Ramey, K.D., Plisky, P.P., Taylor, J.D. (2019). Y-Balance Test: A Valid and Reliable Assessment in Older Adults. J Aging Phys Act. 27(5), 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0330

Smith C.A., Chimera N.J., et al. (2014). Association of Y Balance Test Reach Asymmetry and Injury in Division I Athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47(1): 136-141.

Smith, L. J., Creps J. R., Bean, R., Rodda, B., Alsalaheen, B. (2018). Performance and reliability of the Y-Balance Test in high school athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 58(11), 1671-1675. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07218-8

Vaulerin, J., Chorin, F., Emile, M., d’Arripe-Longueville, F., Colson, S.S. (2020). Ankle sprains risk factors in a sample of French firefighters: a preliminary prospective study. J Sport Rehabil. 29(5), 608-615. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2018-0284

Walbright, P. D., Walbright, N., Ojha, H., Davenport, T. (2017). Validity of functional screening tests to predict lost-time lower quarter injury in a cohort of female collegiate athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther, 12(6), 948-959.  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5675370/pdf/ijspt-12-948.pdf

Zheng, Y., Feng, R., Hu, W., Huang, P. (2024). Investigation of inter-rater and test-retest reliability of Y balance test in college students with flexible flatfoot. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 16(1), 40. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00819-3

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Jul 10, 2025

High-level Mobility Assess...

read more

updated Jul 7, 2025

Inpatient Rehabilitation F...

read more

updated Jun 11, 2025

StepWatch

read more