Two companion 2015 papers — cited together here — asked which cheap flexibility tests stay honest when judo recreation training changes the body’s stimulation state. Eight men (18–43 years, mean 28.8 ± 8.5; 0.5–3 years experience) performed three tests in rotated order across three training situations: finger-floor distance (FFD), modified self-assessment bending scale (SABS), and self-assessment sit-reach (SASRT).
Validity paper
Flexibility level did not simply track stimulation state. SASRT and FFD met validity and reliability criteria across states; SABS did not earn recommendation. For sport and behavioural therapy, SASRT got the strongest practical endorsement — no special tools, clear standards.
Usability paper
Athletes scored comfort, safety perception, match to own flexibility sense, precision and tolerance of discomfort (1–5). Pairing SASRT with a self-perception scale flagged when subjective discomfort aligned with real stimulation and unwanted stiffness before assessment — useful before randori-heavy blocks.
Gym floor rule
If you only have a mat and honesty, use SASRT (and note how the athlete feels). Keep FFD as a quasi-apparatus backup. Retire SABS for decisions that matter.
Order of tests rotated so no tool was favoured by freshness. Intensity zones followed Pollock et al. criteria — the validation is relativised to real training stimulation, not a cold lab only.
Combining the validity and usability papers into one popular note matches how a coach actually decides: which test is true, and which test athletes will tolerate enough to repeat. SASRT wins on both fronts in this duo.
Eight recreational men are enough to rank tools for health-related judo sessions; they are not norms for elite competitors. Re-validate if you change population.
Order of tests rotated so no tool was favoured by freshness. Intensity zones followed Pollock et al. criteria — the validation is relativised to real training stimulation, not a cold lab only.
Combining the validity and usability papers into one popular note matches how a coach actually decides: which test is true, and which test athletes will tolerate enough to repeat. SASRT wins on both fronts in this duo.
Eight recreational men are enough to rank tools for health-related judo sessions; they are not norms for elite competitors. Re-validate if you change population.
Note: Combines ORCID items on validity/reliability and usability of flexibility tests (both 2015).
Where this sits in the lab
Biokineticum’s public notes exist so practitioners can reach the DOI without drowning in jargon — and so athletes, teachers and clinicians see that combat-sport science also publishes on prisons, faith, fair play, sauna physiology and disability policy. Soft topics still deserve hard methods: sample sizes, instruments, effect directions and explicit limits.
If you teach, treat or coach from these findings, copy the reference list into your syllabus, open the full text, and write down what you will measure next week. That is the only CTA that always fits.
Reading notes
Psychosocial and public-health papers describe associations in defined samples — not moral verdicts about individuals. We keep the language descriptive, avoid stigma, and point you to the DOI for methods and limits.
If the topic touches your clinic, classroom or programme design, treat this post as a map to the paper, not a substitute for it.
References
- Mosler D. Validity and reliability of non-apparatus and quasi apparatus flexibility tests – verification during health-related training based on judo. Archives of Budo Science of Martial Arts and Extreme Sports. 2015. 11:123-133. Full text / abstract
- Mosler D. Usability of non-apparatus and quasi apparatus flexibility tests based on self-perception participants in health-related judo training. Archives of Budo Science of Martial Arts and Extreme Sports. 2015. 11:189-197. Full text / abstract
Measurement-led biomechanics, health psychology and clinical tools at Biokineticum.
