Balance and Proprioception: Upper Quarter Y Balance Test

The Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test, often abbreviated as UQYBT or YBT-UQ, is a closed-chain upper-limb reach test performed from a push-up or modified push-up position. It measures how far the free hand can reach in the medial, superolateral and inferolateral directions while the opposite arm supports the body.

It can support shoulder, trunk and upper-quarter performance assessment, but it should not be used alone to diagnose injury, confirm instability or clear return to sport.

Introduction

The Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test is a practical field test for upper-limb closed-chain performance. It challenges the client to maintain a stable support position while reaching in three directions with the opposite arm.

The test is often described as a measure of shoulder mobility and stability, but that wording should be used carefully. The UQYBT does not isolate the shoulder. It reflects the combined contribution of shoulder mobility, scapular control, trunk control, thoracic mobility, upper-limb strength, wrist tolerance, body position, confidence and reaching strategy.

Gorman and colleagues reported that the UQYBT is a reliable test for measuring upper-extremity reach distance in a closed-chain position in active adults, with test-retest ICC values ranging from 0.80 to 0.99 and inter-rater reliability of 1.00.

Quick Summary

Test type: Upper-limb closed-chain dynamic reach test
Position: Push-up or modified push-up position
Reach directions: Medial, inferolateral and superolateral
Main score: Reach distance in centimetres
Normalised score: Reach distance as a percentage of arm length
Composite score: Average of the three normalised reach directions
Best use: Shoulder, trunk and upper-quarter performance monitoring
Main caution: Not a stand-alone diagnostic, injury-risk or return-to-sport clearance test

What Is the Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test?

The Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test is a dynamic upper-limb reach test performed while the client supports body weight through one arm.

The support arm is the arm being assessed. The opposite arm reaches in three directions:

• Medial

• Inferolateral

• Superolateral

The test is designed to challenge upper-limb closed-chain control near the limits of stability. It can be performed using a Y-Balance kit, MAT, MegaMAT or a clearly marked reach setup.

Why It Is Used

The UQYBT is used to:

• Assess upper-limb closed-chain reach performance.

• Compare left and right support arms.

• Monitor shoulder, scapular and trunk control over time.

• Identify direction-specific reach limitations.

• Support rehabilitation and performance progression.

• Add an objective upper-quarter test to return-to-activity reasoning.

• Track change after training, mobility or performance programmes.

The test can support return-to-sport or return-to-training reasoning, but it should not be the only readiness or clearance measure.

What It Measures

The UQYBT measures maximum controlled reach distance while the opposite upper limb supports body weight.

It may reflect:

• Shoulder mobility and control.

• Scapular control.

• Trunk stability.

• Thoracic mobility.

• Upper-limb closed-chain strength.

• Wrist and elbow tolerance.

• Reach coordination.

• Side-to-side asymmetry.

• Confidence in a push-up position.

It does not directly diagnose shoulder impingement, instability, rotator cuff injury, scapular dysfunction or trunk dysfunction.

A lower score may indicate a need for further assessment, but it does not explain the cause on its own.

Who It Is Useful For

The UQYBT may be useful for:

• Overhead athletes.

• Field and court sport athletes.

• Gym and fitness clients.

• Swimmers, throwers, climbers and combat sport athletes.

• Clients progressing through shoulder, elbow or wrist rehabilitation.

• Strength and conditioning professionals.

• Health and fitness businesses using objective testing.

• Team-based screening and monitoring settings.

Use caution or modify the test for clients with acute wrist, elbow, shoulder, neck or back pain; recent upper-limb surgery; poor push-up tolerance; dizziness; neurological symptoms; significant fear; or inability to safely support body weight through the upper limb.

Equipment Required

• MAT, MegaMAT or Upper Quarter Y-Balance-style reach setup.

• Measuring tape or marked reach lines.

• Flat, non-slip surface.

• Optional reach blocks or sliders if using a standard YBT kit.

• Measurz app for recording scores.

• Arm-length measurement tool.

Step-by-Step Protocol or How to Apply This in Practice

1. Place the MAT or Y-shaped reach setup on a flat surface with enough room for the client to move freely.

2. Measure arm length. A common method is from C7 to the tip of the middle finger with the arm abducted to 90 degrees.

3. Ask the client to assume a push-up position.

4. Place the support hand on the central testing line or starting marker.

5. Record the support arm. This is the limb being assessed.

6. Standardise the lower-body position.

7. Use a full push-up position for clients who can safely tolerate it.

8. Use a modified kneeling position only when required, and record it clearly because scores are not directly comparable to the full push-up version.

9. The reaching hand moves in the three standard directions: medial, inferolateral and superolateral.

10. Allow practice trials. Familiarity can influence reach distance and movement control.

11. Instruct the client to reach as far as possible with the free hand, lightly touch the furthest point, and return to the start position without losing control.

12. Record three valid trials in each direction for each support arm.

13. Repeat the same protocol on the opposite support arm.

14. Use the same hand position, foot position, surface, warm-up, reach order, rest period, trial count and instructions at retest.

A trial should be repeated if:

• The support hand moves.

• The client loses push-up position.

• The reaching hand takes weight.

• The client cannot return to the starting position.

• The feet shift excessively.

• Pain alters the movement.

• The client uses momentum rather than controlled reach.

• The reach direction is incorrect.

Scoring and Interpretation

Record raw reach distance in centimetres for each direction.

Then normalise to arm length:

Normalised reach score = reach distance ÷ arm length × 100

Composite score:

Composite score = medial % + inferolateral % + superolateral % ÷ 3

A higher normalised reach score generally indicates greater reach capacity in that direction while maintaining closed-chain upper-limb control.

A lower score may reflect:

• Mobility restriction.

• Trunk control limitation.

• Upper-limb strength or endurance limitation.

• Wrist discomfort.

• Shoulder pain or apprehension.

• Fatigue.

• Body position differences.

• Poor testing familiarity.

Interpretation should include:

• Direction-specific reach scores.

• Composite score.

• Left-right comparison.

• Limb dominance.

• Pain or symptoms.

• Push-up position quality.

• Scapular and trunk compensations.

• Baseline versus retest.

• Related tests such as shoulder ROM, thoracic mobility, CKCUEST, grip strength, push-up capacity and sport-specific tasks.

Avoid interpreting one score as a diagnosis. A reduced reach distance can support assessment reasoning, but it does not identify the underlying cause by itself.

Normative Data, Benchmarks or Reference Values

Evidence level: Level 1 for selected populations; Level 2 when applied outside matching populations.

Published reference values are available for active adults, healthy youth and selected young adult populations, but results should only be applied when the protocol, population and scoring method are reasonably matched.

In active adults, Gorman et al. measured upper-extremity reach distances in 95 active adults using a standardised upper-quarter balance-and-reach protocol. This study is one of the key sources for active adult performance and reliability data.

The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab summary reports average UQYBT values from Gorman et al. as a percentage of limb length. Reported active adult composite values were approximately 81.7% right / 82.3% left for men and 80.7% right / 80.7% left for women. Direction-specific averages were approximately 97.2% medial, 70.9% superolateral and 84.2% inferolateral in men, and 95.2% medial, 70.4% superolateral and 82.7% inferolateral in women.

For healthy youth aged 10–17 years, Schwiertz and colleagues tested 665 participants and provided age- and sex-specific normative values. Their results show that UQYBT performance varies by age and sex, so one universal benchmark should not be used for children and adolescents.

A 2025 PLOS ONE study established UQYBT normative values for 190 healthy South Indian adults aged 18–36 years. The authors reported that males had greater absolute reach distances than females, but differences decreased after normalising to limb length. They also reported that the 26–30 year age group achieved the highest normalised scores. These values may be useful for similar young adult populations, but they should not be treated as universal.

For Measurz use, practical benchmark guidance includes:

• Use age-, sex- and population-matched reference values where available.

• Normalise reach distance to arm length.

• Compare left and right support arms.

• Review each reach direction separately, not only the composite score.

• Use baseline and retest change as the main progress benchmark.

• Compare change with published MDC values where population and protocol match.

• Record pain, apprehension, fatigue and movement quality.

• Build internal team or organisation benchmarks for repeated testing.

Do not use published values as strict pass/fail criteria unless the client, protocol and scoring method match the source.

Reliability and Validity

The UQYBT has supportive reliability evidence when performed with standardised methods.

Gorman et al. reported test-retest ICC values ranging from 0.80 to 0.99 and inter-rater reliability of 1.00 in active adults.

The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab summary reports SEM values from Gorman et al. of 2.9 cm medial, 2.3 cm superolateral and 2.2 cm inferolateral, with MDC values of 8.1 cm medial, 6.4 cm superolateral and 6.1 cm inferolateral. It also reports Westrick et al. composite SEM values of 2.5 dominant and 2.3 non-dominant, with composite MDC values of 6.9 dominant and 6.5 non-dominant.

For adolescents aged 12–17 years, the Shirley Ryan summary reports SEM and MDC values that vary by age, arm and reach direction. Composite MDC values ranged from approximately 4.8% to 10.5% arm length for the left arm and 5.4% to 9.7% arm length for the right arm across the listed age groups. This reinforces that measurement error is population-specific.

Validity should be interpreted carefully. The UQYBT is best described as a closed-chain upper-quarter performance test. It has strong face relevance for shoulder, scapular and trunk control, but it should not be described as a stand-alone injury-prediction or diagnostic test.

A meaningful change is more likely when:

• The same setup and protocol are repeated.

• Change exceeds a relevant MDC.

• Pain and symptoms are also improved or unchanged.

• Movement quality improves.

• Direction-specific changes align with related strength, ROM or sport demands.

Sensitivity and Specificity

Sensitivity and specificity are not usually applicable to the UQYBT when used as a Measurz upper-quarter performance assessment.

The test measures closed-chain reach performance, not the presence or absence of a specific condition.

Some sources discuss asymmetry or injury-risk concerns, but these should be handled cautiously. A side-to-side difference may be useful as a flag for further assessment, but it should not be used as a universal injury-risk, diagnostic or clearance threshold.

Suggested wording:

“This test is not designed to diagnose a condition. It is best used to measure and monitor upper-quarter closed-chain reach performance, compare sides, and guide further assessment where needed.”

Common Errors and Testing Limitations

Common errors include:

• Confusing the support arm and reaching arm when recording side.

• Not measuring arm length.

• Recording raw distance only without normalisation.

• Allowing the support hand to move.

• Allowing the reaching hand to take weight.

• Changing push-up width or foot position between trials.

• Skipping practice trials.

• Comparing modified kneeling trials with full push-up trials.

• Ignoring wrist, shoulder, neck or back pain.

• Over-interpreting a single asymmetry score.

• Using the composite score without reviewing direction-specific results.

Limitations include:

• Requires push-up position tolerance.

• Influenced by body size, arm length and trunk control.

• May be limited by wrist extension discomfort.

• Norms vary by age, sex, sport and population.

• Injury prediction evidence is not strong enough for stand-alone use.

• Does not isolate shoulder stability from mobility, trunk and strength factors.

• Modified and full-position protocols are not directly interchangeable.

Practical Applications

The UQYBT can be used to:

• Monitor upper-limb closed-chain performance.

• Compare left and right support arms.

• Track progress after shoulder, elbow or wrist rehabilitation.

• Add an objective measure for overhead athletes.

• Support return-to-gym, return-to-training or return-to-sport reasoning.

• Assess trunk and upper-limb control in a push-up position.

• Educate clients using a simple visual reach score.

• Monitor direction-specific reach changes over time.

It works best as part of a wider upper-quarter assessment battery that may include:

• Shoulder range of motion.

• Thoracic mobility.

• Grip strength.

• Upper-limb strength.

• Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test.

• Pain ratings.

• Workload history.

• Push-up capacity.

• Sport-specific tasks.

How to Record This in Measurz

In Measurz, record enough detail to make the test repeatable and interpretable.

Include:

• Test name: Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test.

• Support arm tested: left or right.

• Reaching arm.

• Reach direction: medial, inferolateral or superolateral.

• Raw reach distance in centimetres.

• Arm length in centimetres.

• Normalised reach as a percentage of arm length.

• Composite score.

• Trial number.

• Best trial, average trial or both.

• Full push-up, kneeling modified push-up or other modification.

• Support hand placement.

• Foot width.

• Surface.

• Pain score for wrist, elbow, shoulder, neck or back.

• Symptoms such as apprehension, fatigue, discomfort or clicking.

• Compensations such as trunk rotation, hip lift, scapular winging, elbow bend, hand shift or weight shift.

• Invalid trial reason.

• Comparison side.

• Baseline and retest date.

• Interpretation note, including whether change exceeds known MDC where applicable.

This improves repeatability, client education, progress tracking and team communication.

Related Tests or Internal Linking Suggestions

• Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test

• Star Excursion Balance Test

• Star Excursion Sitting Test

• Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test

• Shoulder Range of Motion

• Thoracic Rotation

• Push-Up Capacity

• Grip Strength

• Measurz app

• The MAT

• MAT Education

• MegaMAT

FAQs

What arm is being tested in the Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test?

The support arm is the arm being tested. The opposite arm performs the reach.

What directions are used?

The standard reach directions are medial, inferolateral and superolateral.

Should reach distance be normalised?

Yes. Reach distance should be normalised to arm length so clients of different body sizes can be compared more fairly. Youth normative research specifically supports using age- and sex-specific values, and normalisation improves comparison across different body sizes.

What is a good UQYBT score?

It depends on age, sex, population and protocol. In active adults, average composite scores are around 81–82% of limb length, while youth values vary by age and sex. Use population-specific values when available.

Is a 4 cm difference between sides important?

A side-to-side difference may be useful, but it should not be treated as a universal injury-risk or diagnostic threshold. Compare the difference with measurement error, symptoms, sport demands and related assessment findings.

Can the UQYBT diagnose shoulder instability or impingement?

No. It can support assessment reasoning and identify performance differences, but it does not diagnose a condition on its own.

Can the UQYBT be used for return to sport?

Yes, as one part of a broader return-to-sport assessment. It should be combined with strength, ROM, workload, symptoms, confidence, sport-specific tasks and professional reasoning.

Key Takeaways

• The Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test measures closed-chain upper-limb reach performance.

• The support arm is the limb being assessed.

• Scores should be recorded by reach direction and normalised to arm length.

• Published adult and youth reference values are available, but population matching matters.

• Reliability is generally strong when the protocol is standardised.

• Sensitivity and specificity are not generally applicable because the test is not diagnostic.

• Measurz recording should include side, direction, raw reach, normalised score, position, pain, symptoms, compensations and retest details.

References

Gorman, P. P., Butler, R. J., Plisky, P. J., & Kiesel, K. B. (2012). Upper Quarter Y Balance Test: Reliability and performance comparison between genders in active adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(11), 3043–3048. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182472fdb

Pavithran, A., Rajasekar, S., Cleland, J., Ramkumar, V., & Hazari, A. (2025). Normative value of upper extremity Y balance test in healthy subjects aged between 18 and 36 years from South India: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE, 20(10), e0335443. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335443

Schwiertz, G., Brueckner, D., Schedler, S., Kiss, R., & Muehlbauer, T. (2019). Reliability and minimal detectable change of the Upper-Quarter Y Balance Test in healthy adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 14(6), 927–934.

Schwiertz, G., Bauer, J., & Muehlbauer, T. (2021). Upper Quarter Y Balance test performance: Normative values for healthy youth aged 10 to 17 years. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0253144. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253144

Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. (2024). Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test. Rehabilitation Measures Database.

Westrick, R. B., Miller, J. M., Carow, S. D., & Gerber, J. P. (2012). Exploration of the Y-Balance Test for assessment of upper quarter closed kinetic chain performance. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 7(2), 139–147.