The modified Thomas test was developed to assess the presence of hip flexion contracture and to measure hip extensibility. Despite its widespread use, to the authors’ knowledge, its criterion reference validity has not yet been investigated. The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion reference validity of the modified Thomas test for measuring peak hip extension angle and hip extension deficits, as defined by the hip not being able to extend to 0º, or neutral. Twenty-nine healthy college students (age = 22.00 ± 3.80 years; height = 1.71 ± 0.09 m; body mass = 70.00 ± 15.60 kg) were recruited for this study. Bland–Altman plots revealed poor validity for the modified Thomas test’s ability to measure hip extension, which could not be explained by differences in hip flexion ability alone. The modified Thomas test displayed a sensitivity of 31.82% (95% CI [13.86–54.87]) and a specificity of 57.14% (95% CI [18.41–90.10]) for testing hip extension deficits. It appears, however, that by controlling pelvic tilt, much of this variance can be accounted for (r = 0.98). When pelvic tilt is not controlled, the modified Thomas test displays poor criterion reference validity and, as per previous studies, poor reliability. However, when pelvic tilt is controlled, the modified Thomas test appears to be a valid test for evaluating peak hip extension angle.

Background: Foam rolling has been shown to acutely increase range of motion (ROM) during knee flexion and hip flexion with the experimenter applying an external force, yet no study to date has measured hip extensibility as a result of foam rolling with controlled knee flexion and hip extension moments. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of foam rolling on hip extension, knee flexion, and rectus femoris length during the modified Thomas test.

Methods: Twenty-three healthy participants (male = 7; female = 16; age = 22 ± 3.3 years; height = 170 ± 9.18 cm; mass = 67.7 ± 14.9 kg) performed two, one-minute bouts of foam rolling applied to the anterior thigh. Hip extension and knee flexion were measured via motion capture before and after the foam rolling intervention, from which rectus femoris length was calculated.

Results: Although the increase in hip extension (change = +1.86° (+0.11, +3.61); z(22) = 2.08; p = 0.0372; Pearson’s r = 0.43 (0.02, 0.72)) was not due to chance alone, it cannot be said that the observed changes in knee flexion (change = −1.39° (−5.53, +2.75); t(22) = −0.70; p = 0.4933; Cohen’s d = − 0.15 (−0.58, 0.29)) or rectus femoris length (change = −0.005 (−0.013, +0.003); t(22) = −1.30; p = 0.2070; Cohen’s d = − 0.27 (−0.70, 0.16)) were not due to chance alone.

Conclusions: Although a small change in hip extension was observed, no changes in knee flexion or rectus femoris length were observed. From these data, it appears unlikely that foam rolling applied to the anterior thigh will improve passive hip extension and knee flexion ROM, especially if performed in combination with a dynamic stretching protocol.