This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 26 May 2015, At: 06:00 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
A Field Test for Upper Body Strength and Endurance a
b
Jack K. Nelson , Seung H. Yoon & Karyn R. Nelson
c
a
Division of Teacher Education , University of Idaho , Moscow , ID , 83843 , USA
b
Sung Kyun Kwan University in Seoul , Korea
c
Division of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance , University of Idaho , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Jack K. Nelson , Seung H. Yoon & Karyn R. Nelson (1991) A Field Test for Upper Body Strength and Endurance, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:4, 436-441, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1991.10607546 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607546
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport Ii:> 1991 bythe American Alliance for Health. Physical Education. Recreation and Dance Vol. 62. No. 4, pp. 436-441
Research No..
A Field Test for Upper Body Strength and Endurance Jack K. Nelson, Seung H. Yoon, andKaryn R. Nelson
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Key words: modified push-ups, fitness tests, strength, endurance
H
istorically, a measure of upper body strength and endurance has been included in fitness test batteries that are typically administered in the school setting. Pullups, or some modified form of pull-ups, have been the most popular test item used for the measurement of upper body strength and endurance. Despite the widespread usage ofpull-ups, the test has often been criticized because of the large number of zero scores and the subsequent loss of discrimination among ability levels (Jackson & Griffin, 1983). The inability to achieve a score is perceived as failure on the part of the student. The palms-forward pull-up is more difficult to perform than the palms-facing chin-up (Gabbard, Patterson, & Elledge, 1981; Piscopo, 1974). The National Children and Youth Fitness Study (Phase I, 1985) used the chin-up in the fitness testing part of this vast normative survey in which they tested over 8,000 boys and girls, age 10 through 18. Despite the fact that the chin-up is easier to perform than the pull-up, 25% ofthe boys 10 through 12 could not do a single chin-up, and 60% of the girls 10 through 18 scored zero. The Vermont pull-up (Vermont Governor's Council on Physical Fitness, 1982) is a modified pull-up designed for testing younger children. The test can be given in the classroom using desks and broom handles. A modification of this test was used in Phase II ofthe National Children andYouth FitnessStudy (NCYFS) for children age 6 through 9 (1987). This test was found to overcome the zero score problem ofpull-ups and chinups. However, the test requires special equipment.
Jack K. Nelson is a professor intheDivision of Teacher Education at the University of Idaho. Moscow, 10. 83843. Karyn R. Nelson is
.anassistant professor intheDivision of Health, Physical Education, Recreation andDance at thesame institution. Seung H. Yoon isanassistant professor at Sung Kyun Kwan University inSeoul, Korea. Submitted: June 70. 7989 Revision accepted' February 27, 7997
436
Baumgartner (1978) developed a modified pull-up that uses a scooter board and bar on top ofplanks that are positioned in a doorway. The test has been shown to be successful in terms of reliability and score distribution (Baumgartner et al., 1984; Jackson, Bruya, Baum, Weinberg, & Caton, 1982). The most recent national fitness test battery is the AAHPERD Physical Best (1988). The test of upper body strength and endurance is the pull-up. This test is more difficult than the chin-up, yet it is given to both boys and girls, ages 5 through 18. The Fitnessgram test battery (Institutefor AerobicsResearch, 1987) and the President's Challenge Fitness Test (President's Council, 1987) also use the pull-up as a test item. In view of the many shortcomings ofthe pull-up test, a suitable test ofarm and shoulder strength and endurance is needed that is administratively feasible and will discriminate among different levels of ability. A modified push-up test was developed by Nelson, Nelson, and Yoon (1990) that appears to have promise as a mass test of upper body strength and endurance for boys and girls over a wide age range. Evidence ofreliability was reported and comparisons of student-scored and video-scored performances indicated the test can be used for mass testing for students above the third grade level. The establishmentofvalidityofamodified pull-up or push-up test usually poses a problem for the test maker. There is no recognized criterion as, for example, maximal oxygen consumption is for a cardiovascular test. The use ofa weight lifting exercise (s) may serve as some form ofconvergentvalidity, but lifting weights hardly qualifies as a solid criterion because weight lifting represents logical validity. In other words, it involves exerting force against resistance, as does the pull-up or push-up exercise. Besides convergent validity, another form of construct validity that could be applied is the known difference method, such as age and gender differences and athletes versus nonathletes. The primary purpose of this study was to generate evidence of validity and to provide further evidence of reliability of the modified push-up test as a measure of upper body strength and endurance for boys and girls over a wide age range, from the primary grades to
ROES: December 7991
Nelson. Yoan. andNelson
adulthood. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the accuracy ofpartner scoring of the modified push-up test for high school students.
Method
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Subjects A total of 841 male and female subjects from first grade to college age were tested. Most of the students were from schools in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, area. School administrators and teachers were contacted and parental consent obtained. The students were tested as a part oftheir physical education class requirements. Some elementary grade students in South Carolina were also tested. The number ofmales and females at the different grade levels is shown in Table 1. This table includes scores ofl8l students in the earlier study (Nelson et al., 1990).
The Modified Push-up Test The modified push-up test is performed as follows: From a standing position, with feet about shoulder-width apart, the student bends at the hips and, keeping the knees straight, places the hands on the floor (shoulderwidth apart) and arms extended. Thus, in the "up" position, an "A-shaped" position is assumed with hands and feet on the floor and the hips in the air (see FigTablet Meansand standard deviations (in parentheses)forthe modified push-up test
Grade
n
Males
Range
39
12.3 (5.9) 16.0 (6.5) 18.4 (11.1 ) 17.1 (7.3) 19.5 (8.3) 22.3 (9.2) 25.7 (12.5) 27.9 (8.0) 26.9 (8.3) 28.0 (9.2) 23.3 (8.7)
0-23
2
26
3
57
4
42
5
34
6
27
8
38
9
57
10
48
11-12
43
College
68
ROES: December 1991
6-35 2-60 0-31 0-36
4-53 1-53
8-50 2--49 12-60
6-40
ure 1). The distance between the hands and feet should be between 3 and 4 feet, depending on the person's size. The knees do not have to be rigidly straight, and the heels do not have to be on the floor. Flexibility (rather, the lack ofit) does not enter into the performance. The tester can easily determine when the subject is in the correct position. If slipping is a problem, we found it helpful to have the performers against a wall so they could brace their heels. In the "down" position, the student bends the elbows (back toward the feet) so that his/her forehead touches the partner's hand that is on the floor (see Figure 1). The partner kneels in front of the performer and places one hand on the floor between the performer's hands and the other hand lightly on the performer's elbow as a reminder to straighten the elbows in the "up" position. The performer must touch the back of the partner's hand with the forehead and return fully to the "up" position for the push-up to count. In lowering to the "down" position, the knees should be kept straight. Also, the distance between the hands and feet should not increase as the test progresses. There seems to be no substantial risk ofinjury in the down position. When an individual gets tired, he or she simply collapses one arm and rolls to the side. We never observed anyone falling forward or putting undue pressure on the head and neck. The push-ups are done ata cadence of2 s per pushup. The cadence of "up/down" is called out, and the performer is stopped when unable to keep up with the cadence. The subject is considered unable to keep up with the cadence when he or she misses two counts. In practice, it is easy to ascertain when the subject is unable to maintain the prescribed cadence. No resting is allowed, and a maximum of2 min is allocated for the test.
Nelson, Yoan, and Nelson
Hence, the highest possible score is 60. It is helpful, though not essential, for the test administrator to record the instructions and cadence on a tape recorder to facilitate standardization and enable the tester to circulate among the students to supervise and assist the testing and scoring procedures.
ANOVA was used to compare the discrepancies between partner and video scoring, and an independent ~testwas used to compare athletes versus nonathletes. Multiple regression was used to assess grade and gender differences, and effect sizes were also calculated to quantify the gender differences across age.
Videotape Procedures
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Results A JVC Videomovie camera was used to assess the accuracy and reliability of partner scoring. The testing was done in the schools during the physical education classes. Groups ofeight students were tested at a time, as we found this to be the maximum number we could clearly see and score on videotape. One of the authors stood on a chair to film the testing. The students were paired and arranged in a line. Special scoring sheets were prepared to record names of the performer and scorer in sequential order from the camera.
Testing Procedures The test was explained and demonstrated by the authors, and several minutes ofpractice were given each group. Examples of improper procedures were demonstrated, and the importance of accuracy in performing and counting was stressed. Students in grades 9, 10, and in college were tested and videotaped again 2 or 3 days later. After each day of testing, the authors studied the videotape and counted the correct number of push-ups performed by each student. The Cybex Isokinetic Dynamometer was bolted to a wall frame so thata bench press could be performed. The Dynamometerwas interfaced with an IBM Personal Computer for scoring (Tew & Sciacchetano, 1986). The computer was programmed to provide an audio cue every 4 s to prompt the subject to perform each repetition. The computer also measured the greatest force (converted to voltage) exerted during each repetition. The speed selector of the Cybex Dynamometer was set at 45°· g-1. A regulation weight bar was attached to the dynamometer and placed above the SUbject's chest. The subject was instructed to grip the bar with the hands approximately shoulder-width apart and, on hearing the audio cue, to exert maximal bench presses until told to stop. The subject passively allowed the bar to return to the chest after each press. Twentymaximal presseswere performed.
Data Analysis Means and standard deviations were computed for all gender and grade groups. Two-way classification intraclass R was used to establish test-retest reliability. Pearson Twas used for determining convergent validity.
438
Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for push-up performances for males and females in grades 1 through college. No data were obtained for seventh graders or for girls in grades 11 and 12. Because ofthe lack ofrandom sampling, these data should not be viewed as norms, but simply as indications of performances for the different age levels for boys and girls.
Reliability Students were tested on two different days to establish stability reliability. The same testers administered the tests, and care was taken to make sure the same procedures were followed under the same test conditions. Reliability coefficients ranging from .63 to .95 were reported for boys and girls in grades 3, 6, and 8 in the previous study (Nelson etal., 1990). The two-wayintraclass R values for ninth, tenth, and college males and females are shown in Table 2. Between test variance was considered measurement error. The stability coefficients for a single test administration (Safrit, 1981) ranged from .77 to .91.
Accuracy of Partner Scoring As in the earlier study, the number of push-ups counted by the performers' partners was recorded and then compared with the numbers we counted from the videotapes of the first and second test administrations.
Table 2.Test-retest reliability coefficients forstudentreported and videotape scored push-ups Student-Reported
Videotape
.78 .77
.86 .80
Males Females
.83 .86
.87 .88
College Males Females
.89 .91
Grade 9
Males Females Grade 10
Note. No videotape scores were obtained forcollege students
RDES: December 1991
Nelson, Yoan, and Nelson
Data for the high school students are shown in Table 3. Intrarater reliability (two-way intraclass model) was es-tablished by viewing a sample of videotapes on two occasions (R = .99). Interrater reliability was also established by two raters viewing a sample of the videotapes independently (R= .98). None of the differences between the two scoring methods was significant. All but one ofthe discrepancy scores were less than one push-up.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Validity Construct validity of the modified push-up test was assessed in three ways. One approach was the knowngroup-differences method in which athletes were compared to nonathletes. Push-up scores of 90 high school varsity athletes were compared with the performances of 58 high school nonathletes. The means and standard deviations for the two groups were: athletes (M = 28.7, SD = 9.2) and nonathletes (M = 21.8, SD = 6.0). The comparison yielded a significant difference, t (146) = 5.52, p « .01. Multiple regression was used to examine age (grade) and gender differences using all 841 subjects from grade 1 to college. Constructs of upper body strength and endurance include general superiority of boys' performances over that of girls, linear increase in boys' scores over this age span, and increase in girls' performances until about the age of puberty and then the tendency to level off. Gender differences were most important, R = .47, F (1,839) = 119.51, P< .01. The mean for the boys was 22.1, and the mean for the girlswas 15.0. When grade was entered into the regression, the coefficient increased to R= .54, F (2,838) = 93,38, p< .01. Although highly significant, the percentofvariance accounted for by gender (22%) and grade (29%) was low, indicating that a number ofother factors, such as height, weight, body composition, and psychological characteristics, may account for push-up score variance. We were able to obtain body weights for some of the subjects, and the correlations between bodyweight and modified push-up scoresvaried considerably from sample to sample, as follows: college
males T (n = 68) =-.40; college females, T (n = 52) =-.21; male high school athletes, T (n =90) =-.45; female ninth and tenth grade, T (n =63) =-.28; third grade males, T (n = 30) = .10; and third grade females, T (n = 28) = .08. To obtain a more definitive assessment of the differences between boys and girls over age, we calculated effect sizes (ES) that represent the standardized differences between boys and girls (mean for boys minus mean for girls, divided by the pooled standard deviation) (Thomas & French, 1986). ESs can bejudged by absolute size: 0.2 = small, 0.5 = moderate, 0.8 = large. Figure 2 shows the ES curve across grade levels. All values are above "0," which indicates better performances by the boys. The pattern of ESs, which indicates an increasing difference in performance as the children approach the age of puberty, corresponds to other studies (see Figure 2). For example, an analysis of the health-related fitness scores ofover 13,000 boys and girls age 6 to 18 (data from the NCW sUlVeys I and II, 1985, 1987) by Thomas, Nelson, and Church (1991) show a similar trend for pullups, except the ESs were over 2.00 after age 15. Finally, some evidence of convergent validity was obtained by correlating push-up scores with the Cybex bench press performance. Although bench press performance is not similar to push-ups, they both measure similar aspects of upper body strength and endurance; we would thus hypothesize moderate correlations between the two measures. Two correlations were computed to determine whether the push-up performance was more indicative ofstrength or endurance (resistance to fatigue) and whether the correlations differed with gender. The average of the first three trials of the bench press was thought to indicate strength. Strength decrement index (SDI) was calculated us-ing the maximal strength minus the average of the last three trials, divided by the maximal strength. We were only able to obtain bench press scores on the college subjects. However, there does not seem to be any rationale for assuming age would be a major factor in the relationship between the two measures ofupper body strength and endurance. 1.8 1.6
Tabl.3. Discrepancies betweenstudent reported and videotape push-up scores on different days
1.4 1.2 Q>
n
Videotape Discrepancy Student Day 1 Day2 Day 1 Day2 Day 1 Day2
w
30 20
25.1 15.6
26.1 16.8
24.5 14.7
25.4 16.6
0.6 0.9
0.7 0.2
0.6
0.2 0.0 2
Grad. 10
Males Females
0.8
0.4
Grad. 9
Males Females
1.0
N
en &l :0=
31 21
27.0 15.1
ROES: December 1991
27.1 16.7
25.9 14.5
26.8 16.4
1.1 0.6
0.3 0.3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
Grade
Figure 2. Effect sizes llmale-femalel/pooled SO) for gender differences in push-ups.
439
Nelson, Yoan, andNelson
The correlations for the college males (N = 68) were as follows: push-ups with the initial three bench press (BP) scores (strength), T= .55,andpush-upswithstrength decrement index (SDI) scores (endurance), T= -.80. The correlations for the college females (N = 52) were as follows: with initial BP scores, T= .51, and with sm, T= -.71. The moderate correlations obtained were considered to provide evidence of convergent validity.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Discussion We found the modified push-up test easy to administer to students ofboth sexes over a wide age range. In our opinion, it is much easier to administer than the regular floor push-up. In the floor push-up there is considerable difficulty in determining the touching point. In our pushup test, the tester (or partner) can feel when the person touches one's hand with the forehead. The use ofa set cadence seems to facilitate testing to a great extent. We found it easier to count repetitions, and also easier to monitor proper form. On the basis of personal observation and discussion with subjects, we believe this push-up is easier to perform than the floor push-up initially, yet the use of a cadence ultimately makes it harder, because it iswell known that performing an exercise at a slow rate is more difficult than performing it at a fast rate. Consequently, the scores are not especially high, and the use ofa 2-min time limit accommodates nearly all performers. Out of the 841 students tested, only four scores of60 (the highest possible score) were attained. One of the major criticisms of pull-ups is the lack of measurement sensitivity and the large number of zero scores. Only six zero scores were recorded in our testing, and there were a number of overly large students (who tend to have the most difficulty in push-up and pull-up tests) in the samples. In the NCYFII study (1987), about 5% of the children in the six to nine age group scored zero on the modified pull-up test. Thus, we think the modified push-up test is satisfactory from the standpoints of providing minimum and maximum scores and a reasonable scoring distribution for both boys and girls. We believe a test that allows students to "score" is more likely to enhance student acceptance of the test and increase the likelihood of achieving important behavioral objectives of fitness testing. A definite advantage ofthis test over a modified pullup test is the lack of equipment needed. The modified pull-up test, for example, necessitates buying or constructing a special apparatus that can be used by one person at a time. Teachers are often not inclined to use their limited teaching equipment money for fitness measurements. In the NCYFS I (1985) survey, 20% of the schools could not even provide a metal or wooden bar for chin-ups.
440
The test is suitable for partner scoring, which facilitates mass testing. The discrepancies noted between partner scoring and videotape scoring for the third graders in the earlier study (Nelson etal., 1990) indicate young students should be tested individually by trained testers. This is not surprising because this has been the finding for other tests such as the modified pull-up and the distance run in the NCYFS II study. However, young students can practice the push-up test in partners, engage in reciprocal learning activities, and obtain knowledge of results for progress indicators. The modified push-up test was found to be reliable for both sexes and for all of the grade levels to which we were able to give two tests. No discernible differences in reliabilitywere noted between boys and girls or across age levels. The validity evidence was encouraging. The construct validity approaches used in this study provide evidence of the test's validity above and beyond the obvious logical validity inherent in the test. We are aware, however, that the known group difference method does not provide irrefutable proof of a test's validity. For example, the comparisons ofscores between athletes and nonathletes and between males and females are supportive, but we realize that most measures involving strength and endurance would show significant differences in such groups. We do not consider these results important; they would be important if the results did not show differences. Evidence of convergent validity was demonstrated by the correlations of push-up scores with the Cybex bench press performance, which indicated that the test, to a certain degree, measures similar components of strength and endurance of the upper arm and shoulder muscles. No attempt was made to norm the performances for the different age groups of boys and girls because of the relatively small numbers and the lack of random sampling. By the same token, we did not attempt to establish any criterion-referenced (CR) standards. A great deal more research is needed before CR standards can be set for the modified push-up test. One of the questions that needs to be addressed is whether arm and shoulder muscular strength and endurance is a health-related fitness item. If it is deemed to be health related, then some standard needs to be established that reflects a satisfactory level offitness that decreases the risk ofsome degenerative disease or condition. It is not our purpose to address this issue in this article. The AAHPERD Health Related Fitness Test (1980) did not include a test of upper body strength and endurance because the developers were unable to establish a relationship of this componentwith a health risk (AAHPERD, 1984). Subsequent test batteries that purportedly measure healthrelated fitness, such as the battery used in the National Child and Youth Fitness Test (1985, 1987) and the AAHPERD Physical Best test (1988) have included such
ROES: December 1991
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Nelson, YODII, and Nelson
an item. The rationale in the Physical Best test is that upper body strength and endurance is important for many daily tasks and may mean the difference between a serious injury and escaping harm in an emergency (1989, p. 8). Moreover, one could argue that a high level of physical activity involving exercises ofthis type could help reduce age-related osteoporosis and preseIVe lean body mass, especially in women (Stillma, Lohman, & Massey, 1986). Regardless of whether upper body strength and endurance is a health-related fitness component, it is regularly measured in skill related fitness tests. Thus, the establishment ofa C-R standard of performance relates to whether itisjudged as a measure ofskill-related fitness (and the standard reflects a satisfactory degree of mastery) or whether it is considered a physiological function related to health. Therefore, we conclude that the modified push-up test has a significant degree ofvalidity and reliability and can be used as a functional test of upper body strength and endurance for males and females from the age offirst graders through adulthood.
References AAHPERD. (1980). HealtJi-.related physicalfitnessmanuaL Reston,
VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. AAHPERD. (1984). HeoJJh..rrlatedphysicaljitness:TechnicalmanuaL Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, PhysicalEducation, Recreation and Dance. AAHPERD. (1988). Physicalbest. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Baumgartner, T. A. (1978). Modified pull-up test. Research QJsarterly, 49,8Q.84. Baumgartner, T. A., East, W. B., Frye, P. A., Hensley, L. D., Knox, D. F., & Norton, C.J. (1984). Equipment improvement and additional norms for the modified pull-up test. Research QJsarterly fur Exercise and Spurt, 55,64-68. Gabbard, C., Patterson, P., & Elledge, J. (1981). Grip and forearm position effects on tests of static and dynamic upper body endurance. Research QJsarterly fur Exercise and Spurt, 52, 174-179. Institute for AerobicsResearch. Fitmssgram users manuaL (1987). Dallas: Author. Jackson, A., Bruya, L., Baum, W., Weinberg, R., & Caton, I. (1982). Baumgartner's modified pull-up test for male and
RDES: December 7991
female elementaryschool aged children. Research QJsarterly fur Exercise and Sport, 53, 16So164. Jackson, C. W., & Griffin, J. H. (1988). An evaluation of Baumgartner's modified pull-up test for junior high students. In L. D. Hensley &W.B.East (Eds.) , Proceedings ofthe fourthmeasuremmtand evaluationsymposium (pp. lSl-140). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. The National Children and YouthFitness Study. (1985) .Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56(1),44-90. The National Children and Youth Fitness Study n. (1987). JoumalofPhysicalEducation, Recreation andDance, 58(9),5096. Nelson, K., Nelson,J. K., &Yoon,S. H. (1990). Developmentof a modified push-up test for mass testing. Journal ofIntemational Councilfor Health, PhysicalEducation and RecreationAsia, (Special Issue in Commemoration of the XIth Asian Games and Scientific Congress), 52-55. Piscopo.], (1974). Assessmentofforearmpositionsupon upper arm and shoulder girdle strength performance. Kinesio~ ogy, 4, 5So57. President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. (1987). The Presidentialfitnessawardprogram. Washington, DC: Author. Safrit, M.J. (1981). Evaluation in physicaleducation (2nd. ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. StilIma, R.]., Lohman, T. G., & Massey,B. H. (1986). Physical activityand bone mineral content in women aged SO to 85 years. Medicineand Science in Sports andExercise, 18,576-580. Tew,J.,Jr.,&&iacchetano,P. (1986). Microcomputer software for Cybex isokinetic strength and endurance testing. In]. K. Nelson (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth measurement and evaluationsymposium (p, 91). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Thomas,J. R., &French, K. E. (1986). The use ofmeta-analysis in exercise and sport: A tutorial. Research QJJ.arterly for Exercise and Spurt, 57, 196-204. Thomas,]. R., Nelson,J. K., & Church, G. (1991). A developmental analysis of gender differences in health related physical fitness. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 28-42. Vermont Governor's Council on PhysicalFitness. (1982). School fitness testmanuaL Castleton, VT: Author.
Authors" Notes The authors gratefullyacknowledge Dr.John Tew, Harold Wax, and Gerald Furr for their valuable assistance in arranging for students for testing. We also thank Dr. RobertJohnson and his colleagues for providing test data from students in South Carolina.
447
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
A Field Test for Upper Body Strength and Endurance a
b
Jack K. Nelson , Seung H. Yoon & Karyn R. Nelson
c
a
Division of Teacher Education , University of Idaho , Moscow , ID , 83843 , USA
b
Sung Kyun Kwan University in Seoul , Korea
c
Division of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance , University of Idaho , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Jack K. Nelson , Seung H. Yoon & Karyn R. Nelson (1991) A Field Test for Upper Body Strength and Endurance, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:4, 436-441, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1991.10607546 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607546
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport Ii:> 1991 bythe American Alliance for Health. Physical Education. Recreation and Dance Vol. 62. No. 4, pp. 436-441
Research No..
A Field Test for Upper Body Strength and Endurance Jack K. Nelson, Seung H. Yoon, andKaryn R. Nelson
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Key words: modified push-ups, fitness tests, strength, endurance
H
istorically, a measure of upper body strength and endurance has been included in fitness test batteries that are typically administered in the school setting. Pullups, or some modified form of pull-ups, have been the most popular test item used for the measurement of upper body strength and endurance. Despite the widespread usage ofpull-ups, the test has often been criticized because of the large number of zero scores and the subsequent loss of discrimination among ability levels (Jackson & Griffin, 1983). The inability to achieve a score is perceived as failure on the part of the student. The palms-forward pull-up is more difficult to perform than the palms-facing chin-up (Gabbard, Patterson, & Elledge, 1981; Piscopo, 1974). The National Children and Youth Fitness Study (Phase I, 1985) used the chin-up in the fitness testing part of this vast normative survey in which they tested over 8,000 boys and girls, age 10 through 18. Despite the fact that the chin-up is easier to perform than the pull-up, 25% ofthe boys 10 through 12 could not do a single chin-up, and 60% of the girls 10 through 18 scored zero. The Vermont pull-up (Vermont Governor's Council on Physical Fitness, 1982) is a modified pull-up designed for testing younger children. The test can be given in the classroom using desks and broom handles. A modification of this test was used in Phase II ofthe National Children andYouth FitnessStudy (NCYFS) for children age 6 through 9 (1987). This test was found to overcome the zero score problem ofpull-ups and chinups. However, the test requires special equipment.
Jack K. Nelson is a professor intheDivision of Teacher Education at the University of Idaho. Moscow, 10. 83843. Karyn R. Nelson is
.anassistant professor intheDivision of Health, Physical Education, Recreation andDance at thesame institution. Seung H. Yoon isanassistant professor at Sung Kyun Kwan University inSeoul, Korea. Submitted: June 70. 7989 Revision accepted' February 27, 7997
436
Baumgartner (1978) developed a modified pull-up that uses a scooter board and bar on top ofplanks that are positioned in a doorway. The test has been shown to be successful in terms of reliability and score distribution (Baumgartner et al., 1984; Jackson, Bruya, Baum, Weinberg, & Caton, 1982). The most recent national fitness test battery is the AAHPERD Physical Best (1988). The test of upper body strength and endurance is the pull-up. This test is more difficult than the chin-up, yet it is given to both boys and girls, ages 5 through 18. The Fitnessgram test battery (Institutefor AerobicsResearch, 1987) and the President's Challenge Fitness Test (President's Council, 1987) also use the pull-up as a test item. In view of the many shortcomings ofthe pull-up test, a suitable test ofarm and shoulder strength and endurance is needed that is administratively feasible and will discriminate among different levels of ability. A modified push-up test was developed by Nelson, Nelson, and Yoon (1990) that appears to have promise as a mass test of upper body strength and endurance for boys and girls over a wide age range. Evidence ofreliability was reported and comparisons of student-scored and video-scored performances indicated the test can be used for mass testing for students above the third grade level. The establishmentofvalidityofamodified pull-up or push-up test usually poses a problem for the test maker. There is no recognized criterion as, for example, maximal oxygen consumption is for a cardiovascular test. The use ofa weight lifting exercise (s) may serve as some form ofconvergentvalidity, but lifting weights hardly qualifies as a solid criterion because weight lifting represents logical validity. In other words, it involves exerting force against resistance, as does the pull-up or push-up exercise. Besides convergent validity, another form of construct validity that could be applied is the known difference method, such as age and gender differences and athletes versus nonathletes. The primary purpose of this study was to generate evidence of validity and to provide further evidence of reliability of the modified push-up test as a measure of upper body strength and endurance for boys and girls over a wide age range, from the primary grades to
ROES: December 7991
Nelson. Yoan. andNelson
adulthood. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the accuracy ofpartner scoring of the modified push-up test for high school students.
Method
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Subjects A total of 841 male and female subjects from first grade to college age were tested. Most of the students were from schools in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, area. School administrators and teachers were contacted and parental consent obtained. The students were tested as a part oftheir physical education class requirements. Some elementary grade students in South Carolina were also tested. The number ofmales and females at the different grade levels is shown in Table 1. This table includes scores ofl8l students in the earlier study (Nelson et al., 1990).
The Modified Push-up Test The modified push-up test is performed as follows: From a standing position, with feet about shoulder-width apart, the student bends at the hips and, keeping the knees straight, places the hands on the floor (shoulderwidth apart) and arms extended. Thus, in the "up" position, an "A-shaped" position is assumed with hands and feet on the floor and the hips in the air (see FigTablet Meansand standard deviations (in parentheses)forthe modified push-up test
Grade
n
Males
Range
39
12.3 (5.9) 16.0 (6.5) 18.4 (11.1 ) 17.1 (7.3) 19.5 (8.3) 22.3 (9.2) 25.7 (12.5) 27.9 (8.0) 26.9 (8.3) 28.0 (9.2) 23.3 (8.7)
0-23
2
26
3
57
4
42
5
34
6
27
8
38
9
57
10
48
11-12
43
College
68
ROES: December 1991
6-35 2-60 0-31 0-36
4-53 1-53
8-50 2--49 12-60
6-40
ure 1). The distance between the hands and feet should be between 3 and 4 feet, depending on the person's size. The knees do not have to be rigidly straight, and the heels do not have to be on the floor. Flexibility (rather, the lack ofit) does not enter into the performance. The tester can easily determine when the subject is in the correct position. If slipping is a problem, we found it helpful to have the performers against a wall so they could brace their heels. In the "down" position, the student bends the elbows (back toward the feet) so that his/her forehead touches the partner's hand that is on the floor (see Figure 1). The partner kneels in front of the performer and places one hand on the floor between the performer's hands and the other hand lightly on the performer's elbow as a reminder to straighten the elbows in the "up" position. The performer must touch the back of the partner's hand with the forehead and return fully to the "up" position for the push-up to count. In lowering to the "down" position, the knees should be kept straight. Also, the distance between the hands and feet should not increase as the test progresses. There seems to be no substantial risk ofinjury in the down position. When an individual gets tired, he or she simply collapses one arm and rolls to the side. We never observed anyone falling forward or putting undue pressure on the head and neck. The push-ups are done ata cadence of2 s per pushup. The cadence of "up/down" is called out, and the performer is stopped when unable to keep up with the cadence. The subject is considered unable to keep up with the cadence when he or she misses two counts. In practice, it is easy to ascertain when the subject is unable to maintain the prescribed cadence. No resting is allowed, and a maximum of2 min is allocated for the test.
Nelson, Yoan, and Nelson
Hence, the highest possible score is 60. It is helpful, though not essential, for the test administrator to record the instructions and cadence on a tape recorder to facilitate standardization and enable the tester to circulate among the students to supervise and assist the testing and scoring procedures.
ANOVA was used to compare the discrepancies between partner and video scoring, and an independent ~testwas used to compare athletes versus nonathletes. Multiple regression was used to assess grade and gender differences, and effect sizes were also calculated to quantify the gender differences across age.
Videotape Procedures
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Results A JVC Videomovie camera was used to assess the accuracy and reliability of partner scoring. The testing was done in the schools during the physical education classes. Groups ofeight students were tested at a time, as we found this to be the maximum number we could clearly see and score on videotape. One of the authors stood on a chair to film the testing. The students were paired and arranged in a line. Special scoring sheets were prepared to record names of the performer and scorer in sequential order from the camera.
Testing Procedures The test was explained and demonstrated by the authors, and several minutes ofpractice were given each group. Examples of improper procedures were demonstrated, and the importance of accuracy in performing and counting was stressed. Students in grades 9, 10, and in college were tested and videotaped again 2 or 3 days later. After each day of testing, the authors studied the videotape and counted the correct number of push-ups performed by each student. The Cybex Isokinetic Dynamometer was bolted to a wall frame so thata bench press could be performed. The Dynamometerwas interfaced with an IBM Personal Computer for scoring (Tew & Sciacchetano, 1986). The computer was programmed to provide an audio cue every 4 s to prompt the subject to perform each repetition. The computer also measured the greatest force (converted to voltage) exerted during each repetition. The speed selector of the Cybex Dynamometer was set at 45°· g-1. A regulation weight bar was attached to the dynamometer and placed above the SUbject's chest. The subject was instructed to grip the bar with the hands approximately shoulder-width apart and, on hearing the audio cue, to exert maximal bench presses until told to stop. The subject passively allowed the bar to return to the chest after each press. Twentymaximal presseswere performed.
Data Analysis Means and standard deviations were computed for all gender and grade groups. Two-way classification intraclass R was used to establish test-retest reliability. Pearson Twas used for determining convergent validity.
438
Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for push-up performances for males and females in grades 1 through college. No data were obtained for seventh graders or for girls in grades 11 and 12. Because ofthe lack ofrandom sampling, these data should not be viewed as norms, but simply as indications of performances for the different age levels for boys and girls.
Reliability Students were tested on two different days to establish stability reliability. The same testers administered the tests, and care was taken to make sure the same procedures were followed under the same test conditions. Reliability coefficients ranging from .63 to .95 were reported for boys and girls in grades 3, 6, and 8 in the previous study (Nelson etal., 1990). The two-wayintraclass R values for ninth, tenth, and college males and females are shown in Table 2. Between test variance was considered measurement error. The stability coefficients for a single test administration (Safrit, 1981) ranged from .77 to .91.
Accuracy of Partner Scoring As in the earlier study, the number of push-ups counted by the performers' partners was recorded and then compared with the numbers we counted from the videotapes of the first and second test administrations.
Table 2.Test-retest reliability coefficients forstudentreported and videotape scored push-ups Student-Reported
Videotape
.78 .77
.86 .80
Males Females
.83 .86
.87 .88
College Males Females
.89 .91
Grade 9
Males Females Grade 10
Note. No videotape scores were obtained forcollege students
RDES: December 1991
Nelson, Yoan, and Nelson
Data for the high school students are shown in Table 3. Intrarater reliability (two-way intraclass model) was es-tablished by viewing a sample of videotapes on two occasions (R = .99). Interrater reliability was also established by two raters viewing a sample of the videotapes independently (R= .98). None of the differences between the two scoring methods was significant. All but one ofthe discrepancy scores were less than one push-up.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Validity Construct validity of the modified push-up test was assessed in three ways. One approach was the knowngroup-differences method in which athletes were compared to nonathletes. Push-up scores of 90 high school varsity athletes were compared with the performances of 58 high school nonathletes. The means and standard deviations for the two groups were: athletes (M = 28.7, SD = 9.2) and nonathletes (M = 21.8, SD = 6.0). The comparison yielded a significant difference, t (146) = 5.52, p « .01. Multiple regression was used to examine age (grade) and gender differences using all 841 subjects from grade 1 to college. Constructs of upper body strength and endurance include general superiority of boys' performances over that of girls, linear increase in boys' scores over this age span, and increase in girls' performances until about the age of puberty and then the tendency to level off. Gender differences were most important, R = .47, F (1,839) = 119.51, P< .01. The mean for the boys was 22.1, and the mean for the girlswas 15.0. When grade was entered into the regression, the coefficient increased to R= .54, F (2,838) = 93,38, p< .01. Although highly significant, the percentofvariance accounted for by gender (22%) and grade (29%) was low, indicating that a number ofother factors, such as height, weight, body composition, and psychological characteristics, may account for push-up score variance. We were able to obtain body weights for some of the subjects, and the correlations between bodyweight and modified push-up scoresvaried considerably from sample to sample, as follows: college
males T (n = 68) =-.40; college females, T (n = 52) =-.21; male high school athletes, T (n =90) =-.45; female ninth and tenth grade, T (n =63) =-.28; third grade males, T (n = 30) = .10; and third grade females, T (n = 28) = .08. To obtain a more definitive assessment of the differences between boys and girls over age, we calculated effect sizes (ES) that represent the standardized differences between boys and girls (mean for boys minus mean for girls, divided by the pooled standard deviation) (Thomas & French, 1986). ESs can bejudged by absolute size: 0.2 = small, 0.5 = moderate, 0.8 = large. Figure 2 shows the ES curve across grade levels. All values are above "0," which indicates better performances by the boys. The pattern of ESs, which indicates an increasing difference in performance as the children approach the age of puberty, corresponds to other studies (see Figure 2). For example, an analysis of the health-related fitness scores ofover 13,000 boys and girls age 6 to 18 (data from the NCW sUlVeys I and II, 1985, 1987) by Thomas, Nelson, and Church (1991) show a similar trend for pullups, except the ESs were over 2.00 after age 15. Finally, some evidence of convergent validity was obtained by correlating push-up scores with the Cybex bench press performance. Although bench press performance is not similar to push-ups, they both measure similar aspects of upper body strength and endurance; we would thus hypothesize moderate correlations between the two measures. Two correlations were computed to determine whether the push-up performance was more indicative ofstrength or endurance (resistance to fatigue) and whether the correlations differed with gender. The average of the first three trials of the bench press was thought to indicate strength. Strength decrement index (SDI) was calculated us-ing the maximal strength minus the average of the last three trials, divided by the maximal strength. We were only able to obtain bench press scores on the college subjects. However, there does not seem to be any rationale for assuming age would be a major factor in the relationship between the two measures ofupper body strength and endurance. 1.8 1.6
Tabl.3. Discrepancies betweenstudent reported and videotape push-up scores on different days
1.4 1.2 Q>
n
Videotape Discrepancy Student Day 1 Day2 Day 1 Day2 Day 1 Day2
w
30 20
25.1 15.6
26.1 16.8
24.5 14.7
25.4 16.6
0.6 0.9
0.7 0.2
0.6
0.2 0.0 2
Grad. 10
Males Females
0.8
0.4
Grad. 9
Males Females
1.0
N
en &l :0=
31 21
27.0 15.1
ROES: December 1991
27.1 16.7
25.9 14.5
26.8 16.4
1.1 0.6
0.3 0.3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
Grade
Figure 2. Effect sizes llmale-femalel/pooled SO) for gender differences in push-ups.
439
Nelson, Yoan, andNelson
The correlations for the college males (N = 68) were as follows: push-ups with the initial three bench press (BP) scores (strength), T= .55,andpush-upswithstrength decrement index (SDI) scores (endurance), T= -.80. The correlations for the college females (N = 52) were as follows: with initial BP scores, T= .51, and with sm, T= -.71. The moderate correlations obtained were considered to provide evidence of convergent validity.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Discussion We found the modified push-up test easy to administer to students ofboth sexes over a wide age range. In our opinion, it is much easier to administer than the regular floor push-up. In the floor push-up there is considerable difficulty in determining the touching point. In our pushup test, the tester (or partner) can feel when the person touches one's hand with the forehead. The use ofa set cadence seems to facilitate testing to a great extent. We found it easier to count repetitions, and also easier to monitor proper form. On the basis of personal observation and discussion with subjects, we believe this push-up is easier to perform than the floor push-up initially, yet the use of a cadence ultimately makes it harder, because it iswell known that performing an exercise at a slow rate is more difficult than performing it at a fast rate. Consequently, the scores are not especially high, and the use ofa 2-min time limit accommodates nearly all performers. Out of the 841 students tested, only four scores of60 (the highest possible score) were attained. One of the major criticisms of pull-ups is the lack of measurement sensitivity and the large number of zero scores. Only six zero scores were recorded in our testing, and there were a number of overly large students (who tend to have the most difficulty in push-up and pull-up tests) in the samples. In the NCYFII study (1987), about 5% of the children in the six to nine age group scored zero on the modified pull-up test. Thus, we think the modified push-up test is satisfactory from the standpoints of providing minimum and maximum scores and a reasonable scoring distribution for both boys and girls. We believe a test that allows students to "score" is more likely to enhance student acceptance of the test and increase the likelihood of achieving important behavioral objectives of fitness testing. A definite advantage ofthis test over a modified pullup test is the lack of equipment needed. The modified pull-up test, for example, necessitates buying or constructing a special apparatus that can be used by one person at a time. Teachers are often not inclined to use their limited teaching equipment money for fitness measurements. In the NCYFS I (1985) survey, 20% of the schools could not even provide a metal or wooden bar for chin-ups.
440
The test is suitable for partner scoring, which facilitates mass testing. The discrepancies noted between partner scoring and videotape scoring for the third graders in the earlier study (Nelson etal., 1990) indicate young students should be tested individually by trained testers. This is not surprising because this has been the finding for other tests such as the modified pull-up and the distance run in the NCYFS II study. However, young students can practice the push-up test in partners, engage in reciprocal learning activities, and obtain knowledge of results for progress indicators. The modified push-up test was found to be reliable for both sexes and for all of the grade levels to which we were able to give two tests. No discernible differences in reliabilitywere noted between boys and girls or across age levels. The validity evidence was encouraging. The construct validity approaches used in this study provide evidence of the test's validity above and beyond the obvious logical validity inherent in the test. We are aware, however, that the known group difference method does not provide irrefutable proof of a test's validity. For example, the comparisons ofscores between athletes and nonathletes and between males and females are supportive, but we realize that most measures involving strength and endurance would show significant differences in such groups. We do not consider these results important; they would be important if the results did not show differences. Evidence of convergent validity was demonstrated by the correlations of push-up scores with the Cybex bench press performance, which indicated that the test, to a certain degree, measures similar components of strength and endurance of the upper arm and shoulder muscles. No attempt was made to norm the performances for the different age groups of boys and girls because of the relatively small numbers and the lack of random sampling. By the same token, we did not attempt to establish any criterion-referenced (CR) standards. A great deal more research is needed before CR standards can be set for the modified push-up test. One of the questions that needs to be addressed is whether arm and shoulder muscular strength and endurance is a health-related fitness item. If it is deemed to be health related, then some standard needs to be established that reflects a satisfactory level offitness that decreases the risk ofsome degenerative disease or condition. It is not our purpose to address this issue in this article. The AAHPERD Health Related Fitness Test (1980) did not include a test of upper body strength and endurance because the developers were unable to establish a relationship of this componentwith a health risk (AAHPERD, 1984). Subsequent test batteries that purportedly measure healthrelated fitness, such as the battery used in the National Child and Youth Fitness Test (1985, 1987) and the AAHPERD Physical Best test (1988) have included such
ROES: December 1991
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:00 26 May 2015
Nelson, YODII, and Nelson
an item. The rationale in the Physical Best test is that upper body strength and endurance is important for many daily tasks and may mean the difference between a serious injury and escaping harm in an emergency (1989, p. 8). Moreover, one could argue that a high level of physical activity involving exercises ofthis type could help reduce age-related osteoporosis and preseIVe lean body mass, especially in women (Stillma, Lohman, & Massey, 1986). Regardless of whether upper body strength and endurance is a health-related fitness component, it is regularly measured in skill related fitness tests. Thus, the establishment ofa C-R standard of performance relates to whether itisjudged as a measure ofskill-related fitness (and the standard reflects a satisfactory degree of mastery) or whether it is considered a physiological function related to health. Therefore, we conclude that the modified push-up test has a significant degree ofvalidity and reliability and can be used as a functional test of upper body strength and endurance for males and females from the age offirst graders through adulthood.
References AAHPERD. (1980). HealtJi-.related physicalfitnessmanuaL Reston,
VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. AAHPERD. (1984). HeoJJh..rrlatedphysicaljitness:TechnicalmanuaL Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, PhysicalEducation, Recreation and Dance. AAHPERD. (1988). Physicalbest. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Baumgartner, T. A. (1978). Modified pull-up test. Research QJsarterly, 49,8Q.84. Baumgartner, T. A., East, W. B., Frye, P. A., Hensley, L. D., Knox, D. F., & Norton, C.J. (1984). Equipment improvement and additional norms for the modified pull-up test. Research QJsarterly fur Exercise and Spurt, 55,64-68. Gabbard, C., Patterson, P., & Elledge, J. (1981). Grip and forearm position effects on tests of static and dynamic upper body endurance. Research QJsarterly fur Exercise and Spurt, 52, 174-179. Institute for AerobicsResearch. Fitmssgram users manuaL (1987). Dallas: Author. Jackson, A., Bruya, L., Baum, W., Weinberg, R., & Caton, I. (1982). Baumgartner's modified pull-up test for male and
RDES: December 7991
female elementaryschool aged children. Research QJsarterly fur Exercise and Sport, 53, 16So164. Jackson, C. W., & Griffin, J. H. (1988). An evaluation of Baumgartner's modified pull-up test for junior high students. In L. D. Hensley &W.B.East (Eds.) , Proceedings ofthe fourthmeasuremmtand evaluationsymposium (pp. lSl-140). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. The National Children and YouthFitness Study. (1985) .Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56(1),44-90. The National Children and Youth Fitness Study n. (1987). JoumalofPhysicalEducation, Recreation andDance, 58(9),5096. Nelson, K., Nelson,J. K., &Yoon,S. H. (1990). Developmentof a modified push-up test for mass testing. Journal ofIntemational Councilfor Health, PhysicalEducation and RecreationAsia, (Special Issue in Commemoration of the XIth Asian Games and Scientific Congress), 52-55. Piscopo.], (1974). Assessmentofforearmpositionsupon upper arm and shoulder girdle strength performance. Kinesio~ ogy, 4, 5So57. President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. (1987). The Presidentialfitnessawardprogram. Washington, DC: Author. Safrit, M.J. (1981). Evaluation in physicaleducation (2nd. ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. StilIma, R.]., Lohman, T. G., & Massey,B. H. (1986). Physical activityand bone mineral content in women aged SO to 85 years. Medicineand Science in Sports andExercise, 18,576-580. Tew,J.,Jr.,&&iacchetano,P. (1986). Microcomputer software for Cybex isokinetic strength and endurance testing. In]. K. Nelson (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth measurement and evaluationsymposium (p, 91). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Thomas,J. R., &French, K. E. (1986). The use ofmeta-analysis in exercise and sport: A tutorial. Research QJJ.arterly for Exercise and Spurt, 57, 196-204. Thomas,]. R., Nelson,J. K., & Church, G. (1991). A developmental analysis of gender differences in health related physical fitness. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 28-42. Vermont Governor's Council on PhysicalFitness. (1982). School fitness testmanuaL Castleton, VT: Author.
Authors" Notes The authors gratefullyacknowledge Dr.John Tew, Harold Wax, and Gerald Furr for their valuable assistance in arranging for students for testing. We also thank Dr. RobertJohnson and his colleagues for providing test data from students in South Carolina.
447
