Bishop P.A., Crowder T.A., Fielitz L.R., Lindsay T.R., Woods A.K.
Kinesiology Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0312, United States; Department of Physical Education, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996, United States; Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Newlands 7725, South Africa
Bishop, P.A., Kinesiology Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0312, United States; Crowder, T.A., Department of Physical Education, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996, United States; Fielitz, L.R., Department of Physical Education, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996, United States; Lindsay, T.R., Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Newlands 7725, South Africa; Woods, A.K., Kinesiology Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0312, United States
The impact of body weight on test scores is a common issue in applied measurement. Dimensional analysis suggests that heavier participants are disadvantaged in weight-supported tasks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of body weight on performance scores for a military obstacle course. Three cohorts of male participants completed the Indoor Obstacle Course Test (IOCT). In cohort 1 (N = 2,191), height and weight were measured. In cohort 2 (N = 134), skinfold measurements were also performed. In cohort 3 (N = 44), all aforementioned measurements were performed, as well as upper- and lower-body tests for aerobic power, anaerobic power, muscular strength, and muscular endurance. The R2 between IOCT scores and body weight was 0.06 and that between IOCT scores and percentage of body fat was 0.08. All cohort analyses suggested that, for male subjects, body weight had only a small impact on the performance score distribution and the IOCT is fit for purpose as a fair repeatable system for assessment of physical performance. Copyright © by Association of Military Surgeons of U.S., 2008.
adult; aerobic capacity; anaerobic capacity; article; body fat; body height; body weight; cohort analysis; fitness; human; human experiment; male; motor performance; muscle exercise; muscle strength; outcome assessment; scoring system; skinfold thickness; Adult; Body Weight; Cohort Studies; Exercise; Exercise Test; Humans; Male; Motor Activity; Muscle Contraction; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Endurance; Physical Fitness; Statistics as Topic; Task Performance and Analysis