Reliability of Fitness Tests Using Methods and Time Periods Common in Sport and Occupational Management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Fitness testing is used frequently in many areas of physical activity, but the reliability of these measurements under real-world, practical conditions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of specific fitness tests using the methods and time periods used in the context of real-world sport and occupational management. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Eighteen different Cirque du Soleil shows. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Cirque du Soleil physical performers who completed 4 consecutive tests (6-month intervals) and were free of injury or illness at each session (n = 238 of 701 physical performers). INTERVENTION(S): Performers completed 6 fitness tests on each assessment date: dynamic balance, Harvard step test, handgrip, vertical jump, pull-ups, and 60-second jump test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement between baseline and each time point and the ICC over all 4 time points combined. RESULTS: Reliability was acceptable (ICC > 0.6) over an 18-month time period for all pairwise comparisons and all time points together for the handgrip, vertical jump, and pull-up assessments. The Harvard step test and 60-second jump test had poor reliability (ICC < 0.6) between baseline and other time points. When we excluded the baseline data and calculated the ICC for 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month time points, both the Harvard step test and 60-second jump test demonstrated acceptable reliability. Dynamic balance was unreliable in all contexts. Limit-of-agreement analysis demonstrated considerable intraindividual variability for some tests and a learning effect by administrators on others. CONCLUSIONS: Five of the 6 tests in this battery had acceptable reliability over an 18-month time frame, but the values for certain individuals may vary considerably from time to time for some tests. Specific tests may require a learning period for administrators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it