COMPARISON OF A MODIFIED STEP TEST AND A 1-MILE RUN FOR PREDICTING AEROBIC FITNESS IN YOUTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a shortened step test in assessing children's cardiovascular fitness. The Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (CAFT) has been commended for its simplicity and its ability to rule out motivation as a confounding variable, but it is not efficient for testing large groups. A revised stepping protocol was developed by changing the step height, tempo, and testing apparatus (from a two-step box to a staircase). The intent of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this modified step test to predict peak oxygen consumption as compared to the predictive validity of a one-mile run/walk. Subjects consisted of 28 children (18 boys and 10 girls) ranging in age from 10 to 14. Within a one-week period, each subject completed three measures of cardiovascular fitness-a treadmill test, the revised step test, and one-mile run/walk; the test order was counter balanced. Peak O2 from the treadmill test served as the criterion for the multiple regression equations. Anthropometric measures were obtained, including height, weight, tricep and calf skinfolds and electrical impedance; the body fat assessments were administered twice for a subsample to determine reliability. Following the work of Cureton and his colleagues, VO2 was estimated from the run test with mile run time, body mass index (BMI), age, and gender as the predictors; this field test yielded a fairly strong relationship (R = 0.763; SEE = 6.34) with the treadmill score. Peak O2 was also estimated from the step test using a multiple regression equation with O2 cost of stepping, final heart rate, gender, and an estimate of body fat as the predictors. First, an equation using electrical impedance as the body fat estimate was examined, yielding a moderate relationship with the treadmill score (R = 0.634; SEE = 7.69). A second regression equation was also conducted, using the sum of two skin folds as the body fat estimate; this produced a slightly lower relationship with treadmill peak O2 (R = 0.56; SEE = 8.24). Interestingly, however, using the Bland-Altman method of viewing the data, the step test estimates were more accurate overall, with more subjects falling within two standard deviations of the mean difference for the step test as compared to the running test. Given these results it appears that the one-mile run/walk is superior than the step test in predicting cardiovascular fitness but not necessarily assessing cardiovascular fitness. We recommend repeating this study in a school setting where a broader and more realistic range of fitness abilities and motivation levels will be captured than was achieved with this highly motivated sample. Supported by the University of Michigan Undergraduate Reasearch Opportunity Program
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".