Cardiorespiratory fitness in police recruits: Assessing the validity of the 20-meter shuttle run test for recruitment purposes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the 20-meter shuttle run test (20MSR) is frequently used by police organisations for recruitment purposes, to our knowledge no study has yet assessed the accuracy of this test to estimate maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) in police recruits. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the validity of the 20MSR as a predictor of VO2max in police cadets. METHODS: 49 police cadets completed both an indirect calorimetry VO2max assessment and a 20MSR. Based on their results, estimated VO2max was calculated using an established equation. Furthermore, two models estimating the VO2max was also developed using the final stage completed and sex as independent variables in the first model (model A) as well as the final half-stage completed and sex in the second model (model B). RESULTS: A strong and significant bivariate correlation was found between measured VO2max and the final stage completed at the 20MSR (r = 0.874, p < 0.001). Nevertheless, limits of agreement analysis showed relatively large agreement errors between measured VO2max and estimated VO2max based on the established equation (0.46±6.29 ml·min-1·kg-1), model A (0.00±5.58 ml min-1 kg-1), and model B (0.00±5.48 ml min-1·kg-1). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 20MSR can be a useful tool to estimate cardiorespiratory fitness for research and conditioning purposes, the large agreement errors found in this study suggest that results at the 20MSR should be interpreted with caution when making "pass or fail" decisions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".