Attitudes toward fitness testing among elite Australian athletes: scale development, moderating variables and associated risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness testing is a regular event for most elite athletes, often occurring many times a\nyear throughout an athletic career. Although many athletes find fitness testing a positive\nexperience, poor results can have significant negative consequences for athletes; ranging\nfrom a sense of failure to, in more extreme cases, the loss of a scholarship or a place in the\nsquad. There is anecdotal evidence that some athletes find certain fitness tests, such as\nskinfold measures and assessment of maximal aerobic capacity, stressful and in a minority of\ncases this is proposed to lead to pathogenic behaviours such as disordered eating and/or\ncompulsive exercising, with attendant risks to health and well-being. However, worldwide,\nthere is almost no empirical evidence of the attitudes of athletes towards fitness testing or of\nlinks between attitudes and risk of pathogenic behaviours. In 2001, the Canadian Academy of\nSport Medicine recommended that routine skinfold assessments be abandoned among female\nathletes; a decision made in the absence of compelling evidence for or against their use. It is\napparent that debate and policy decisions about fitness testing should be informed by relevant\ndata. The aims of the present study were (1) to develop and validate a measure to assess\nattitudes towards fitness testing, (2) to identify personal and situational variables that\nmoderate such attitudes, and (3) to investigate links between attitudes and risk of pathogenic\nbehaviours among elite athletes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".