Home > Riviste > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Fascicoli precedenti > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2001 September;41(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2001 September;41(3):318-23

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti

THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

Rivista di Medicina, Traumatologia e Psicologia dello Sport


Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,215


eTOC

 

Original articles  


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2001 September;41(3):318-23

Copyright © 2002 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Reliability of a 5-min running field test and its accuracy in V.O2max evaluation

Tong T. K., Fu F. H., Chow B. C.

From the Department of Physical Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China


PDF  


Background. Five-min run­ning ­field ­test (5_RFT) was estab­lished for deter­min­ing ­individuals’ max­i­mal aero­bic veloc­ity (Vamax) and func­tion­al aero­bic capac­ity (V.O2peak) dur­ing hor­i­zon­tal run. We deter­mined the num­ber of ­trials ­required for estab­lish­ing ­high reli­abil­ity of the 5_RFT and exam­ined its accu­ra­cy in eval­u­at­ing ­individuals’ max­i­mal aero­bic capac­ity (V.O2max).
Methods. The Vamax(5) record­ed dur­ing the 5_RFT on ­four sep­ar­ate ­days was com­pared in 45 sub­jects (14 ­male, 31 ­female, 17.0±0.2 yrs) of var­i­ous lev­els of phys­i­cal fit­ness. The accu­ra­cy of V.O2max eval­u­a­tion ­using Vamax(5) was exam­ined via regres­sion anal­y­sis in addi­tion­al 23 ­male sub­jects (20.7±0.3 yrs).
Results. The ­mean cor­re­la­tion coef­fi­cient of Vamax(5) ­among ­four ­trials was 0.94. Intraclass reli­abil­ity coef­fi­cient ­across all ­trials was 0.98. For ­trial 3 and 4, the ­mean val­ue of ­subjects’ Vamax(5) was high­er ­than ­that of ­trial 1 and 2. Vamax(5) of ­trial 2 was ­also high­er ­than ­that of ­trial 1 ­while no dif­fer­ence was ­found ­between ­trial 3 and 4. F-­test of equal­ity of var­i­anc­es dem­on­strat­ed sim­i­lar sam­ple var­i­ance of Vamax(5) in all ­trials. Within-sub­ject coef­fi­cient of vari­a­tion in Vamax(5) was 3.7% for all ­trials was ­reduced to 2.4% for ­trial 3 vs 4. For exam­in­ing the accu­ra­cy in V.O2max eval­u­a­tion, regres­sion anal­y­sis ­revealed ­that the Vamax(5) ­explained 35.0% of the var­i­ance of meas­ured V.O2max (SEE = 5.64 ml . kg-1 . min-1).
Conclusions. The 5_RFT is reli­able in deter­min­ing Vamax(5). Nevertheless, two famil­iar­iza­tion ses­sions are rec­om­mend­ed for achiev­ing the ­best per­for­mance in the ­test. The 5_RFT can­not eval­u­ate V.O2max ­with rea­son­able accu­ra­cy in ­young ­males

inizio pagina

Publication History

Per citare questo articolo

Corresponding author e-mail