PhysicalPerformanceTests PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/328306793
Physical Performance Tests
Chapter · October 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 823
1 author:
Ajeet Jaiswal
Pondicherry University
115 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
A Socio economic, Nutritional and Health Evaluation among Worker of Different Sector of Textile Industries----MRP-MAJOR-ANTH-2013-29585 View project
PG e-Pathsala Project (A Gateway to all post Graduate Courses under National Mission on Education through Information and Communication and Technology (NMEICT) -
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Govt. of India. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ajeet Jaiswal on 16 October 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paper No. : 09 Physiology and Sports Anthropology
Module : 31 Physical Performance Tests
Development Team
Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor
Principal Investigator Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi
Paper Coordinator Dr Rashmi Sinha

IGNOU, Delhi
Dr. Ajeet Jaiswal & Dr. RRM SIngh

Content Writer Department of Anthropology & Department of Physical Education &
Sports, Pondicherry University
Prof. Satwanti Kapoor

Content Reviewer
Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi
Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Anthropology Physical Performance Tests
Description of Module
Subject Name Anthropology
Paper Name 09 Physiology and Sports Anthropology
Module Name/Title Physical Performance Tests
Module Id 31

Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is Physical Fitness
3. Components of Physical Fitness
4. Tests for assessment of Health related components
5. Tests for Strength assessment
6. Performance related tests
7. Tests for balance
8. Test for assessment of coordination
9. Ruler Drop test to measure reaction time
10. Standing long jump to assess explosive strength
11. Kraus Weber tests
12. AAPHERD Agility test
13. 4 level abdominal strength test
14. Summary
Learning objectives:
 The course provides introductory information to the field of Physical Fitness and
Components of Physical Fitness.
 It includes the application of different Performance related components and Physical
Performance Tests
 The study of this module enables the students at postgraduate level to understand the different
tests for assessment of Health related components, for Strength assessment and for assessment
of coordination etc.

1. Introduction:
The struggle for an individual to live a healthy and fit life has been matter of great concern
throughout the world. Man has to be fit and healthy to survive in his environment and enjoy
his existence. Man has always battled with the diverse nature of his environment-poor
weather conditions, shortage of food, flood and drought, earthquake, volcanoes and tsunamis
among others in order to survive. The humans who are not fit enough to overcome adverse
conditions or adapt to changing environment would eventually fall by the wayside or perish.
2. What is physical fitness?

“Physical fitness is the ability to carry out the daily tasks with vigor and alertness without undo
fatigue and with ample energy to enjoy leisure time pursuits and to meet emergencies”(Harrison
Clarke)
3. Component of Physical Fitness

Fitness can classified into different components. They are health – related components and
performance or skill related components.
3.1 Health related components
Those factors that are related to how well the systems of your body work
Cardiovascular Fitness: The ability of the circulatory system (heart and blood vessels) to supply
oxygen to working muscles during work or exercise.
Body Composition: The relative percentage of body fat compared to lean body mass (muscle, bone,
water etc)
Flexibility: The range of movement possible around various joints.
Muscular strength: The amount of force that can be produced by a single contraction of a muscle or
group of muscles.
Muscular endurance: The ability of a muscle group to continue muscle movement over a length of
time.
3.2 Performance or skill related components

These components of fitness form the basis for successful sport or activity participation.
Speed: The ability to move quickly from one point to another in a straight line.
4

Agility: The ability of the body to change direction quickly and appropriately.
Balance: The ability to maintain an appropriate posture during movements.
Coordination: Integration with hand and/or foot movements with the input of the senses.
Reaction Time: Amount of time taken to initiate a response.
Power: It is an ability to combine strength with speed.
4. Tests for Assessment of Health related Fitness Components

Testing and measurement are the means of collecting information upon which subsequent performance
evaluations and decisions are made but in the analysis we need to bear in mind the factors that may
influence the results.
4.1 Cooper VO2 max Test to assess cardiovascular endurance
The Cooper Test (Cooper 1968) is used to monitor the development of the athlete's aerobic
endurance and to obtain an estimate of their VO2 max.
Required Resources
 400 meter athletic track
 Stopwatch
 Whistle
Procedure
This test requires the athlete to cover as much distance as possible in 12 or 8 minutes for men and
women respectively.
 warm up 10 minutes
 The assessor gives the command “GO”, starts the stopwatch and the subject commences the run
around the track.
 The assessor keeps the subject informed of the remaining time at the end of each lap (400
meters)
 The assessor blows the whistle when the 12 minutes has elapsed and records the distance the
athlete covered to the nearest 10 meters
Normative scores for the Cooper Test

Table 1: Male Athletes
Age Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor
13-14 >2700m 2400-2700m 2200-2399m 2100-2199m <2100m
15-16 >2800m 2500-2800m 2300-2499m 2200-2299m <2200m
17-19 >3000m 2700-3000m 2500-2699m 2300-2499m <2300m
20-29 >2800m 2400-2800m 2200-2399m 1600-2199m <1600m
30-39 >2700m 2300-2700m 1900-2299m 1500-1999m <1500m
40-49 >2500m 2100-2500m 1700-2099m 1400-1699m <1400m
>50 >2400m 2000-2400m 1600-1999m 1300-1599m <1300m
Table 2: Female Athletes
Age Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor
13-14 >2000m 1900-2000m 1600-1899m 1500-1599m <1500m
15-16 >2100m 2000-2100m 1700-1999m 1600-1699m <1600m
17-20 >2300m 2100-2300m 1800-2099m 1700-1799m <1700m
20-29 >2700m 2200-2700m 1800-2199m 1500-1799m <1500m
30-39 >2500m 2000-2500m 1700-1999m 1400-1699m <1400m
40-49 >2300m 1900-2300m 1500-1899m 1200-1499m <1200m
>50 >2200m 1700-2200m 1400-1699m 1100-1399m <1100m
VO2max
An estimate of the subjects VO2 max can be calculated as follows:
6

(Distance covered in meters - 504.9) ÷ 44.73
Analysis
Analysis of the test result is done by comparing the latest data with the subject’s previous
results for this test. It is expected that, with appropriate training between each test, the analysis would
indicate an improvement in the athlete's VO2 max and aerobic thresholds.
Target Group
This test is suitable for any person who wishes to test his or her aerobic capacity but not for
individuals where the test is contraindicated.
Advantages
 Minimal equipment required
 Simple to set up and conduct
 More than one subject can be assessed at the same time
Disadvantages
 Specific facilities required - 400m track
4.2 Harvard Step Test to assess the cardiovascular endurance

The Harvard Step Test was developed by Brouha et al. (1943)
The objective of this test is to monitor the changes in the athlete's cardiovascular system.
Required Resources
 Gym bench (45cm high)
 Stopwatch
Procedure
This test requires the athlete to step up and down off a gym bench for 5 minutes at a rate 30
steps/minute

 Warms up for 10 minutes
 The assessor gives the command "GO" and starts the stopwatch
 The subject steps up and down on a standard gym bench once every two seconds for five
minutes (150 steps)
 The assessor stops the test after 5 minutes
 The assessor measures the subject's heart rate (beats per minute (bpm)) one minute after
completion of the test - Pulse1
 The assistant measures the subject's heart rate (bpm) two minutes after finishing the test -
Pulse2
 The assistant measures the athlete's heart rate (bpm) three minutes after finishing the test -
Pulse3
Assessment
Using the three pulse rates (bpm) an estimate of a person’s level of fitness can be determined as
follows:
 Result = 30000 ÷ (pulse1 + pulse2 + pulse3)
 Normative scores for the Harvard Step Test
 The following table is for 16 year old athletes (Beashel and Taylor 1997) using a 45cm step.
Table: 3 - Harvard Step Test Normative Data
Gender Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor
Male >90.0 80.0-90.0 65.0-79.9 55.0-64.9 <55
Female >86.0 76.0-86.0 61.0-75.9 50.0-60.9 <50
Analysis
 Analysis of the test result is done by comparing it with the subject's previous results for this
test. It is expected that, with appropriate training between each test, the analysis would indicate
an improvement in the athlete's level of cardiovascular fitness.
 Target Group
8

 This test is suitable for active and sedentary subjets but not for individuals where the test is
contraindicated.
Advantages
 Can be conducted almost anywhere
Tests for body composition

4.3 Skin fold measurement to assess body fat percentage
Skin fold is a method of discovering correct body weight and fat composition by measuring the layer
of subcutaneous fat beneath the skin. The percentage of total body fat can be measured by the 'skin
fold' measurements at selected points on the body with a pair of calipers. This test only requires four
measurements. A similar alternative method is the Yuhasz skin fold test which requires six
measurements.
The objective of this test is to monitor the athlete’s level of body fat.
Resources required
 Skin fold calipers
 Paper and pencil
Measurement Sites
The assessor records measurements taken from the following sites:

.
Triceps
The athlete’s arm to hang naturally by their side.
The assistant takes a vertical fold midway between
the shoulder and the elbow on the back of the arm.
Fig-1
Subscapula
The assistant takes a diagonal fold across the back,
just below the shoulder blade.
Fig-2
10

Biceps
The athlete’s arm to hang naturally by their side.
The assistant takes a vertical fold midway between
the shoulder and the elbow on the front of the arm.
Fig-3
Suprailiac
The assistant takes a diagonal fold just above the
hip bone.
Fig -4
11

Procedure
 The assessor takes the measurements, in millimeters, on the right side of the subject’s
body.
 The assessor picks up the skin fold between the thumb and the index finger so as to
include two thicknesses of the subjects’ skin and subcutaneous fat.
 The assessor sets the calipers about one centimeter from the fingers and at a depth equal
to the thickness of the fold
 The assessor repeats each measurement three times and records the average value.
 The assessor records the sum of the four measurements and uses this value to assess the
athlete’s percentage body fat
Fat-free Body Mass & Lean Body Mass

The fat-free body mass (FFBM) represents the body mass devoid of all fat whereas lean body
mass (LBM) contains a small percentage of essential fat.
LBM is a theoretical value developed by Behnke (1974). Behnke considered it to be FFBM+3%
essential fat for males and for females FFBM+12% fat (3% essential fat + 9% sex specific
essential fat).
Fat and Fat Free Tissue Density
The density of fat and fat free tissue remains relatively constant: fat = 0.9 grm/cm³ and fat free
tissue = 1.1 grm/cm³.
Typical % Body Fat (Wilmore 1994)
The average human has 15 to 17 percent body fat, while the average woman is between 18 and
22%.
Analysis
Analysis of the result is done by comparing it with the results of previous tests. It is expected
that, with appropriate training and diet between each test, the analysis would indicate an
improvement in the athlete's percentage body fat.
Target Group
This test is suitable for everyone but not for individuals where the test is contraindicated.
12

Advantages
Disadvantages
 Specialist equipment required - Skinfold calipers
4.4 Sit & Reach Test to assess flexibility

The objective of this test is to monitor the flexibility of the athlete's lower back and hamstring.
Required Resources
 Box
 Meter Ruler
 Tape
Procedure
 Warms up for 10 minutes and remove shoes
 The assessor secures the ruler to the box top with the tape so that the front edge of the
box lines up with the 15cm (6 inches) mark on the ruler and the zero end of the ruler
points towards the athlete
 The subject sits on the floor with their legs fully extended with the bottom of their bare
feet against the box
 The subject places one hand on top of the other, slowly bends forward and reaches along
the top of the ruler as far as possible holding the stretch for two seconds
 The assessor records the distance reached by the athlete’s finger tips (cm)
 The subject performs the test three times
 The assessor calculates and records the average of the three distances and uses this value
13

to assess the athlete’s performance
Fig-5- Sit and Reach
Box
Normative scores for Sit & Reach test

The following table is for 16 to 19 year olds (Davis et al. 2000, p. 126):
Table 4: Sit and Reach Test Normative Scores
Gender Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor
Male >14 14.0 - 11.0 10.9 - 7.0 6.9 - 4.0 <4
Female >15 15.0 - 12.0 11.9 - 7.0 6.9 - 4.0 <4
Analysis
Analysis of the test result is by comparing it with the athlete's previous results for this test. It is
expected that, with appropriate training between each test, the analysis would indicate an
improvement in the athlete's flexibility.
Target Group
This test is suitable for active individuals but not for those where the test would be
14

contraindicated.
Advantages
Disadvantages
 Specialist equipment required
4.5 1-RM Tests (Repetition maximum tests) to assess muscle strength

Objective: to measure maximum strength of various muscle and muscle groups.
Procedure: One repetition maximum tests (1-RM) is a popular method of
measuring isotonic muscle strength. It is a measure of the maximal weight a subject can lift with
one repetition. It is important to reach the maximum weight without prior fatiguing the muscles.
After a warm up, choose a weight that is achievable. Then after a rest of at least several minutes,
increase the weight and try again. The athletes chooses subsequent weights until they can only
repeat one full and correct lift of that weight.
Scoring: the maximum weight lifted is recorded. The sequence of lifts should also be recorded as
these can be used in subsequent tests to help in determining the lifts to attempt. To standardize
the score it may be useful to calculate a score proportional to the person's bodyweight. You can
also use a calculator to estimate 1RM.
Required resources:
Free weights (barbells, dumbbells) or other gym equipment.
Advantages: the required equipment is readily available in most gymnasiums.
Disadvantages: performing a maximum weight lift is only for advanced weight trainers. It is
important to have good technique before attempting this test.
Comments: The test results will be specific to the equipment used and the technique allowed, so
is best used for test-retest measures. The test is also called one rep max, 1-RM, one repetition
maximum
Variations / modifications: Sometimes a three or five repetition maximum is used, particularly
for less experienced lifters. These greater reps would require less weight and may be considered
15

less dangerous. Changing the number of repetition also changes the muscle energy systems and
validity of this test.
Test for muscular endurance assessment

4.6 Partial Curl-Up Test The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM 2005) provides the
following guidelines for assessment.
 Have the subject assume a supine position on a mat with the low back flat and the knees bent at
a 90-degree angle. Arms are at the sides with palms facing down, and the middle finger of each
hand is touching a piece of tape placed next to the body. A second piece of tape is placed 10
centimeters (about 4 inches) beyond the first piece.
 Set a metronome to a count of 50 beats per minute. Cue the subject to move through the range
of motion, curling up to touch the second piece of tape and returning to the first piece in a slow,
controlled manner to the beat of the metronome. (An alternative would be to omit the
metronome, which would allow the subject to move at his or her own pace. But using the
metronome keeps the movement controlled, which may encourage correct form.) Remember,
these are not full sit-ups, only partial curl-ups. The goal is to lift the shoulder blades so the
trunk makes a 30-degree angle with the mat.
16

 Direct the subject to perform as many curl-ups as possible without pausing, up to a maximum
of 25, for 1 minute.
4.7 Push-Up Test. The ACSM guidelines (ACSM 2005) for the push-up test are as follows:
 With male subjects, utilize the standard “down” position, using the toes as the pivotal point.
The hands are shoulder width apart, the back is straight, and the head is up. With female
subjects, use the modified “knee push-up” position, with hands shoulder width apart, back
straight, legs together, lower legs in contact with the mat, ankles plantar flexed and head up.
 Have the subjects raise the body by straightening the arms and then return to the starting
position, touching the chin to the mat. The stomach should not touch the mat at any time.
 Instruct both men and women that the back must be straight at all times and the push-up must
be to a straight-arm position.
 Count the maximal number of push-ups performed in good form without rest. Stop the test
when the subjects cannot maintain good form on two consecutive reps, or strains forcibly and
cannot continue.
5. Tests for strength assessment

5.1 Grip Strength Test to assess the strength of the hand grip
To monitor the development of the subjects grip strength.
Required Resources
Hand Grip Dynamometer
Procedure
 The subject using their dominant hand applies as much grip pressure as possible on the
dynamometer
 The assistant records the maximum reading (kg)
 The subject repeats the test 3 times. The assessor uses the highest recorded value to assess the
subjects’ performance
17

Fig 6 : Hand Grip Dynamometer
Normative scores for the grip strength test
The following are national norms for 16 to 19 year olds. (Davis 2000).
Table 5: Grip Strength Test Normative Scores
Gender Excellent Good Average Fair Poor
Male >56 51-56 45-50 39-44 <39
Female >36 31-36 25-30 19-24 <19
Clerke (2005) conducted a study which examined the impact of the shape of the hand (as relatively
long, average, or square shaped) on maximal voluntary isometric grip strength in a group of healthy
male and female teenagers aged 13 to 17 years.
Analysis
Analysis of the test result is by comparing it with the subjects’ previous results for this test. It is
expected that, with appropriate training between each test, the analysis would indicate an improvement
in the subjects grip strength.
Target Group
This test is suitable for active individuals but not for those where the test would be contraindicated.
Advantages
18

Disadvantages
 Specialist equipment required
6. Performance or Skill Related Tests

Test for speed assessment
6.1 Sprint or Speed Tests
The purpose of this test is to determine acceleration, maximum running speed and speed endurance,
depending on the distance run.
Resources Required: measuring tape or marked track, stopwatch or timing gates, cone markers.
Procedure: The test involves running a single maximum sprint over a set distance, with time recorded.
After a standardized warm up, the test is conducted over a certain distance, such as 10, 20, 40 and/or
50 meters or yards, depending on the sport and what you are trying to measure. The starting position
should be standardized, starting from a stationary
Table 6: 35 meters run norms (in seconds) position with a foot behind the starting line, with
no rocking movements. If you have the equipment
rating men women
(e.g. timing gates), you can measure the time to
very good < 4.80 < 5.30 run each split distances (e.g. 5, 10, 20m) during
good 4.80 - 5.09 5.30 - 5.59 the same run, and then acceleration and peak
velocity can also be determined. It is usual to give
average 5.10 - 5.29 5.60 - 5.89
the subjects an adequate warm-up and practice
Fair 5.30 - 5.60 5.90 - 6.20 first, and some encouragement to continue running
poor > 5.60 > 6.20 hard past the finish line.
Results: You can use a measure of the time for the first 10 meters or yards from a stationary start as a
score for acceleration, and the time to run between 30-60 meters for a flying sprint speed, or maximum
running speed. This score can also be presented as a running velocity (distance / time). For sprint tests
19

conducted over 100 meters or yards or so, comparing the time for the final 40 compared to the first 40
can be used as a speed endurance score.
Target group: Any fit individuals.
Tests for agility assessment
6.2 Illinois Agility Run Test
The objective of the Illinois Agility Run Test (Getchell 1979) is to monitor the development of the
subjects’ agility.
Required Resources
 Flat non-slip surface
 8 cones
 Stopwatch
Procedure
This test requires the subject to run the red line route as shown in the diagram below as fast as possible.
Fig 7: Illinois Agility Test Administration
 The subject warms up for 10 minutes

 The assessor sets up the course as detailed in the diagram
20

 The subject lies face down on the floor at the “Start” cone
 The assessor gives the command “GO” and starts the stopwatch.
 The subject jumps to his/her feet and negotiates the course around the cones following the red
line route shown in the diagram to the finish
 The assessor stops the stopwatch and records the time when the subjects passes the “Finish”
cone
Normative Scores for the Illinois Agility Run Test
The following are norms for 16 to 19 year olds (Davis et al. 2000):
Table7: Normative Scores for Illinois Agility test

Gender Excellent Above Average Average below Average Poor
Male <15.2 secs 15.2 - 16.1 secs 16.2 - 18.1secs 18.2 - 19.3 secs >19.3 secs
Female <17.0 secs 17.0 - 17.9 secs 18.0 - 21.7 secs 21.8 - 23.0 secs >23.0 secs
Analysis
in the subjects’ agility.
Target Group
This test is suitable for any sportspersons who are not sick or injured/
Advantages
7. Test for assessment of balance
21

7.1 Standing Stork Test to Assess Balance
Objective
To assess the ability to maintain a state of equilibrium (balance) in a static position
Required Resources
 Warm dry location - gym
 Stopwatch
 Assessor
Procedure
 The subject stands comfortably on both feet with their hands on their hips
 The subject lifts the right leg and places the sole of the right foot against the side of the left
kneecap
 The assessor gives the command “GO”, starts the stopwatch and the athlete raises the heel of
the left foot to stand on their toes
 The subjects is to hold this position for as long as possible
 The assessor stops the stopwatch when the subjects left heel touches the ground or the right foot
moves away from the left knee
 The assessor records the time
 The subject rests for 3 minutes
 The athlete stands comfortably on both feet with their hands on their hips
 The subject lifts the left leg and places the sole of the left foot against the side of the right
kneecap
 The assessor gives the command “GO”, starts the stopwatch and the subject raises the heel of
the right foot to stand on their toes
 The subject is to hold this position for as long as possible
 The assessor stops the stopwatch when the subjects’ right heel touches the ground or the left
foot moves away from the right kneecap and records the time.
22

Normative Scores for the Stork Test
Table 8: The Stork test norms for 16 to 19 year olds
Rating Males Females
Excellent >50 >30
Above Average 41-50 23-30
Average 31-40 16-22
Below Average 20-30 10-15
Poor <20 <10
Table 9: The norms for males and females
Rating Males Females
Excellent >50 >27
Above Average 37-50 23-27
Average 15-36 8-22
Below Average 5-14 3-7
Poor <5 <3
Analysis
in the subjects’ static balance.
23

Target Group
This test is suitable for active individuals but not for those where the test would be contraindicated.
Advantages
 No equipment required
8. Test for assessment of co ordination

8.1 Hand Eye Coordination Test
The objective of the test is to assess the ability of the subjects’ vision system to coordinate the
information received through the eyes and direct the hands to accomplish the act of catching a ball
(hand-eye coordination).
Required Resources
 Tennis Ball
 Stopwatch
 Smooth Wall
 Assessor
Procedure
This test requires the subject to throw and catch a tennis ball off a wall.
 The subject stands two meters away from a smooth wall
 The assessor gives the command "GO" and starts the stopwatch
 The subject throws a tennis ball with their right hand against the wall and catches it with the left
hand, throws the ball with the left hand and catches it with the right hand. This cycle of
throwing and catching is repeated for 30 seconds
 The assessor counts the number of catches and stops the test after 30 seconds
 The assessor records the number of catches
24

Table 10: The Norms for 15 to 16 year olds (Beashel and Taylor (1997))
Age High Score Above Average Average Below Average Low score
15-16 years >35 30 - 35 25 - 29 20 - 24 <20
Analysis
Analysis of the result is by comparing it with the results of previous tests. It is expected that, with
appropriate training between each test, the analysis would indicate an improvement in the athlete's
hand eye coordination skill.
Target Group
This test is suitable for active adolescents but not for those where the test would be contraindicated.
Advantages
9. Ruler Drop Test to assess reaction time

The objective of this test is to monitor the subjects’ reaction time.
Required Resources
To undertake this test you will require:
 Metre ruler
 Assessor
Procedure
25

 The ruler is held by the assessor between the outstretched index finger and thumb of the
subjects’ dominant hand, so that the top of the athlete's thumb is level with the zero centimetre
line on the ruler
 The assessor instructs the subject to catch the ruler as soon as possible after it has been released
 The assessor releases the ruler and the subject catches the ruler between their index finger and
thumb as quickly as possible
 The assessor records the distance between the bottom of the ruler and the top of the subjects’
thumb where the ruler was caught.
 The test is repeated 2 more times and the average value is taken as score.
The algorithm to calculate the reaction speed is d = vt + ½at² where
 d = distance in metres
 v = initial velocity = 0
 a = acceleration due to gravity = 9.81m/s²
 t = time in seconds
We need to manipulate d = vt + ½at² to give us an algorithm for t

As v = 0 then vt = 0 therefore the algorithm is t = Sqrt(2d/a)
Example
 d = 9cm
 t = sqrt(2 × 0.09 ÷ 9.81)
 t = sqrt(0.01835)
 t = 0.135 seconds
Normative scores for the Ruler Drop Test

Table 11: The norms, adopted from Davis (2000) for 16 to 19 year olds.
Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor
<7.5cm 7.5 - 15.9cm 15.9 - 20.4cm 20.4 - 28cm >28cm
26

Analysis
Analysis of the results is by comparing it with the results of previous tests. It is expected that, with
appropriate training between each test, the analysis would indicate an improvement in the subjects’
reaction speed.
Target Group
This test is suitable for all youths but not for individuals where the test is contraindicated.
Advantages
10. Standing Long Jump Test to assess power or explosive strength

Objective
To monitor the development of the subjects elastic leg strength
Required Resources
 Long Jump pit
 30 metre tape measure
 Assistants
Procedure
 The subject place their feet over the edge of the sandpit, crouches down and using the arms and
legs and jumps horizontally as far as possible landing with both feet into the sandpit
 The assistants measures the distance from the edge of the sandpit to the nearest impression
made by the athlete in the sand pit and the assessor records the distance in centimeters.
 The subject repeats the test 3 times
 The longest recorded distance is the score of the subject.
27

Normative scores for the Standing Long Jump Test
Table 12: Norms in standing long jump for elite athletes (Chu 1996)
% Rank Females Males
91-100 2.94 - 3.15 metres 3.40 - 3.75 metres
81 - 90 2.80 - 2.93 metres 3.10 - 3.39 metres
71 - 80 2.65 - 2.79 metres 2.95 - 3.09 metres
61 - 70 2.50 - 2.64 metres 2.80 - 2.94 metres
51 - 60 2.35 - 2.49 metres 2.65 - 2.79 metres
41 - 50 2.20 - 2.34 metres 2.50 - 2.64 metres
31 - 40 2.05 - 2.19 metres 2.35 - 2.49 metres
21 - 30 1.90 - 2.04 metres 2.20 - 2.34 metres
11 - 20 1.75 - 1.89 metres 2.05 - 2.19 metres
1 - 10 1.60 - 1.74 metres 1.90 - 2.04 metres
Table 13: Norms for Junior Male Sportspersons (adopted from: Hede et al. 2011)
Age Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor
14 > 2.11m 2.11 - 1.96m 1.95 - 1.85m 1.84 - 1.68m <1.68m
15 >2.26m 1.26 - 2.11m 2.10 - 1.98m 1.97 - 1.85m <1.85m
16 >2.36m 2.36 - 2.21m 2.20 - 2.11m 2.10 - 1.98m <1.98m
>16 >2.44m 2.44 - 2.29m 2.28 - 2.16m 2.15 - 1.98m <1.98m
28

Table 14: Norms for junior female sportspersons (adopted from: Hede et al. 2011)
Age Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor
14 >1.91m 1.91 - 1.73m 1.72 - 1.60m 1.59 - 1.47m <1.47m
15 >1.85m 1.84 - 1.73m 1.72 - 1.60m 1.59 - 1.50m <1.50m
16 >1.83m 1.83 - 1.68m 1.67 - 1.58m 1.57 - 1.45m <1.45m
>16 >1.91m 1.91 - 1.78m 1.77 - 1.63m 1.62 - 1.50m <1.50m
The world record for the standing long jump is currently held by Arne Tvervaag (Norwegian) who, in
1968, jumped 3.71 meters.
Analysis
in the subjects’ leg strength.
Target Group
This test is suitable for any active individuals but not for those where the test is contraindicated.
Advantages
 The test can be easily administered
Disadvantages
 Specific facilities required - long jump pit
 Assistants required to administer the test
(11.1) Sargent Jump Test to assess the vertical jumping ability

29

The Sargent Jump Test (Sargent 1921), also known as the vertical jump test, was developed by Dr.
Dudley Allen Sargent (1849-1924).
Objective
To assess the subjects elastic leg strength in vertical jumping ability
Required Resources
 Wall
 Tape measure
 Step Ladder
 Chalk
Procedure
 The subject chalks the end of his/her finger tips
 The subject stands alongside the wall, keeping both feet remaining on the ground, reaches up as
high as possible with one hand and marks the wall with the tips of the fingers (M1)
 The subject from a static position jumps as high as possible and marks the wall with the chalk
on his fingers (M2)
 The assessor measures and records the distance between M1 and M2
 The subject repeats the test 3 times
 The assessor calculates the average of the recorded distances and uses this value to assess the
subjects’ performance
Fig 8-a, b, c – a subject performing the stages of Sargent Jump
30

(a) (b) (c)
Normative scores
Table 15: Norms for elite sportspersons (Chu 1996) in Sargent Jumps
% Rank Females Males
91-100 76.20 - 81.30 cm 86.35 - 91.45 cm
81 - 90 71.11 - 76.19 cm 81.30 - 86.34 cm
71 - 80 66.05 - 71.10 cm 76.20 - 81.29 cm
61 - 70 60.95 - 66.04 cm 71.10 - 76.19 cm
51 - 60 55.90 - 60.94 cm 66.05 - 71.09 cm
41 - 50 50.80 - 55.89 cm 60.95 - 66.04 cm
31 - 40 45.71 - 50.79 cm 55.90 - 60.94 cm
21 - 30 40.65 - 45.70 cm 50.80 - 55.89 cm
31

11 - 20 35.55 - 40.64 cm 45.70 - 50.79 cm
1 - 10 30.50 - 35.54 cm 40.65 - 45.69 cm
Table 16: Norms in Sargent Jumps for 16 to 19 year olds (Davis 2000)
Male >65cm 50 - 65cm 40 - 49cm 30 - 39cm <30cm
Female >58cm 47 - 58cm 36 - 46cm 26 - 35cm <26cm
Table 17: Norms in Sargent Jumps for 15 to 16 year olds (Beashel 1997)
Male >65cm 56 - 65cm 50 - 55cm 49 - 40cm <40cm
Table 18: Norms in Sargent Jumps for adult sportspersons (20+) (Arkinstall 2010)
Gender Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor
Male >70cm 56 - 70cm 41 - 55cm 31 - 40cm <30cm
Power Score
A heavier person jumping the same height as a lighter person has to do more work as they have a larger
mass to move. It is sometimes useful to convert the vertical jump height to units of power. Power
cannot be calculated (Power = Work ÷ Time) since the Time the force is acted on the body is unknown.
32

Formulas have been developed that estimate power from vertical jump measurements. In these
formulas mass = body weight and VJ = Vertical Jump height.
Lewis Formula
The Lewis formula (Fox & Mathews, 1974) estimates average power.
 Average Power (Watts) = √4.9 x mass (kg) x √VJ (m) x 9.81
Sayers Formula
The Sayers Equation (Sayers et al. 1999) estimates peak power output.
 Peak power (W) = 60.7 x VJ (cm) + 45.3 x mass(kg) - 2055
Harman Formula
Harman et al. (1991) established equations for peak and average power.
 Peak power (W) = 61.9 x VJ (cm) + 36.0 x mass (kg) + 1822
 Average power (W) = 21.2 x VJ (cm) + 23.0 x mass (kg) – 1393
Johnson & Bahamonde Formula
Johnson and Bahamonde (1996) established equations for peak and average power.
 Peak power (W) = 78.5 x VJ (cm) + 60.6 x mass (kg) -15.3 x height (cm) -1308
 Average power (W) = 41.4 x VJ (cm) + 31.2 x mass (kg) -13.9 x height (cm) + 431
Analysis
Analysis of the test result is by comparing it with the subject's previous results for this test. It is
in the subject's leg strength.
Target Group
This test is suitable for active individuals but not for those who are contraindicated.
Advantages
 The test can be easily administered
33

Disadvantages
 Specific area required
 Assistant required to administer the test
11 Kraus-Weber (K-W) Tests

Dr. Hans Kraus and Dr. Sonja Weber developed the Kraus-Weber Minimum Test in the 1950's. The
six-item medical fitness test measures the strength and flexibility of key postural (core) muscles. The
test consists of five strength challenges and one general flexibility procedure. The Kraus-Weber Tests
do not require sophisticated equipment and are easy to administer.
Kraus Weber Test No. 1. With his feet held on the ground by the assessor, the subject lies flat on his
back with his hands behind the neck. Perform one sit-up.
Kraus Weber Test No. 2. The subject is in the same position except that his knees are bent with his
ankles close to the buttocks. Perform one sit-up.
Kraus Weber Test No. 3. The subject lies flat on his back with his hands behind his neck. The legs
are lifted together without bending the knees 10 inches off the floor. Hold this position for 10 seconds.
Kraus Weber Test No. 4. The subject lies on his stomach with a pillow under his lower abdomen and
groin. The examiner holds his feet down. Lift head, shoulders, and chest off the floor and hold for 10
seconds.
Kraus Weber Test No. 5. The subject’s position is the same, but the examiner holds the chest down.
With knees straight, lift legs off floor and hold for 10 seconds.
Kraus Weber Test No. 6. The subject stands erect, barefooted, and with feet together. The examiner
holds the knees straight. Bend over slowly and touch the floor with the fingertips. Hold this position
for 3 seconds.
Scoring
These tests are graded on a pass-fail basis. Being unable to perform even one of the six exercises
qualifies as failing the test. A variation of the scoring method enables partial movements on each test
scored from 0 to 10.
34

12. AAHPERD Agility Test
The AAHPERD Agility Test is a test of agility and dynamic balance for the elderly, which is part of
theAAHPERD Functional Fitness Protocol. There is also another test called “Up and Go” agility
test also designed to test agility in the elderly.
Objective: This test measures speed, agility and balance while moving.
Required Resources: Stopwatch, straight back/folding chair (44cm high), cone markers, measuring
tape and an area clear of obstacles.
Procedure: The timed agility test is conducted on 31-ft course marked by traffic cones. The subject
starts from a seated position. The subject is required to rise from chair, walk around a cone to the right,
return to be fully seated on the chair, rise and walk around another cone the same distance to the left of
the chair. One trial consisted of two complete circuits of the agility course. This course is completed as
quickly and safely as possible.
Scoring: Take the best time of the two trails to the nearest 1/10th second.
Target group: the aged population which may not be capable of performing conventional agility tests.
Comments: For best results, practice the test once, and then perform it twice. A cane or walker may be
used if that is the usual mode of walking. Push-off from the chair is allowed
12.1 AAHPERD Functional Fitness Test

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance (AAHPERD) Functional
Fitness Test was designed for adults over the age of 60 years. The test items are designed to measure
the fitness capacity of the low fitness elderly who are not yet frail, and described in a test manual by
Osness (1996). The tests measure body composition, flexibility, agility, coordination, upper body
strength and aerobic endurance. The tests were designed so that they could be administered by
professionals and clinicians in the field who lack specialized measurement equipment, training and
resources.
The following are the test components of the AAHPERD Functional Fitness Test.
Ponderal Index — a height-weight ratio which serves as an index of body composition
Sit and Reach Test — measuring flexibility of the trunk/leg.
35

Agility Test — testing agility/dynamic balance, rising from a chair and manoeuvering around cones.
Soda Pop Test — an arm and hand coordination test, in which you turn six soda pop cans over in a
specified order, one at a time, as quickly as possible.
Arm Curl Test — a seated biceps curl test which measures muscular strength/endurance of the upper
body.
880 yard walk — test of aerobic endurance, walk the distance as quickly as possible.
13 Four Level Abdominal Strength Test

This is one of many tests of abdominal muscle strength. It is a simple test to conduct requiring minimal
equipment.
Objective: The four stages sit up test measures lower back and abdominal strength, which is important
in for core stability.
Required resources: flat surface, recording sheet and pen
Procedure: This is a simple test where you are required to do four forms of sit ups. The subject
attempts to perform one sit-up as described for each level, with either the feet held by an assistant or
not, and with the legs straight or not. Several attempts can be made for each level, with the technique
scored using the criteria below. The four levels are as follows:
1. Perform a leg sit up with the knees at right angles and your feet held.
2. Perform a leg sit up with the knees at right angles and your feet not held.
3. Perform a straight leg sit up with your feet held.
4. Perform a straight leg sit up with your feet not held.
Scoring: Use the criteria in the following table to give a score out of four for each sit up. Add the score
for all four sit-up levels for a total score out of 16.
Table 19: Scoring table for four level abdominal strength tests
Score Criteria
0 Cannot perform
36

1 difficulty performing, jerky motion, feet leave the floor
2 uses a lot of momentum to overcome 45 degrees
3 performs with slight pause in the mid area of the sit-up
4 no difficulty
Advantages: moderate sized groups can be tested at once, with minimal equipment required.
Disadvantages: scoring is subjective, and therefore results cannot be easily compared between groups.
14. SUMMARY
The tests to measure the health and performance related components are standardized and time tested.
Periodic and regular assessment of the subjects will give a clear indicator to the assessor about the
progress made with regard to general health or performance fitness. The norms should more often than
not be a guideline rather than qualifying test in case of assessment of general fitness. Here the criteria
guideline should be the subjects own previous performance and not the universal norms. However the
universal norms can be general guideline for the subject towards better health.
37

View publication stats

PhysicalPerformanceTests PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PhysicalPerformanceTests PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Physical Performance Tests

Chapter · October 2018

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paper Coordinator Dr Rashmi Sinha

Dr. Ajeet Jaiswal & Dr. RRM SIngh

Prof. Satwanti Kapoor

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Subject Name Anthropology

Paper Name 09 Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Module Name/Title Physical Performance Tests

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

2. What is Physical Fitness

3. Components of Physical Fitness

4. Tests for assessment of Health related components

5. Tests for Strength assessment

6. Performance related tests

7. Tests for balance

8. Test for assessment of coordination

9. Ruler Drop test to measure reaction time

10. Standing long jump to assess explosive strength

11. Kraus Weber tests

12. AAPHERD Agility test

13. 4 level abdominal strength test

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

2. What is physical fitness?

3. Component of Physical Fitness

3.2 Performance or skill related components

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

4. Tests for Assessment of Health related Fitness Components

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Age Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

13-14 >2700m 2400-2700m 2200-2399m 2100-2199m <2100m

15-16 >2800m 2500-2800m 2300-2499m 2200-2299m <2200m

17-19 >3000m 2700-3000m 2500-2699m 2300-2499m <2300m

20-29 >2800m 2400-2800m 2200-2399m 1600-2199m <1600m

30-39 >2700m 2300-2700m 1900-2299m 1500-1999m <1500m

40-49 >2500m 2100-2500m 1700-2099m 1400-1699m <1400m

>50 >2400m 2000-2400m 1600-1999m 1300-1599m <1300m

Table 2: Female Athletes

Age Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

13-14 >2000m 1900-2000m 1600-1899m 1500-1599m <1500m

15-16 >2100m 2000-2100m 1700-1999m 1600-1699m <1600m

17-20 >2300m 2100-2300m 1800-2099m 1700-1799m <1700m

20-29 >2700m 2200-2700m 1800-2199m 1500-1799m <1500m

30-39 >2500m 2000-2500m 1700-1999m 1400-1699m <1400m

40-49 >2300m 1900-2300m 1500-1899m 1200-1499m <1200m

>50 >2200m 1700-2200m 1400-1699m 1100-1399m <1100m

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

4.2 Harvard Step Test to assess the cardiovascular endurance

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Gender Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

Male >90.0 80.0-90.0 65.0-79.9 55.0-64.9 <55

Female >86.0 76.0-86.0 61.0-75.9 50.0-60.9 <50

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Tests for body composition

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

Fat-free Body Mass & Lean Body Mass

Physiology and Sports Anthropology

 Simple to set up and conduct

 Can be conducted almost anywhere