Untitled Document Page 1 of 5

SportaPolis

Column - "The New P.E. & Sports Dimension" - # 7 February 2002

The column that opens your day by opening your mind

Test and Measurement in Physical

Education
by
Dr. Lee E. Brown
Assistant Professor of Exercise Science
Dept. of Health, PE and Sport Science
Arkansas State University

To start with the discussion and how to: click here

Introduction

I am a professor of test and measurement and I often open my classes with the statement
"Life is based on test and measurement." I will offer that without test and measurement no
one would be able to get out of bed in the morning since we would not know what time it is,
how far the bed is above the floor, where the light switch is or where the doorknob is to exit
the room. Every one of these items is a product of test and measurement that we take for
granted each day. These are humorous examples but the question will generally stimulate
discussion about how we function in the world around us or how best to measure particular
aspects of our environment in order to insure safety or standardization of some other
collateral aspect of life. The point of the exercise is for students to begin developing a sense
of the critical thinking requisite for problem solving which is associated with test and
measurement (ACSM, 2000; Brown, 2000b & Fleck 1997). Testing is not so much a task as it
is a process. In other words, test and measurement evolves over a period of time and is part
of an ongoing scholarly investigation of, not only individuals, but also groups of individuals
(Hersey, 1996 & Thomas, 2001).

Assessment
Structure

This purpose of this paper is to lay the framework for a discussion of the relative significance
of a test and measurement system. Before proceeding it is important to understand the
nomenclature used during this process. A Test is a tool used to measure some performance
and to collect data. A test should be Valid, meaning it measures what it purports to measure
and it should be Reliable, meaning it is repeatable. Measurement is the quantitative score

file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\leebrown\My%20Documents\PDF%20Fil... 1/15/2005
Untitled Document Page 2 of 5

derived from the test. Evaluation is the process of placing a value on that measurement. This
involves comparing the score to a known scale and imparting worth. Evaluation may use a
Normative scale derived from the scores of a peer group or a Criterion scale that requires
participants to perform at a pre-determined standard level of achievement. Assessment is
the process of integrating all of the aforementioned events; choose a test, measure the score
then evaluate it based on a scale comparison (Thomas, 2001).

Is Testing
Essential?

Why test? What is the outcome and why is it needed? These are valid questions to ask in the
face of developing sensitive testing tools to measure physical education students. The answer
may lie in the goals of the program. I like to use the old school form of physical education and
speak of it as education of the physical. The act of teaching learners how to utilize their
bodies to the fullest while simultaneously understanding how and why their bodies function as
they do (Magill, 1998). This is generally undertaken during the physical maturation years and
is a long journey traveled by young people all over the world. It is a journey that cannot reach
its final destination in the absence of the guidance of a trained professional. I am surprised
then, when I hear professionals state that they do not perform any assessment procedures
with their students because it is too difficult or does not yield valuable results. This statement
is not unlike stating that one does not utilize a map when traveling to a new destination.
Before one can begin a trip to any location they must first know where they are. This may be
the most essential aspect of testing in that it allows both the teacher and learner to know the
present state of affairs. It establishes a starting point for the journey by detailing what physical
attributes the learner currently possesses and what needs to be taught by the teacher.

From an instructor's outlook, there is no need to cover material already mastered by the
student due to both the ever-increasing limitations on physical education curricula and
dwindling teaching time. In addition, proper instruction involves adding skills to the learners
already established proficiencies, yet some skills may interfere with existing ones and hamper
the learners' performance (Kelso, 1997). Therefore, knowledge of an individual's current state
of readiness is essential since future skills and abilities are predicated on those presently
held. I once had a student trainer tell me they did not test their clients before starting them on
a resistance-training program. I asked with what weight did they begin the lifting program.
They answered that they put enough weight on the machine so as to restrict the client to a
total of 10 repetitions. I told them they had just done a test and measured the weight
associated with a 10-repetition maximal lift. Testing does not have to be performed in a lab
with high tech equipment. It can just as easily be undertaken in a field environment with tools
costing no more than a few cents. The important feature is that a starting point is established
with which to compare future performances.

What To Assess?

There are two main aspects of any physical education environment that should be assessed.
First, is the activity itself. This may or not be a sporting endeavor but may pertain to activities
of daily living as well. The activity must be assessed for the special needs necessary in that
environment. These may include energy needs, time duration, muscles and limbs involved,
forces applied, movement characteristics, body contact with others and range of motion
required to name a few (Brown, 2000a). This information is invaluable for determining

file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\leebrown\My%20Documents\PDF%20Fil... 1/15/2005
Untitled Document Page 3 of 5

program direction based on the needs of the individual or group. Second, is the individual
student or athlete. The learner must be assessed for muscular strength, speed, balance,
agility, flexibility bodyfat, cardiac and respiratory levels and cognition to name a few (Enoka,
2002). Once the requirements of the activity and the learner are known, evaluation can occur
to determine where they match and where the needs lie. This is the heart of test and
measurement; matching the needs of the individual with the needs of the activity. Without a
clear understanding of either there can be no progress towards a goal. Once again, one must
first know where they are before they can begin a journey anywhere. This is true for both the
teacher and the learner.

What To Do With The

Results?

The system usually bogs down at the level where data analysis occurs. The initial test may
offer the least amount of information because it primarily lays the groundwork for subsequent
testing. However, program design is predicated on initial testing and frequent feedback
insures that steady progress is maintained. Subsequent testing is generally undertaken at
four-week intervals and compared against baseline measurements. An accurate evaluation
can only be determined through the use of a proper comparison scale. This scale should be
derived from either a peer group consisting of subjects of a similar sub-population (i.e. NCAA
athletes, elementary school children, etc.) or from the demands of the specific activity (i.e.
Olympic qualifiers, rules exam, etc.). Through this type of systematic and meticulous test and
measurement methodology, which includes re-tests at regular intervals, individual programs
may be modified to keep pace with quick and slow learners or manipulated to account for the
myriad of specific attributes that each learner brings to the physical education environment.

Chaos or
Order?

It should not be lost on the reader that human beings are complex creatures with each
presenting with varied backgrounds and experiences that may require individual remediation.
This system is not unlike the difficulty meteorologists experience due to the inherent
unpredictability of the weather. There are too many variables involved in the process to ever
make extended weather forecasting a viable option. It is deterministic chaos as in the
"Butterfly Effect" or "Sensitive dependence on initial conditions" of Lorenz (1993), which
states that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil it causes a tornado in Texas. The weather
could be perfectly predicted if one had perfect knowledge of the variables associated with the
weather. However, no one has perfect knowledge of anything but we must continually strive to
gather as much knowledge as we can before making judgments regarding a teaching strategy
or a training program. In conclusion, it is vital to mention here that the most important decision
any teacher will ever make is a decision about another persons' life.

References

ACSM, American College of Sports Medicine. (2000). ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing
and prescription, 6th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Brown, L.E., Ferrigno, V.A. & Santana, J.C. (Eds.), (2000a). Training for Speed, Agility and
Quickness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\leebrown\My%20Documents\PDF%20Fil... 1/15/2005
Untitled Document Page 4 of 5

Brown, L.E. & Weir, J.P. (2000b). ASEP procedures recommendations for the accurate
assessment of muscular strength and power. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online. 4(3):1-
21, 2001.

Enoka, R.M. (2002). Neuromechanics of human movement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fleck, S.J. & Kraemer, W.J. (1997). Designing resistance training programs. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1996). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human
resources, 7th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kelso, J.A.S. (1997). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Lorenz, E. (1993). The essence of chaos. Seattle, WA: University of Washington press.

Magill, R. A. (1998). Motor learning: Concepts and applications, 5th edition. Madison, WI:
Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

Thomas, J.R. & Nelson, J.K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Some questions to generate a

discussion:
1. Is mandatory testing necessary in the public school system since we
already have students grouped according to chronological age?

2. What are the ramifications of developing a normative scale from a low

functioning group, when this will insure that low functioning learners will
score at the top?

3. What implications will arise if only one criterion level of performance is

used to evaluate learners from different sub-populations? What if the
demands of the activity dictate that some sub-populations will be excluded?

4. What is a physical educator to do if there are no valid and reliable tests in

existence with which to measure their students? How does one construct a
valid and reliable test?

How to participate with the discussion ?

- just copy and paste the above questions into your e-mail program and submit your answers
to: mailto:guy.vandamme@skynet.be?subject=Discussion

file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\leebrown\My%20Documents\PDF%20Fil... 1/15/2005
Untitled Document Page 5 of 5

- he collects your replies.

- The author reads your ideas/reactions and if needed will add his feedback.

- This all - your reactions and feedback - will be posted again onto the list.

To take part of the

discussion, fill out your email
address to receive our
newsletter!
Submit

i
j
k
l
m
n Subscribe j
k
l
m
n Unsubscribe
Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com

March 2002 - Dr. Peter J. Titlebaum and Dr. Corinne Daprano will start with a new
article.

Have a good discussion,

co-ordinator

Guy Van Damme

file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\leebrown\My%20Documents\PDF%20Fil... 1/15/2005