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

net/publication/261064742

A Brief Exploration of Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology

Article  in  Kinesiology Review · February 2014

DOI: 10.1123/kr.2014-0041

CITATION READS
1 4,320

2 authors:

Matthew T Mahar David A Rowe

San Diego State University University of Strathclyde
199 PUBLICATIONS   4,621 CITATIONS    238 PUBLICATIONS   5,851 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of 1-mile walk tests to estimate aerobic fitness in children View project

Active transportation interventions systematic review View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David A Rowe on 18 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kinesiology Review, 2014, 3, 80-91
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/kr.2014-0041
Official Publication of NAK and AKA
© 2014 by The National Academy of Kinesiology www.KR-Journal.com
THE ACADEMY PAPERS

A Brief Exploration of Measurement

and Evaluation in Kinesiology
Matthew T. Mahar and David A. Rowe

A comprehensive review of the impact of measurement and evaluation in kinesiology is difficult to accom-
plish within the framework of a single research paper. Measurement touches nearly every research area in the
field of kinesiology. In fact, for quantitative research it can be argued that without good measurement there
can be no good research. Measurement researchers in kinesiology have impacted various areas, including
criterion-referenced evaluation of test scores, development of fitness tests to measure body composition and
aerobic fitness, health-related physical fitness, physical activity epidemiology, youth fitness testing, and many
others. They have introduced innovative statistical techniques such as item response theory, which provides
the underlying basis for modern standardized testing. Issues of test equating, differential item functioning, and
the great impact of the expansion of computers and the Internet deserve special attention. Unfortunately, not
all of the important contributions in the measurement field can be expanded upon in this manuscript. Instead,
this paper will focus mainly on key measurement and evaluation influences on public health issues. In applied
measurement research, two major themes have been the assessment of physical fitness and the assessment of
physical activity. The last 40 years have been a time of defining the content area of measurement in kinesiol-
ogy. Important measurement textbooks were published during this period (Baumgartner & Jackson, 1975;
Morrow, Jackson, Disch, & Mood, 1995; Safrit, 1986). Since the 1970s the measurement field and the kine-
siology field in general expanded from a focus on physical education to include all of the exercise and sport
sciences. This paper will explore measurement and evaluation in kinesiology by (a) providing an overview
of major milestones in measurement and evaluation over the last 40 years, (b) discussing current key areas of
research and inquiry in measurement and evaluation, and (c) speculating about future research and inquiry in
measurement and evaluation. The absence in this article of other important issues in measurement and evalu-
ation in kinesiology does not imply anything about their importance.

Overview of Major Milestones
in Measurement and Evaluation
Over the Last 40 Years
Evolution of Youth Fitness Testing
Perhaps the single most recognized contribution of
measurement researchers in the 1970s was to youth fit-
ness testing. The younger generation of professionals
in kinesiology probably does not have an appreciation
of the extent of the debates and the level of emotion in
those debates about the move from performance-related
fitness testing to health-related fitness testing. With the
currently accepted public health problem of childhood
obesity (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2012), the impor-
tance of health-related youth fitness testing is now readily
Mahar is with the Activity Promotion Laboratory, Dept. of
Kinesiology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. Rowe is
with the Physical Activity for Health Research Group, School of
Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, Scotland.
recognized by most observers. However, it was not always
that way. The American Association for Health, Physical
Education, and Recreation (AAHPER) Youth Fitness Test
was first published in 1958 and included some tests that
would be classified as performance-related, including
the shuttle-run, standing broad jump, 50-yard dash, and
softball throw for distance. Other tests included in the
AAHPER Youth Fitness Test were the pull-up for boys
and the modified pull-up for girls, sit-up, and 600-yard
run/walk. Three aquatic tests were also included: (a) swim
15 feet; (b) jump, swim, and tread water; and (c) swim
100 yards. Two of these aquatic tests were scored as pass
or fail, but the aquatic tests were rarely used (Plowman
et al., 2006). The modified pull-up is currently one of
the best available field tests of upper-body strength and
endurance and is included in the FitnessGram test battery
(Meredith & Welk, 2010). The standing broad jump is
considered a field test of lower-body power. The Institute
of Medicine (IOM, 2012) recently recommended that the
standing long jump should be included in health-related
physical fitness tests for national surveys and for use in
schools and other educational settings. The IOM report
suggests that growing evidence supports the standing
long jump as a health-related youth fitness test item that

80

assesses musculoskeletal fitness, but cautioned that the
standing long jump should not be interpreted in a health
context until its relationship with health outcomes is
better documented in youth.
By the early 1970s AAHPERD (by this time Dance
was added to the organization’s name) formed a commit-
tee represented by noted experts from the Measurement
and Evaluation Council, the Physical Fitness Council,
and the Research Council (currently called the Research
Consortium) to examine the rationale for changing the
AAHPERD Youth Fitness Test. The committee members
included two noted measurement specialists (Margaret J.
Safrit and Andrew S. Jackson, who chaired the commit-
tee), along with exercise physiologists and fitness experts,
who all are now members of the National Academy of
Kinesiology. This early collaboration had several charac-
teristics that are important to contemporary measurement
research, including (a) collaboration among researchers
from different disciplines, (b) a definitional stage in
the validation process (the definitional stage involves
investigation of prior theory and empirical evidence to
present a description of the nature of the construct; see
Mahar & Rowe [2002] and Rowe & Mahar [2006] for a
detailed explanation of construct validation stages), and
(c) consideration of the relative merits of norm-referenced
and criterion-referenced standards. The team science
approach, in which individuals with different strengths
collaborate to produce something greater than the sum of
its parts, was evident in the committee make up. The com-
mittee first proposed an operational definition of physical
fitness (Jackson et al., 1976), which should occur in the
definitional stage of construct validation. In addition, the
move from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced stan-
dards for youth fitness testing was a landmark paradigm
shift for measurement researchers.
Both Jackson (2006) and Morrow, Zhu, Franks,
Meredith, and Spain (2009) indicated that development of
state level physical fitness tests had an impact on the even-
tual publication of the AAHPERD Health-Related Physi-
cal Fitness Test (AAHPERD, 1980). In particular, the
Texas Physical Fitness-Motor Ability Test (Governor’s
Commission on Physical Fitness, 1973) differentiated
between physical fitness and motor ability, suggesting
different test items for measuring these different con-
structs. This was a strategic period for the development of
health-related fitness testing. The different philosophies
behind measurement of health-related fitness (i.e., assess
a fitness component because it is probably related to a
child’s health) and measurement of motor ability (i.e.,
assess a fitness component because it is probably related
to a child’s motor performance) influenced the AAH-
PERD committee that recommended the development
of the AAHPERD Health-Related Physical Fitness Test.
Resistance to the shift to health-related physical
fitness came from the President’s Council on Physical
Fitness and Sports. The Presidential Physical Fitness
Awards were associated with the AAHPER Youth Fitness
Test. The President’s Council awarded their Presiden-
tial Fitness Award to students scoring above the 85th
Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology   81
percentile on all components of the AAHPER Youth Fit-
ness Test. Measurement specialists recognized that, due
to regression toward the mean and the low to moderate
correlations among the tests, only about 1% of students
(rather than close to 15% of students) would qualify for
this award (Jackson, 2006). A reluctance to change the
awards structure led to an unwillingness to change the
associated youth fitness test.
The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and
Sports, at the time, was chaired by Asahel Hayes. Hayes
was an opponent of including body composition as a
test in the new health-related fitness test battery and
this substantially slowed the progress toward a national
youth fitness test. In fact, it may have been the resistance
to inclusion of a measure of body composition, the
insistence by Hayes of including the agility shuttle run
in the test battery, and the use of the 85th percentile for
the Presidential Physical Fitness Award (Critser, 2003;
Plowman et al., 2006) that kept AAHPERD and the Presi-
dent’s Council from developing a national youth fitness
test. For a brief period, three national youth fitness tests
were available: (a) the President’s Challenge (President’s
Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 1987); (b) the
Physical Best (AAHPERD, 1988); and (c) the Fitness-
Gram (Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, 1988). It
took until 2012–2013 for the Presidential Youth Fitness
Program to bring together various research, professional,
and government organizations (i.e., Amateur Athletic
Union; AAHPERD; Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention; Cooper Institute; National Foundation of Fitness,
Sports and Nutrition; and President’s Council on Fitness,
Sports, and Nutrition) and adopt a single national youth
fitness test. The current evidence that body composition
is a health-related component of fitness is now so strong
that its inclusion in health-related fitness tests is rarely
questioned (IOM, 2012).
Novel Uses of Educational Measurement
and Psychological Measurement
in Kinesiology
Many of the early contributions of measurement special-
ists to kinesiology involved novel adaptations of methods
used in educational and psychological measurement.
Ted Baumgartner demonstrated in a series of innova-
tive articles how statistical methods previously used in
psychological measurement can be applied to physical
performance tests (such as fitness tests) that involved
multiple trials or test administrations. These methods
allowed the statistical determination of what measure-
ment schedule was appropriate for a given situation (how
many trials should be given and which trials should be
used to maximize reliability; Baumgartner, 1968; 1969a;
1969b; Baumgartner & Jackson, 1970). The use of the
intraclass correlation coefficient and Spearman-Brown
prophecy formula is now accepted practice in kinesiology,
and many scientists may not realize its origins date back
a little over 40 years to Baumgartner’s early work. More
recently, notable publications by Zhu (1997; Zhu & Safrit,
82  Mahar and Rowe
1993) applied important methods from the educational
and psychological measurement literature to problems in
kinesiology. Zhu (1997) applied hierarchical linear mod-
eling to health-related fitness data. This study provided
empirical evidence that having physical education taught
by a physical education specialist and administering fit-
ness tests in physical education class were associated with
improvement in children’s cardiorespiratory fitness. Zhu
also identified advantages and limitations of hierarchical
linear modeling. In another example of the application of
advanced measurement techniques to kinesiology, Zhu
and Safrit (1993) applied item response theory (Rasch
modeling) to the health-related fitness component of
sit-ups. The use of item response theory helped improve
test construction and validation. In educational and psy-
chological measurement, these methods were generally
applied to items on paper and pencil tests, and the efforts
of people like Baumgartner, Zhu, Safrit, and Terry Wood
demonstrated how they could be applied to the unique
and varied testing situations encountered in kinesiology.
Regression Applications With Body
Composition and Aerobic Capacity
Some of the most highly referenced measurement articles
used a regression approach to make estimation of body
composition and aerobic capacity feasible for practitio-
ners. Jackson and Pollock (1978) and Jackson, Pollock,
and Ward (1980) developed generalized regression
equations to estimate the percentage of fat in men and in
women. Each of these studies has been cited over 1,300
times in the scientific literature. Jackson et al. (1990)
used a regression approach to estimate aerobic capacity
(VO2max) without exercise testing, and that paper has
also been highly cited. These studies, particularly the
body composition studies, have withstood the test of
time because of the large samples and robust statistical
analyses used. Regression has also been used to help
understand the determinants of test performance (which
gets to the heart of validity—understanding what tests
measure). Kirk Cureton (an exercise physiologist with a
keen understanding of measurement issues) published a
series of studies that used regression, including an innova-
tive path analysis study (Cureton, Boileau, Lohman, &
Misner, 1977) and a regression study in which children’s
1-mile run/walk performance was adjusted for skinfold
thickness (Cureton, 1991). These and other studies
conducted by Cureton demonstrated that body fatness is
one of the primary determinants of performance on field
tests of aerobic endurance. Cureton’s contributions to our
understanding of aerobic fitness test performance provide
additional support for the need to address measurement
issues from a multidisciplinary perspective.
Development of Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science Journal
In 1997, Ted Baumgartner, David Rowe, and Kent Wag-
oner from the University of Georgia started a journal
dedicated to publishing measurement research in kinesi-
ology. This was a major milestone because, although the
number of measurement specialists in kinesiology is not
large, a journal dedicated to measurement research in the
area became available for the first time. Recognition that
measurement research in kinesiology may differ from
measurement research in other disciplines because of
a focus on movement and physical performance, along
with the fact that no journal existed that was dedicated to
measurement research in kinesiology, eventually led to
the development of Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science (Baumgartner, 1997).
Available outlets specific to measurement research
in psychology and education included Applied Psycho-
logical Measurement, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Psychological Assessment, Educational
Measurement, and Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, among other journals. In addition, Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport has a measurement
section to which measurement research in kinesiology
can be submitted for publication. However, until 1997
no journal existed that was dedicated to publishing
quality measurement research in kinesiology. Since its
establishment, Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science has published 302 articles in journal
sections related to the kinesiology subdiscipline specific
research, as well as position papers and tutorial-type
articles. Several special issues have been published on
topics such as the responsible use of youth fitness testing
and PE metrics. The journal is one of three journals that
are accessible for free to members of AAHPERD.
Development of New Kinesmetrics
Programs
Measurement and evaluation specialists in the 1970s and
1980s were trained at several prestigious universities,
including the University of Wisconsin, the University of
Houston, the University of Georgia, the University of
British Columbia, the University of Colorado, Indiana
University, the University of Iowa, and Springfield
College. As the measurement mentors in these insti-
tutions either retired or moved to other institutions,
the positions that were left were often not filled with
measurement specialists. Thus, measurement programs
at, for example, the University of Wisconsin, the Univer-
sity of Houston, and the University of British Columbia
essentially ended.
In 1999, Weimo Zhu developed a new doctoral pro-
gram at the University of Illinois and at the same time
coined the term kinesmetrics. Previously, terms such as
psychometrics and econometrics were used to describe
measurement within a disciplinary field (psychology
and economics, respectively). Whereas up until 1999,
measurement specialists in our field were typically
described as having psychometric expertise, this new
term acknowledged the unique nature of measurement
within the many subdisciplines of kinesiology and
moved the specialization forward by encouraging the

pursuit of a discipline-specific set of skills and knowl-
edge. The focus of the University of Illinois program
was to develop and apply measurement theory, statistics,
and mathematical analysis to the field of kinesiology. In
2008, Minsoo Kang established a kinesmetrics doctoral
program at Middle Tennessee State University. These
are the main Kinesiology doctoral measurement training
programs today.
Current Key Areas of Research
and Inquiry in Measurement
and Evaluation
Setting and Validating Criterion-
Referenced Cut-Points
The FitnessGram is the national youth fitness test in the
United States. This is a criterion-referenced test, which
means that test scores on the youth fitness tests are com-
pared with the criterion-referenced standard for each age
and sex category to categorize participants as meeting or
not meeting the standard. In the FitnessGram, if a par-
ticipant has adequate fitness to meet the standard, then
he or she is categorized into the Healthy Fitness Zone.
If the participant’s test score does not meet the criterion-
referenced standard for his or her age and sex, then he
or she is categorized into a Needs Improvement zone.
FitnessGram standards for aerobic capacity and body
composition were developed using lambda-mu-sigma
(LMS) growth curves and receiver operating charac-
teristic (ROC) curve analysis (Laurson, Eisenmann,
& Welk, 2011a; Laurson, Eisenmann, & Welk, 2011b;
Welk, Laurson, Eisenmann, & Cureton, 2011). Nationally
representative data from the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) were used. A combination
of risk factors (i.e., blood pressure, high density lipoprotein
[HDL] cholesterol, triglycerides, and waist circumfer-
ence) was used to categorize an individual as not healthy
(with metabolic syndrome) or healthy (without metabolic
syndrome). This served as the criterion outcome vari-
able in the ROC analysis. The diagnostic accuracy (e.g.,
sensitivity, specificity) of tests of aerobic capacity and
body composition was evaluated to determine the extent
to which these tests could discriminate between partici-
pants in the healthy vs. unhealthy group.
Because youth fitness tests are used to categorize
participants into the Healthy Fitness Zone or Needs
Improvement zone, setting appropriate cut-points for this
purpose is an important validity issue. Validity is about the
appropriate use of test scores—a diagnostically accurate
cut-point helps users of the tests make valid decisions.
If, for example, students are classified into the Healthy
Fitness Zone based on a score on a test of aerobic fitness,
then the appropriate interpretation is that they have suf-
ficient fitness to provide important health benefits. They
may be encouraged to maintain their current level of
physical activity. Conversely, students classified in the
Needs Improvement would be told that their current level
Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology   83
of fitness increases health risks and would be encouraged
to improve that particular fitness component.
Multiple issues about the development of cut-points
for youth fitness tests still need to be considered. Because
multiple ways are available to develop cut-points, dif-
ferent cut-points may be found with different methods.
Another issue related to development of diagnostically
appropriate cut-points is determination of the appropriate
criterion to use for different fitness tests (e.g., one mile
run/walk, modified pull-ups, and standing long jump).
Kinesiology professionals must discuss whether the best
criterion to use is a health parameter (e.g., metabolic
syndrome) or maybe a measure of function, which, in
some cases, can also be considered health-related. We
should expect that a fitness test like body composition will
have stronger relationships with health outcomes than a
fitness test like the modified pull-ups or standing long
jump. However, the validity of this assumption may vary
depending on the population being tested. For example, in
older adults, quality of life is a critical aspect of health and
is dependent largely on functional independence. Roberta
Rikli, in association with Jesse Jones, has conducted a
research program over the past two decades to develop
a defensible functional fitness test battery for older
adults (Rikli & Jones, in press). Following an extensive
validation and norming process, their most recent work
has established criterion-referenced standards based
on longitudinal data that are associated with remaining
physically independent until late in life (Rikli & Jones,
2013). The development of clinically-supportable crite-
rion-referenced standards will be an important research
area over the next 10 years, considering the increasing
public health burden of obesity in children and a grow-
ing population of older adults, especially very old adults
(over 90 years of age).
Assessment of Physical Fitness
vs. Physical Activity
For the last several years the measurement focus in Kine-
siology has moved toward physical activity (the process
or behavior) and its relationship to health, rather than
fitness (the product or outcome). The work of Paffen-
barger and his colleagues in the 1970s (e.g., Paffenbarger
& Hale, 1975; Paffenbarger, Laughlin, Gima, & Black,
1970; Paffenbarger, Wing, & Hyde, 1978) was essential in
clarifying the relationship between physical activity and
coronary heart disease. The 1996 report, Physical Activ-
ity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS],
1996), was a landmark document that was partly respon-
sible for the surge in physical activity measurement
research in the late 1990s and 2000s.
Focus on the objective measurement of physical
activity via accelerometers has increased dramatically
since 1990 (a PubMed search of the term accelerometer
turned up 19 results for 1990, 61 results for 2000, 381
results for 2010, and 741 results for 2013.) The work
of Patty Freedson, Rick Troiano, Stuart Trost, and Greg
84  Mahar and Rowe
Welk (Freedson, Melanson, & Sirard, 1998; Freedson,
Pober, & Janz, 2005; Troiano et al., 2008; Trost, Loprinzi,
Moore, & Pfeiffer, 2011; Trost, McIver, & Pate, 2005;
Trost, Pate, Freedson, Sallis, & Taylor, 2000; Welk,
Schaben, & Morrow, 2004), among others, provides good
examples of measurement research with accelerometers.
The current focus on improving the objective assessment
of physical activity suggests much research in this area
will continue.
Recent work on refinement of objective measures
of physical activity can be characterized as attempts to
improve laboratory-level or practitioner-level measure-
ment. Although not always conducted in the laboratory,
laboratory-level research focuses on refining the level
of accuracy in scientific research, using the best (gold
standard; often more expensive and technically complex)
available methods. For example, ongoing work at the
University of Massachusetts to develop machine-
learning techniques for classifying accelerometer data
is pushing the boundaries of objective measurement
to classify the mode of physical activity performed.
This enables more informed interpretation of physi-
cal activity behavior and solves many of the problems
associated with using accelerometer cut-points. In
practitioner settings, these methods are not feasible,
but rapid advances in technology have enabled the
use of relatively inexpensive accelerometer-based
pedometers. As with the early work on field tests of
fitness, research in this area focuses on achieving a
balance between reasonable reliability and validity
and convenience (or mass testability). It also addresses
measurement challenges that occur in the field, but may
not occur in controlled laboratory settings. Measurement
challenges that have been addressed include determining
the number of days of monitoring needed to obtain reli-
able measures in field settings such as schools, assessing
the problem of reactivity (changes in behavior due to
an awareness of being assessed), classifying outlying
data, and dealing with missing data, which is a standard
problem when measuring physical activity in practical
settings (Kang, Rowe, Barreira, Robinson, & Mahar,
2009; Rowe, Mahar, Raedeke, & Lore. 2004).
In a recent reevaluation of youth fitness, the IOM
(2012) report, Fitness Measures and Health Outcomes in
Youth, recommended inclusion of the standing long jump
(traditionally thought to be a performance-related test,
rather than a health-related test) and handgrip strength
into youth fitness testing in schools and in national youth
fitness surveys. This IOM report may signal a return to
research that examines the relationships among fitness
and health outcomes. The acceptance of both physical
function and cognitive function as health outcomes is
likely.
In the 1960s and 1970s, a major focus of measure-
ment specialists was on youth fitness assessment (e.g.,
definition of youth fitness, specific tests to measure dif-
ferent components of youth fitness, and framework for
evaluation of youth fitness). Partly due to the recognition
that it was difficult to determine underlying relationships
among constructs (like physical activity and health) if the
measurement of physical activity was less than desirable,
a focus on the objective assessment of physical activity
evolved in the 1970s through the 1990s. Now because of
the acknowledged relationship between physical activity
and health and the impetus provided by the IOM (2012)
report, it appears that both physical activity and physi-
cal fitness will be valued and will remain the focus of
future research.
Development of the Interpretation
of Physical Activity
Researchers in kinesiology have been measuring physical
activity for over 50 years. Early research, highlighted by
the work of Morris and Crawford (1958), characterized
physical activity through basic classifications related to
occupation (e.g. active bus conductors vs. inactive bus
drivers). For much of the 40-year period covered by this
paper, physical activity has been considered to be “any
bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that
results in energy expenditure,” as defined formally by
Caspersen, Powell, and Christenson in 1985 (p. 126).
As such, the terms physical activity and energy expen-
diture were often used interchangeably, and anything
that was not rest was often assumed to be physical
activity. Terms such as “total physical activity,” “total
caloric expenditure,” and “physical activity energy
expenditure” often appeared in the physical activity
literature. In 1995, new physical activity recommen-
dations made an explicit link between health benefits
and physical activity of at least moderate intensity
(defined in the public health literature as ≥ 3 METs
and usually termed moderate-to-vigorous physical activ-
ity [MVPA]). These recommendations also emphasized
the need to maintain MVPA for continuous bouts of at
least 10 min, and to achieve 30 min of MVPA on at least
5 days of the week (Pate et al., 1995). Over the almost
20 years since this landmark moment, minor changes
have been made to physical activity recommendations
for adults, for example, recognizing that the weekly 150
min of MVPA could be accumulated over fewer than 5
days per week and that additional benefits were accrued
for physical activity of vigorous intensity. Interestingly,
over a similar time period, recommendations for physical
activity in childhood and adolescence (which could be
summarized broadly as a recommendation of 60 min of
daily physical activity) were much more consistent than
adult recommendations.
Although likely more scientifically accurate than pre-
vious recommendations, the increased flexibility involved
in recent adult physical activity recommendations poses
considerable measurement challenges. A multitude of
different patterns of physical activity now meet the rec-
ommendations and so measurement methods are needed
by scientists, practitioners, and the lay public to capture
these different patterns. More recently, evidence-based
pragmatic guidelines for total weekly step counts have
been published to simplify the public health message

(Tudor-Locke et al., 2011), and more research is needed to
determine if this simple message is sufficient to promote
the more complex physical activity behaviors underlying
the current physical activity recommendations.
More recently, sedentary behavior has attracted
increasing attention. Sedentary behavior involves sitting,
with an energy expenditure below 1.5 METs (Sedentary
Behaviour Research Network, 2012). Similar to the
situation with physical activity over the past 40 years,
we are currently at the definitional stage of validity for
this construct. The current definition described above
is somewhat comparable to the relatively basic early
definition of physical activity (physical activity = move-
ment; sedentary behavior = little or no movement and
a sitting posture). One could posit that in between our
current definition of health-enhancing physical activity
(≥ 3 METs) and of sedentariness (≤ 1.5 METs) lies light-
intensity physical activity. In a sense, the wheel has come
full-circle since Morris’ early work: It is now understood
that Morris not only demonstrated the health benefits of
movement (in the bus conductors), but the health risks
of sitting still for prolonged periods (in the bus drivers).
More recently, the negative health effects of sedentariness
have quite convincingly been shown to be independent of
the health benefits of MVPA. Accumulation of validity
evidence for the construct of sedentariness is ongoing.
Researchers are investigating parameters of sedentary
behavior that are linked to ill health. Potential parameters
include total time spent sitting, average length of sitting
bouts, and number of breaks in sitting (sit-to-stand transi-
tions), for example. Members of the Sedentary Behavior
Research Network are currently working on a taxonomy
of sedentary behavior, which will hopefully help lead
toward evidence-based public health recommendations
Figure 1 — Schematic of potential relationships among physical activity, physical fitness, and academically related outcome variables.
Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology   85
(Chastin, Schwarz, & Skelton, 2013). Interestingly, this
important research area is leading kinesiology (the study
of human movement) toward understanding the converse
of human movement!
Assessment of Relationships
Between Physical Activity and Physical
Fitness and Learning-Related Outcomes
in Children and Youth
Physical activity and physical fitness appear to impact
behavior, academic achievement, and cognitive function
through a variety of mechanisms (see Figure 1). Acute
physical activity has been associated with changes in
behaviors related to improved school performance in
children (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009; Budde, Voelcker-
Rehage et al., 2008; Mahar et al., 2006) and with aca-
demic achievement (Coe, Pivarnik, Womack, Reeves,
& Malina, 2006; Taras, 2005; Trudeau & Shephard,
2010). Physical activity levels are also associated with
cognition (Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer, 2008; Sibley &
Etnier, 2003). Others have reported associations between
physical fitness and measures of cognition (Buck, Hill-
man, & Castelli, 2008) and associations between fitness
and academic achievement (Castelli, Hillman, Buck, &
Erwin, 2007; Dwyer, Sallis, Blizzard, Lazarus, & Dean,
2001). The associations between physical activity and
physical fitness as well as their impacts on behaviors
related to school success, academic achievement, and
cognitive function (Tomporowski, Davis, Miller, &
Naglieri, 2008) have not been extensively examined. The
many measurement issues related to these constructs and
the potential policy implications suggest the need for
continued extensive research in this area.
86  Mahar and Rowe
Future Research and Inquiry
in Measurement and Evaluation
Examination of the Effects of Awards
in Youth Fitness Testing
The effects of the use of awards to recognize performance
on fitness tests has not been carefully considered. In the
early 1970s dissatisfaction with the philosophy behind the
President’s Council awards program was evident (Plow-
man et al., 2006). An AAHPERD committee composed
of Measurement and Evaluation Council and Physical
Fitness Council members recommended that the basic
goal of fitness testing should be to relate fitness to health
and not to sports performance. A Task Force on Youth
Fitness appointed in 1977 recommended to AAHPERD
that the award system should be eliminated (Plowman
& Falls, 1979).
One of the aims of the new Presidential Youth Fit-
ness Program is to recognize participants’ achievement.
The Presidential Youth Fitness Award is available to
students who score in the Healthy Fitness Zone in 5 out
of 6 tests. Several important motivational theories (e.g.,
self-determination theory) can be applied to predict
the effect of physical fitness awards on the intrinsic
motivation to be physically active. Empirical research
is needed to test the (possibly unintended) effects of
fitness testing and awards schemes on participants’
motivation to be physically active. We should not assume
that providing awards for fitness test performance will
enhance the motivation to be physically active in all
children.
One of the stated goals of the previous Presidential
Physical Fitness Award program was to motivate children
to develop high levels of physical fitness. The new Presi-
dential Youth Fitness Program focuses on professional
development, health-related fitness assessment, and rec-
ognition of fitness and physical activity achievement to
promote adoption and maintenance of active lifestyles. In
addition to the performance award (score in the Healthy
Fitness Zone on 5 out of 6 events), the Presidential Active
Lifestyle Award is a process award that rewards the
process of being physically active for 60 min a day for 5
days in 6 out of 8 weeks (a standard of 12,000 steps per
day for children can also be used to determine if children
were physically active for that day). The links between
physical activity, fitness, fitness test performance, recog-
nition awards, and motivation require extensive research.
For example, although physical activity is assumed to be
associated with physical fitness, some cross-sectional
evidence suggests the relationship is weak, and that physi-
cal activity and fitness are independently associated with
health in children and adolescents (e.g., Ekelund et al.,
2007). Although fitness is clearly important for health,
it is not evident that providing awards for reaching fit-
ness goals increases intrinsic motivation to be physically
active, and it is possible that an unintended consequence
of providing fitness awards may be to decrease intrinsic
motivation in some children.
Rewards can be tricky things. For example, a fitness
or activity award may enhance the perceived competence
in one student, while appear controlling to another stu-
dent. Theoretically, this would have an opposite effect
on the intrinsic motivation to be physically active in
these students. In terms of self-determination theory,
an award system corresponds to the external regulation
form of motivation (i.e., participation because of reward
or external recognition), which is at the opposite end of
the motivation continuum from intrinsic motivation, and
therefore less likely to lead to sustained behavior change
(Deci, 1971; Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983). While it is
hoped that awards for criterion-referenced performance
(e.g., reached the Healthy Fitness Zone) might be less
likely to decrease the intrinsic motivation to be active
in the lower fit children than norm-referenced awards
(e.g., reached the 85th percentile of performance), the
effects of such rewards on intrinsic motivation are basi-
cally unknown (Corbin, Whitehead, & Lovejoy, 1988).
Collaborative research between measurement specialists
and physical activity psychology professionals might help
untangle some of these issues.
Institute of Medicine Report on Fitness
Testing and Health Outcomes in Youth
The IOM (2012) report on fitness testing and health
outcomes in youth noted that the focus of health-related
fitness testing should be on the current or future health
status of the youth who are assessed. The IOM report
concluded that the areas of body composition, cardiore-
spiratory endurance, and musculoskeletal fitness should
be assessed for both national youth fitness surveys and
for school-based fitness testing.
Three measures (i.e., skinfolds, waist circumference,
and body mass index) were recommended for assessment
of body composition in national youth fitness surveys.
Only body mass index was recommended for assess-
ment of body composition in school settings. It is widely
understood that body mass index does not provide a direct
measure of body fatness, so research in this area could be
advanced by providing accuracy, reliability, and feasibil-
ity data for new body-composition assessment techniques
that can be used in school settings.
Cardiorespiratory fitness was also recognized as
essential in the IOM report. A progressive shuttle run
test or submaximal treadmill and cycle ergometer tests
that use a heart rate extrapolation technique were recom-
mended for assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness in
national youth fitness surveys. A fair amount of research
has examined the accuracy of progressive shuttle run tests
in youth. However, the accuracy of submaximal heart
rate extrapolation tests to estimate VO2max in youth of
various ages is basically unknown and should be further
researched.
The IOM report noted that musculoskeletal fitness
encompasses muscle strength, muscle endurance, and
muscle power. It appears that this area of health-related
fitness should be assessed in youth fitness test batteries.

However, the IOM report concluded that current evidence
was insufficient to support strong associations between
any specific youth fitness test of musculoskeletal fit-
ness and health markers. The IOM report recommended
that the standing long jump and handgrip strength
be included in national youth fitness surveys and in
national youth fitness tests used in educational settings
to assess musculoskeletal fitness. The standing long jump
is probably best described as a measure of lower body
power, and handgrip strength is best described by the
name of the test.
Standing long jump was in the original AAHPER
Youth Fitness Test, but was removed because it was
thought to measure performance-related fitness rather
than health-related fitness. The handgrip has tradition-
ally not been included in health-related fitness tests in
the U.S., but has been a part of tests of youth fitness in
Europe (e.g., ALPHA health-related physical fitness test
battery and the Eurofit Physical Fitness Test battery).
In addition, handgrip strength is often used with older
adults. Research to examine the relationship between
standing long jump, handgrip strength (as well as other
musculoskeletal youth fitness tests), and health outcomes
in youth is needed.
Ubiquitous Commercially Available
Wearable Technology
New commercially available technology to assess and
track physical activity is proliferating (e.g., Fitbit Flex,
Nike+ Fuelband, Jawbone Up, and Basis Band, among
many others). This ubiquitous new technology may
provide the ability to collect objective physical activity
data on a potentially massive scale, an improvement in
the accuracy of physical activity data, and the possibility
for data sharing among researchers.
A major decision made by users will concern the
accuracy of the device verses the interface and usability
of the device. Researchers are often concerned with
evaluating the accuracy of the device (e.g., how close
is the relationship between the activity output from the
device with a criterion measure of physical activity?).
Users are often more interested in the ease of use and the
attractiveness of the website or smart phone app, which
could be highly related to wear compliance.
Validity is about the intended use of the data.
Researchers should consider the intended use of these
devices. The major reasons these devices are used
appear to be to track physical activity, help the user be
more physically active, and to lose or maintain weight.
Measurement scientists should consider examining the
device with regard to the intended use of the output. That
is, are people becoming more active when they use com-
mercially available devices, and does this lead to weight
loss, or prevention of weight gain?
Many measurement issues with the commercially
available technology to assess physical activity exist.
Researchers should examine whether the level of inaccu-
racy of the commercially available monitors has an effect
Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology   87
on physical activity promotion and on level of satisfaction
with the device. Compatibility between data collected
from different devices should be ensured. Longitudinal
studies using current technology will need data showing
equivalence between old and emerging technologies.
The rate of change appears to be much greater in com-
mercially available technology compared with objective
devices used to measure physical activity in most research
settings. It may be helpful for comparisons if devices
allow saving of raw, unfiltered data.
New measurement opportunities will develop as data
are combined from several types of sensors (called multi-
modal sensor fusion). Mobile phone use to monitor physi-
cal activity may provide massive data sets. Data-driven
discovery in these massive data sets may complement
hypothesis-driven research. Collaboration with engineers
and multidisciplinary teams will help in planning long-
term physical activity measurement device development.
Researchers in the area of objective physical activity
measurement must expect and plan for change.
Training of Measurement Specialists
and Non-Specialists
In the future, measurement specialists should be trained
in research design and advanced statistical methods and
mentored in the team science approach (working with
teams of researchers with other expertise; for example,
physical activity epidemiology, exercise physiology,
growth and development, pedagogy, biomechanics,
physical therapy, and medicine). The kinesmetrics expert
is an invaluable asset to multidisciplinary research teams
who wish to obtain accurate data and develop an analysis
strategy to interpret the data and answer important public
health questions. Because many researchers who are not
formally trained in measurement are doing measurement
research, the current kinesmetrics programs could offer a
measurement course to doctoral students in kinesiology
at other universities. Many technological advances have
been made to create virtual learning environments, which
facilitate the training of people who may be thousands of
miles away. Online courses in kinesmetrics could improve
the measurement training of researchers in other areas in
kinesiology. These could be credit-bearing, either toward
the award of graduate degrees or toward continuing pro-
fessional development credits. The potential to improve
the measurement practices of kinesiology researchers and
practitioners is huge. In addition, the Internet has made
knowledge exchange far more accessible to the general
public, many of whom are hungry for information on
how to obtain and interpret information on their body
composition, physical activity, and fitness. Massive open
online courses (MOOCs) offer a considerable avenue for
providing quality scientific information to thousands of
people worldwide, in a user-friendly accessible format.
Specialists in kinesmetrics are in the best position to pro-
vide this information, and unless this sort of trustworthy
information is made available, the general public will
access other, unregulated sources.
88  Mahar and Rowe
Paradigm Shift in Measurement
and Evaluation
Measurement specialists in the future should consider
how the important measurement work in the past was
accomplished. The noted measurement specialists (e.g.,
Safrit and Jackson), who drove the move from perfor-
mance-related fitness to health-related fitness, collabo-
rated with experts in other fields. Large grants designed to
impact the health of the nation will probably be awarded
to the best research teams. Team science is the wave of
the future, if not already the current norm. It should be
recognized that collaboration with other disciplinary
experts (team science) is often needed to make meaning-
ful contributions. This may represent a shift to a more
pragmatic model. The team science approach is where
Kinesiology needs to be going in general, and the team
will benefit from inclusion of measurement scientists.
Important work has been produced in the field of
measurement in kinesiology. However, in the last decade
measurement and evaluation in kinesiology has been
looking for its identity. The development of kinesmetrics
programs at the University of Illinois and Middle Ten-
nessee State University signaled the start of a new era of
measurement training. The measurement and evaluation
specialists should be highly trained in measurement,
statistics, and research design, but also need to have a
thorough understanding of at least one additional disci-
plinary area within kinesiology to contribute meaningful
research in their chosen research area.
Summary
Measurement and evaluation in kinesiology (now known
as kinesmetrics) has come a long way in the past 40
years. Measurement specialists have contributed in many
meaningful ways to the discipline of kinesiology, both
conceptually and in practical terms. In the 1970s, leaders
in measurement helped to put public health on the kinesi-
ology map by directing the focus of fitness testing toward
health outcomes and the use of health-related criteria for
standard-setting. Measurement specialists have adapted
measurement theories from psychology and education
into a kinesiology-specific set of measurement theories
and methods. As the public health focus has moved from
physical fitness toward physical activity, the measurement
challenges have increased, but technological advances
have helped us to meet these challenges. Technology
has also made measurement research more accessible
to nonspecialists, both in terms of data gathering and
analysis. This may be a double-edged sword; good mea-
surement practice involves sound measurement knowl-
edge and expertise as well as technology. The changing
nature of kinesmetrics has led to a new model of training
for specialists in this area, and the increasing need for
multidisciplinarity in kinesiology research means that
kinesmetrics specialists need at least one additional area
of disciplinary expertise. Looking ahead, there are many
new challenges to face. To borrow two classic statements
about validity, kinesmetric research is a “never-ending
process” (Shepard, 1993, p. 407). As our understanding
of Kinesiology advances, new areas of measurement
research will open up. It is also a “community process”
(Cronbach, 1989, p. 164) that entails the collaboration of
measurement specialists with specialists from multiple
other subdisciplines from kinesiology. As our research
responds increasingly to the needs of public health, so
too will we need to collaborate with specialists in this
area. We are in exciting times; the importance of physi-
cal activity and fitness is possibly more well-recognized
now than at any time over the past 40 years. Measure-
ment and evaluation will continue to play a critical role
in solving many of our public health problems in the
foreseeable future.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our appreciation to the following
individuals for their contributions to the field of measurement
and evaluation and for their input during the planning stages
of this manuscript: Margaret Jo Safrit, Anthony (Tony) S.
Jackson, Ted Baumgartner, James R. Morrow, Jr., Weimo Zhu,
and Minsoo Kang. This paper was developed from a presenta-
tion delivered at the 2013 National Academy of Kinesiology
Annual Meeting.
References
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance. (1980). Health related fitness test. Reston,
VA: Author.
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance. (1988). Physical best. Reston, VA: Author.
Barros, R.M., Silver, E.J., & Stein, R.E. (2009). School recess
and group classroom behavior. Pediatrics, 123, 431–436.
doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2825
Baumgartner, T.A. (1968). The applicability of the Spearman-
Brown prophecy formula when applied to physical perfor-
mance tests. Research Quarterly, 39, 847–856.
Baumgartner, T.A. (1969a). Estimating reliability when all
test trials are administered on the same day. Research
Quarterly, 40, 222–225.
Baumgartner, T.A. (1969b). Stability of physical performance
test scores. Research Quarterly, 40, 257–261.
Baumgartner, T.A. (1997). Editor’s note. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science, 1, 103–104.
doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee0102_1
Baumgartner, T.A., & Jackson, A.S. (1970). Measurement
schedules for tests of motor performance. Research
Quarterly, 41, 10–14.
Baumgartner, T.A., & Jackson, A.S. (1975). Measurement for
evaluation in physical education. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Buck, S.M., Hillman, C.H., & Castelli, D.M. (2008). The
relation of aerobic fitness to Stroop task performance
in preadolescent children. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 40, 166–172. doi:10.1249/
mss.0b013e318159b035

Budde, H., Voelcker-Rehage, C., Pietraßyk-Kendziorra, S.,
Ribeiro, P., & Tidow, G. (2008). Acute coordinative exer-
cise improves attentional performance in adolescents.
Neuroscience Letters, 441, 219–223. doi:10.1016/j.
neulet.2008.06.024
Caspersen, C.J., Powell, K.E., & Christenson, G.M. (1985).
Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions
and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health
Reports, 100, 126–131.
Castelli, D.M., Hillman, C.H., Buck, S.M., & Erwin, H.E.
(2007). Physical fitness and academic achievement in
third-and fifth-grade students. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 29, 239–252.
Chastin, S.F.M., Schwarz, U., & Skelton, D.A. (2013). Devel-
opment of a consensus taxonomy of sedentary behaviors
(SIT): Report of Delphi round 1. PLoS ONE, 8, e82313.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082313
Coe, D.P., Pivarnik, J.M., Womack, C.J., Reeves, M.J., &
Malina, R.M. (2006). Effect of physical education and
activity levels on academic achievement in children. Medi-
cine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 1515–1519.
doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000227537.13175.1b
Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research. (1988). FitnessGram.
Dallas, TX: Author.
Corbin, C.B., Whitehead, J.R., & Lovejoy, P.Y. (1988). Youth
physical fitness awards. Quest, 40, 200–218. doi:10.1080
/00336297.1988.10483901
Critser, G. (2003). Fat land: How Americans became the
fattest people in the world. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Cronbach, L.J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years.
In R. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and
public policy (proceedings of a symposium in honor of
Lloyd Humphreys) (pp. 147-171). Urbana, IL: University
of Chicago.
Cureton, K.J., Baumgartner, T.A., & McManis, B.G. (1991).
Adjustment of one-mile run/walk test scores for skinfold
thickness in youth. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 152–167.
Cureton, K.J., Boileau, R.A., Lohman, T.G., & Misner, J.E.
(1977). Determinants of distance running performance in
children: Analysis of a path model. Research Quarterly,
48, 270–279.
Deci, E.L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 18, 105–115. doi:10.1037/h0030644
Dwyer, T., Sallis, J.F., Blizzard, L., Lazarus, R., & Dean, K.
(2001). Relation of academic performance to physical
activity and fitness in children. Pediatric Exercise Science,
13, 225–237.
Ekelund, U., Anderssen, S.A., Froberg, K., Sardinha, L.B.,
Andersen, L.B., & Brage, S. (2007). Independent associa-
tions of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness with
metabolic risk factors in children: The European youth
heart study. Diabetologia, 50, 1832–1840. doi:10.1007/
s00125-007-0762-5
Freedson, P.S., Melanson, E., & Sirard, J. (1998). Calibration
of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. acceler-
ometer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
30, 777–781. doi:10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021
Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology   89
Freedson, P., Pober, D., & Janz, K.F. (2005). Calibration of
accelerometer output for children. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 37, S523–S530. doi:10.1249/01.
mss.0000185658.28284.ba
Governor’s Commission on Physical Fitness. (1973). Texas
physical fitness-motor ability test. Austin, TX: Author.
Hillman, C.H., Erickson, K.I., & Kramer, A.F. (2008). Be
smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain
and cognition. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 9, 58–65.
doi:10.1038/nrn2298
Institute of Medicine. (2012). Fitness measures and health
outcomes in youth. Washington, DC: The National Acad-
emies Press.
Jackson, A.S. (2006). The evolution and validity of health-
related fitness. Quest, 58, 160–175. doi:10.1080/003362
97.2006.10491877
Jackson, A.S., Blair, S.N., Mahar, M.T., Wier, L.T., Ross, R.M.,
& Stuteville, J.E. (1990). Prediction of functional aerobic
capacity without exercise testing. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 22, 863–870. doi:10.1249/00005768-
199012000-00021
Jackson, A.S., Franks, B.D., Katch, F.I., Katch, V.L., Plowman,
S.A., & Safrit, M.J. (1976). A position paper on physical
fitness. Washington, DC: American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation.
Jackson, A.S., & Pollock, M.L. (1978). Generalized equations
for predicting body density of men. The British Journal
of Nutrition, 40, 497–504. doi:10.1079/BJN19780152
Jackson, A.S., Pollock, M.L., & Ward, A. (1980). Generalized
equation for predicting body density of women. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 12, 175–181.
Kang, M., Rowe, D.A., Barreira, T.V., Robinson, T.S., & Mahar,
M.T. (2009). Individual information-centered approach
for handling physical activity missing data. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 131–137. doi:10.1
080/02701367.2009.10599546
Laurson, K.R., Eisenmann, J.C., & Welk, G.J. (2011a). Body
fat percentile curves for U. S. children and adolescents.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41, S87–S92.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.044
Laurson, K.R., Eisenmann, J.C., & Welk, G.J. (2011b). Develop-
ment of youth percent body fat standards using receiver oper-
ating characteristic curves. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 41, S93–S99. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.07.003
Mahar, M.T., Murphy, S.K., Rowe, D.A., Golden, J., Shields,
A.T., & Raedeke, T.D. (2006). Effects of a classroom-
based program on physical activity and on-task behav-
ior. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38,
2086–2094. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000235359.16685.a3
Mahar, M.T., & Rowe, D.A. (2002). Construct validity in physi-
cal activity research. In G.J. Welk (Ed.), Physical activity
assessments for health-related research (pp. 51–72).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Meredith, M. D., & Welk, G. J. (Eds). (2010). FITNESS-
GRAM®/ACTIVITYGRAM: Test administration manual
(updated 4th ed.). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Morris, J.N., & Crawford, M.D. (1958). Coronary heart disease
and physical activity of work. British Medical Journal,
2(5111), 1485–1496. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5111.1485
90  Mahar and Rowe
Morrow, J.R., Jr., Jackson, A.W., Disch, J.G., & Mood, D.P.
(1995). Measurement and evaluation in human perfor-
mance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Morrow, J.R., Jr., Zhu, W., Franks, B.D., Meredith, M.D., &
Spain, C. (2009). 1958-2008: 50 years of youth fitness
tests in the United States. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 80, 1–11.
Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Kit, B.K., & Flegal, K.M. (2012).
Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index
among U.S. children and adolescents, 1999-2010. Jour-
nal of the American Medical Association, 307, 483–490.
doi:10.1001/jama.2012.40
Paffenbarger, R.S., & Hale, W.E. (1975). Work activity and cor-
onary heart mortality. The New England Journal of Medi-
cine, 292, 545–550. doi:10.1056/NEJM197503132921101
Paffenbarger, R.S., Laughlin, M.E., Gima, A.S., & Black, R.A.
(1970). Work activity of longshoremen as related to death
from coronary heart disease and stroke. The New Eng-
land Journal of Medicine, 282, 1109–1114. doi:10.1056/
NEJM197005142822001
Paffenbarger, R.S., Wing, A.L., & Hyde, R.T. (1978). Physical
activity as an index of heart attack risk in college alumni.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 108, 161–175.
Pate, R. R., Pratt, M., Blair, S. N., Haskell, W. L., Macera, C. A.,
Bouchard, C., . . . Wilmore, J. H. (1995). A recommenda-
tion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA,
273, 402–407.
Plowman, S.A., & Falls, H.B. (1979). Fitness testing in the
schools: revision of the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test. In
D.E. Cundiff (Ed.), Implementation of aerobic programs
(pp. 70–77). Washington, DC: American Alliance of
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation.
Plowman, S.A., Sterling, C.L., Corbin, C.B., Meredith, M.D.,
Welk, G.J., & Morrow, J.R., Jr. (2006). The history of Fitness-
Gram. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S5–S20.
President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. (1987). The
president’s challenge. Washington, DC: Author.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (2013). Development and validation
of criterion-referenced clinically relevant fitness standards
for maintaining physical independence in later years. The
Gerontologist, 53, 255–267. doi:10.1093/geront/gns071
Rikli, R. E., & Jones, C. J. (in press). Senior fitness test manual
(2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rowe, D.A., & Mahar, M.T. (2006). Validity. In T.M. Wood
& W. Zhu (Eds.), Measurement theory and practice in
kinesiology (pp. 9–26). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rowe, D.A., Mahar, M.T., Raedeke, T.D., & Lore, J. (2004).
Measuring physical activity in children with pedometers:
reliability, reactivity, and replacement of missing data.
Pediatric Exercise Science, 16, 1–12.
Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of
reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic
motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
736–750. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736
Safrit, M.J. (1986). Introduction to measurement in physical
education and exercise science. St. Louis, MO: Times
Mirror/Mosby.
Sedentary Behaviour Research Network. (2012). Standardized
use of the terms “sedentary” and “sedentary behaviours”.
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 37,
540–542. doi:10.1139/h2012-024
Shepard, L.A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of
Research in Education, 19, 405–450.
Sibley, B.A., & Etnier, J.L. (2003). The relationship between
physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-anal-
ysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243–256.
Taras, H. (2005). Physical activity and student performance at
school. The Journal of School Health, 75, 214–218.
Tomporowski, P.D., Davis, C.L., Miller, P.H., & Naglieri, J.A.
(2008). Exercise and children’s intelligence, cognition, and
academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review,
20, 111–131. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9057-0
Troiano, R.P., Berrigan, D., Dodd, K.W., Mâsse, L.C., Tilert,
T., & McDowell, M. (2008). Physical activity in the
United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 181–188. doi:10.1249/
mss.0b013e31815a51b3
Trost, S.G., Loprinzi, P.D., Moore, R., & Pfeiffer, K.A. (2011).
Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predict-
ing activity intensity in youth. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 43, 1360–1368. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e318206476e
Trost, S.G., McIver, K.L., & Pate, R.R. (2005). Conducting
accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based
research. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
37, S531–S543. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000185657.86065.
98
Trost, S.G., Pate, R.R., Freedson, P.S., Sallis, J.F., & Taylor,
W.C. (2000). Using objective physical activity measures
with youth: How many days of monitoring are needed?
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 426–431.
doi:10.1097/00005768-200002000-00025
Trudeau, F., & Shephard, R.J. (2010). Relationships of physical
activity to brain health and the academic performance of
schoolchildren. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine,
4, 138–150. doi:10.1177/1559827609351133
Tudor-Locke, C., Craig, C.L., Brown, W.J., Clemes, S.A., De
Cocker, K., Giles-Corti, B., . . . Blair, S.N. (2011). How
many steps/day are enough? For adults. The International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8,
79. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-79
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996).
Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon
General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion.
Welk, G.J., Laurson, K.R., Eisenmann, J.C., & Cureton,
K.J. (2011). Development of youth aerobic-capacity
standards using receiver operating characteristic curves.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41, S111–S116.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.07.007
Welk, G.J., Schaben, J.A., & Morrow, J.R., Jr. (2004). Reli-
ability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: A gen-
eralizability study. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 36, 1637–1645.
 Measurement and Evaluation in Kinesiology   91

Zhu, W. (1997). A multilevel analysis of school factors associ- Zhu, W., & Safrit, M.J. (1993). The calibration of a sit-ups task
ated with health-related fitness. Research Quarterly for using the Rasch Poisson Counts Model. Canadian Journal
Exercise and Sport, 68, 125–135. doi:10.1080/0270136 of Applied Physiology, 18, 207–219. doi:10.1139/h93-017
7.1997.10607988

View publication stats