Development of predictive selection and placement tests for personnel evaluation

The Process of Physical Fitness Standards Development

“…Measures of body size and composition are well documented as predictors of Military task performance, including lifting capability (Nottrodt & Celentano, 1987;Rayson, Holliman & Belyavin, 2000), carrying capability (Rice & Sharp, 1994) and loaded marching (Frykman & Harman, 1985;Rayson, Holliman, & Belyavin, 2000). In general terms, larger employees with greater muscle mass and less body fat perform physical demanding tasks more effectively, though the exact relationship between these measures and performance varies according to the details of the task.…”

“…This approach has been adopted by many authors usually with reasonable success (e.g., Poulsen, 1970;Sharp et al, 1980;Pytel & Kamon, 1981;Ayoub et al, 1982;Teves, Wright &Vogel, 1985;Nottrodt & Celentano, 1987;Beckett & Hodgdon, 1987;Dueker, Ritchie, Knox & Rose, 1994;Rayson, Holliman & Belyavin, 2000).…”

Simple Anthropometric and Physical Performance Tests to Predict Maximal Box-Lifting Ability

“…Some other studies have used lift heights comparable with the 1.45-1.70 m of primary interest to the British Army, but have limited the mass lifted to 72 kg which affected the performance score of a significant proportion of subjects (17,18) or have been focussed on repetitive lifting capacity (2,7). The studies providing data most relevant to maximal box-lifting ability to 1.45-1.70 m have suggested that simple anthropometric measurements including stature, fat-free mass and chest circumference (12, 13, 15, 17, 18), isometric back extension or lifting strength (12,15,17,18,20,21) and dynamic strength assessed using an incremental lift machine (13, 15,17,18,20,21) are probably the most useful predictors of task performance. However, it would also be useful to determine the ability of a safe, easily controlled free weight exercise (requiring only widely available apparatus) to predict box-lifting ability.…”