Running Performance as an Indicator of VO(2max): A Replication of Distance Effects

Vickers, Ross R.

doi:10.21236/ada419674

Cited by 3 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The expected association would be r = .82 with an associated SD = 6.2 for VO 2max (Vickers, 2001a(Vickers, , 2001b. Adopting Equation 2b as a robust estimate of the relationship between SEM and average VO 2max , SEM = 2.7 at 50 ml·kg .…”

Section: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Cfa) Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The standard deviation of VO 2max had been coded in two prior reviews of VO 2max as a predictor of running performance (Vickers, 2001a(Vickers, , 2001b . Thus, a small sample of studies such as that covered in this review should include very few standard deviations beyond the range from 3 to 9 ml·kg Analysis of the standard deviations from the prior reviews (Vickers, 2001a(Vickers, , 2001b gave reason to believe the current set of studies was not broadly representative of men and women. The samples in this review accentuated a gender difference evident in the larger body of evidence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measurement Error in Maximal Oxygen Uptake Tests

Vickers¹,

Ross²

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research has been conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal Regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. No human subjects were directly involved in this research. ii SUMMARY BackgroundCardiorespiratory fitness is important for health, work, and athletic performance. Laboratory tests of maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) are the gold standard for assessing this aspect of fitness. VO 2max protocols with small measurement errors will provide the best estimates of relationships between fitness and its antecedents and consequences. For example, tests with smaller errors will provide better indications of how well running tests function as substitutes for laboratory tests. ObjectivePublished studies of the reliability of VO 2max tests provide an empirical basis for estimating VO 2max test precision. This review employed meta-analysis procedures to model VO 2max test precision. ApproachStudies of the test-retest reliability of VO 2max protocols were identified from previous reviews and searches of computerized databases for biomedical, behavioral, and sports research. Of 51 studies identified, 12 were dropped because long test-retest intervals made it likely that true VO 2max values changed during the study. The reported means, standard deviations, and test-retest correlations were used to compute the standard error of measurement (SEM) for VO 2max for the remaining 39 studies. The age and gender composition of the sample were coded along with the exercise mode (treadmill, cycle ergometer, other) and the test-retest interval for the protocol. Meta-analysis produced a predictive model for SEM based on sample and protocol attributes. ResultsAverage SEM was 2.58 ml·kg -1 ·min -1. SEM was higher in samples with higher average VO 2max . Age, gender, test interval, and exercise mode were not related to SEM. After allowing for outliers, the final model to predict SEM was ln(SEM) = 0.661 + (.006 * VO 2max ). ConclusionsSEM increases as the average VO 2max of the sample increases. Other population and protocol attributes were not related to SEM. The potential applications of the model for SEM include evaluating new VO 2max protocols, evaluating field tests (e.g., run tests, walk tests), and making allowances for measurement error when investigating the relationships of VO 2max with other variables.

show abstract

Section: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Cfa) Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Error in Maximal Oxygen Uptake Tests

Vickers¹,

Ross²

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Endurance running performance is strongly related to maximal oxygen uptake capacity (VOamax; Baumgartner & Jackson, 1982;Knapik, 1989;Safrit, Hooper, Ehlert, Costa, & Patterson, 1988;Vickers, 2001aVickers, , 2001b. Early reviewers placed the association between r = .60 and r = .66^ (Safrit et al, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A broader search for explanatory variables might change the conclusions that would be drawn from the evidence. For example, Vickers (2001aVickers ( , 2001b found that the length of the run test affected validity. He also found that validity was lower for fixed-distance runs (r = .72) than for fixed-time runs (r = .80) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling Run Test Validity: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Vickers¹

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research has been conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal Regulations governing the protection of human subjects. No human subjects were directly involved in this research.Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Modeling Run Test Validity SUMMARY BackgroundMilitary physical fitness tests (PFTs) connmonly include a distance run to estimate aerobic fitness. This use of run tests is justifiable because performance is related to laboratory measurements of maximal oxygen uptake {V02max) ■ V02max is the accepted reference standard for measuring aerobic capacity. ObjectiveThis review tested the hypothesis that endurance run tests are equally valid for different types of people. ApproachLiterature searches identified 133 studies relating laboratory VOamax measurements to performance on run tests. These studies involved 1 or more endurance runs. An endurance run was defined as one that was 2:2 km in distance or ^12 min in duration. Data on validity, population attributes, and research methods were coded. Hedges and Olkin's metaanalysis procedures were used develop a mathematical model to predict run test validity. ResultsAverage validity was moderately high (r = .75), but could vary between r = .52 and r = .84 in different test situations. Run test validity was not related to the age, gender, fitness level, or running experience of the people who were tested. Validity was related to the type of run test (T for "type," 1 = fixed-distance; 2 = fixed-time) and the sample variability of VOzmax (SDV02max for standard deviation of V02max) . The equation to predict validity based on these two variables was zu/ = -059 + (.115*SDV02max) + (.197*T). The equation coefficients indicate that validity was higher in samples with greater VOamax variation and when a fixed-time run test was used. Publication bias, low power of the studies reviewed, and other potential sources of bias had little effect on £he findings.

show abstract

Walk Tests as Indicators of aerobic Capacity

Vickers¹

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running Performance as an Indicator of VO(2max): A Replication of Distance Effects

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Measurement Error in Maximal Oxygen Uptake Tests

Measurement Error in Maximal Oxygen Uptake Tests

Modeling Run Test Validity: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Walk Tests as Indicators of aerobic Capacity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About