This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by D’Alonzo, K. T. Articles by Vincent, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by D’Alonzo, K. T. Articles by Vincent, L. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A Comparison of Field Methods to Assess Cardiorespiratory Fitness Among Neophyte Exercisers

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, College of Nursing, Newark, kdalonzo{at}rutgers.edu

Kate Marbach, RN

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, College of Nursing, Newark

Linda Vincent, MSN, RN, APNC

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, College of Nursing, Newark

There is evidence to suggest that aerobic fitness levels among adults have declined markedly over the past 2 to 3 decades. Submaximal field measures of aerobic fitness, such as step tests, may now be seen as aversive by contemporary neophyte exercisers. In this study, a single-factor within-subjects (repeated measures) factorial design was used to compare three field measures of cardiorespiratory fitness among sedentary women: (a) the Queen’s College step test (QCST), (b) the Rockport 1-mile walk (RW), and (c) a nonexercise estimation of VO₂ max (NE). The sample consisted of 31 racially and ethnically diverse female college students (mean age of 24.8 years). No significant within-subjects differences were found in the three measures of V0₂ max (F = 1.89, p = .17) among Black, Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, or Asian women, but relative perceived exertion scores were significantly higher for the QCST than for the RW (t = 9.79, p < .001) for all groups. The mean calculated VO₂ max for the QCST was 35.90 ml/kg/min for the subset of women ages 18 to 25 and 31.85 for those ages 26 to 46. These values represent a "poor" to "below average" score for aerobic capacity among women in both age groups. Data from this preliminary study suggest that both the RW test and the NE test are comparable to the QCST as valid and reliable field measures of aerobic fitness and appear to be good alternatives to step testing among sedentary individuals.

Key Words: aerobic fitness • exercise testing • step tests • within-subjects factorial design

Biological Research For Nursing, Vol. 8, No. 1, 7-14 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1099800406287864


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. T. D'Alonzo, A. Aluf, L. Vincent, and K. Cooper A Comparison of Field Methods to Assess Body Composition in a Diverse Group of Sedentary Women Biol Res Nurs, January 1, 2009; 10(3): 274 - 283. [Abstract] [PDF]