Classification Agreement for FITNESSGRAM® Aerobic Capacity Between 1-Mile Run and the New PACER Formula: 357 Board #194 June 1, 11: 00 AM - 12: 30 PM : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Journal Logo

A-46 Free Communication/Poster - Fitness Assessment Wednesday, June 1, 2016, 7: 30 AM - 12: 30 PM Room: Exhibit Hall A/B

Classification Agreement for FITNESSGRAM® Aerobic Capacity Between 1-Mile Run and the New PACER Formula

357 Board #194 June 1, 11

00 AM - 12

30 PM

Murray, Tinker D. FACSM; Walker, John L. FACSM; Eldridge, James; Squires, William G. FACSM; Squires, William G. Jr. FACSM

Author Information
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 48(5S):p 94, May 2016. | DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000485288.99898.26
  • Free

To assess aerobic capacity (AC), FITNESSGRAM® offers 1-mile run/walk (1MRW) and PACER tests. AC is estimated from 1MRW time, gender, age, and BMI from a validated prediction equation. Since 2011, PACER laps were converted to 1MRW times using a test-equating method, and AC was estimated from equated 1MRW performance. A new formula for estimating FITNESSGRAM® AC directly from PACER laps and age has been recently adopted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the classification agreement between AC estimated from 1MRW times and AC estimated from the new PACER formula.

METHODS: Subjects were 440 sixth-grade boys and girls, ages 11-13 years, who completed each of the FITNESSGRAM® test components of their yearly physical education assessment. The percent meeting the age and gender AC standards estimated from 1MRW times were 55% for the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ), 19% for Some Risk (SR), and 26% in the High Risk (HR) category. The percent meeting the AC standards estimated from the new PACER formula were 32% for HFZ, 32% for SR, and 35% for HR.

RESULTS: The correlation between AC estimated from 1MRW times and the new PACER formula was .64, compared to .93 between AC estimated from 1MRW times and the old PACER test-equating method. The observed agreement comparing AC estimated from 1MRW times with the new PACER formula for distinguishing HFZ from Needs Improvement (NI) was .68, Kappa = .40, and for distinguishing SR from HR was .71, Kappa = .50. The observed agreement comparing AC estimated from 1MRW times with the old PACER test-equating method for distinguishing HFZ from NI was .94, Kappa = .88, and for distinguishing SR from HR was .96, Kappa = .92.

CONCLUSIONS: Classification agreement between AC estimated from 1MRW times and the new PACER formula was much lower than for the old PACER test-equating method. This result was due at least in part by the exclusion of BMI in the new PACER formula. The correlation between BMI and AC estimated from the new PACER formula was .47, compared to a correlation of .82 between BMI and AC estimated from 1MRW times. For AC estimated from the new PACER formula there is little variation based on body size, whereas body size is a significant predictor of AC estimated from 1MRW performance. Accurate assessment and classification are important for appropriate interventions, especially for those in the HR category.

© 2016 American College of Sports Medicine