The purpose of this study was to validate a one-mile walk (1-MW) test for high school age individuals. Twenty-one students completed the 1-MW on two separate occasions. Forty-four students completed one 1-MW and a modified Balke walking treadmill test to volitional fatigue; the mean (M) of maximal oxygen comsumption (VO2max) = 45.39, standard deviation (SD) = 8.26 mL · kg-1 · min-1. VO2max values were predicted from the 1-MW results using the Kline, Porcari, Hintermeister, et al. (1987) Rockport Fitness Walking Test (RFWT) equation (M = 46.91, SD = 6.38 mL · kg-1 · min-1) and the Dolgener, Hensley, Marsh, and Fjelstul equation (1994; M = 39.88, SD = 5.87 mL · kg-1 · min-1). Intraclass stability reliability coefficients were .91 for the Kline, Porcari, Hintermeister, et al. equation and .97 for the Dolgener et al. equation. The validity coefficient was r =.84, standard errors of the estimate (SEE) = 4.50, Error = 7.16, and 38.6% of the measured VO2max values fell within ±4.5 mL · kg-1 · min-1 of the estimated VO2max values for the Dolgener et al. equation. Comparable values for the Kline, Porcari, Hintermeister, et al. equation were r = .80, SEE = 4.99, Error = 5.17, and % = 65.9. The difference between the measured VO2max and the values estimated from the Dolgener et al. and Kline, Porcari, Hintermeister, et al. equations, respectively, were t(43) = -7.91, p < .0001 and t(43) = 2.02, p = .05. Using the FITNESSGRAM® (Cooper Institute of Aerobics Research, 1992) standards and the two estimated VO2max values from Kline, Porcari, Hintermeister, et al. (1987), a 100% proportion of agreement was achieved for criterion-referenced reliability. Similarly, a 91% proportion of correct classification decisions with a phi coefficient of .76 was determined for criterion-referenced validity between the measured and RFWT estimated VO2max values. It was concluded that the 1-MW is an acceptable test of cardiorespiratory fitness for high school aged individuals, if VO2max is estimated from the RFWT equation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McSwegin et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: