Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: Endurance capacity can be assessed by field test such as Cooper's test; however, reliability and accuracy are rarely reported in the literature. It was our aims to describe reliability and accuracy of Cooper's test in long distance runners. Method: Fifteen male long distance runners performed twice all-out Cooper's test in a 400 m track. Total distance covered, maximum heart rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion were recorded. Bias correction factor (Bc) was used to describe accuracy and the main dimensions of reliability were calculated by an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), effect size (ES) and agreement analysis. Results: Accuracy for total distance and HR were relatively high (Cb = 0.994 and 0.956). Reliability for covered distance was as small as 1.7% (52.2 m) and ICC was 0.99; additionally, neither proportional nor systematical bias was detected in the agreement analysis. Conclusions: All together, our results may confirm a good accuracy and reliability of Cooper's test in amateur long distance runners. Also, improvements or impairment lower than 52.2 m must not be associated with exercise training or retraining, since they are below the values of intra-subject reliability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alvero‐Cruz et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: