IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Criterion-Related Validity of the Distance- and Time-Based Walk/Run Field Tests for Estimating Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Mayorga-Vega
  • Raúl Bocanegra-Parrilla
  • Martha Ornelas
  • Jesús Viciana

Abstract

Objectives: The main purpose of the present meta-analysis was to examine the criterion-related validity of the distance- and time-based walk/run tests for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness among apparently healthy children and adults. Materials and Methods: Relevant studies were searched from seven electronic bibliographic databases up to August 2015 and through other sources. The Hunter-Schmidt’s psychometric meta-analysis approach was conducted to estimate the population criterion-related validity of the following walk/run tests: 5,000 m, 3 miles, 2 miles, 3,000 m, 1.5 miles, 1 mile, 1,000 m, ½ mile, 600 m, 600 yd, ¼ mile, 15 min, 12 min, 9 min, and 6 min. Results: From the 123 included studies, a total of 200 correlation values were analyzed. The overall results showed that the criterion-related validity of the walk/run tests for estimating maximum oxygen uptake ranged from low to moderate (rp = 0.42–0.79), with the 1.5 mile (rp = 0.79, 0.73–0.85) and 12 min walk/run tests (rp = 0.78, 0.72–0.83) having the higher criterion-related validity for distance- and time-based field tests, respectively. The present meta-analysis also showed that sex, age and maximum oxygen uptake level do not seem to affect the criterion-related validity of the walk/run tests. Conclusions: When the evaluation of an individual’s maximum oxygen uptake attained during a laboratory test is not feasible, the 1.5 mile and 12 min walk/run tests represent useful alternatives for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness. As in the assessment with any physical fitness field test, evaluators must be aware that the performance score of the walk/run field tests is simply an estimation and not a direct measure of cardiorespiratory fitness.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Mayorga-Vega & Raúl Bocanegra-Parrilla & Martha Ornelas & Jesús Viciana, 2016. "Criterion-Related Validity of the Distance- and Time-Based Walk/Run Field Tests for Estimating Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151671
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151671
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151671&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151671?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaolu Feng & Jun Qiu & Yangyang Wang & Xinyi Wen & Lili Bai & Hongjun Yu, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 on 1000 m Running and Pull-Up Performance among College Men Living in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-9, August.
    2. Oliver Funch & Henriette A. Hasselstrøm & Thomas P. Gunnarsson, 2021. "Validation and Practical Applications of Performance in a 6-Min Rowing Test in the Danish Armed Forces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Peter Petrovics & Barbara Sandor & Anita Palfi & Zsolt Szekeres & Tamas Atlasz & Kalman Toth & Eszter Szabados, 2020. "Association between Obesity and Overweight and Cardiorespiratory and Muscle Performance in Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.