nsca cscs chapter 12 principles of test selection and administration

nsca cscs chapter 12 principles of test selection and administration

The strength and conditioning professional with a broad
understanding of exercise science can effectively use
tests and measurements to make training decisions that
help athletes achieve their goals and maximize their
potential. Tests and measurements form the objective
core of the evaluation process. This chapter covers the
reasons for testing, testing terminology, evaluation of test
quality, the selection of appropriate tests, and aspects of
proper test administration.
Reasons for Testing
Testing helps athletes and coaches assess athletic talent
and identify physical abilities and areas in need of
improvement. In addition, test scores can be used in goal
setting. Baseline measurements can be used to establish
starting points against which achievable goals can be set,
and testing at regular intervals can help track an athlete’s
progress in reaching those goals. Using tests as a basis
for goal setting allows coaches to set specific goals for
individual athletes that, when taken together, help to
accomplish group or team objectives (see chapter 8 for
more information about goal setting).
Assessment of Athletic Talent
It is important for a coach to determine whether an
individual has the physical potential to play a sport at
the competitive level of the team. That judgment is not
difficult if the candidate has already excelled at the sport
elsewhere and is of adequate body size. However, in
many cases, candidates have not clearly demonstrated
their competitive abilities or may lack experience in the
sport. The coach then needs some way of determining
whether the candidate has the necessary basic physical
abilities that, in combination with technique training and
practice, could produce a competitive player. Field tests
serve as tools for such assessment.
Identification of Physical Abilities
in Need of Improvement
While some physical abilities are innate and not amenable
to change, other physical abilities can be improved
through physical training. By using appropriate testing
methods and analysis, the strength and conditioning
professional can determine which physical qualities of
the athletes can be targeted by participation in prescribed
exercise programs (25, 28).
?? Testing can be used to assess athletic talent,
identify physical abilities and areas in need
of improvement, set goals, and evaluate
progress.
Testing Terminology
To communicate clearly with athletes and colleagues,
strength and conditioning professionals should use consistent
terminology. The following terms and definitions
are widely accepted and are used in this text:
test — A procedure for assessing ability in a particular
endeavor.
field test — A test used to assess ability that is performed
away from the laboratory and does not require
extensive training or expensive equipment (8).
measurement — The process of collecting test data
(14).
evaluation — The process of analyzing test results for
the purpose of making decisions. For example, a
coach examines the results of physical performance
tests to determine whether the athlete’s training program
is effective in helping achieve the training goals
or whether modifications in the program are needed.
pretest — A test administered before the beginning of
training to determine the athlete’s initial basic ability
levels. A pretest allows the coach to design the
training program in keeping with the athlete’s initial
training level and the overall program objectives.
midtest — A test administered one or more times during
the training period to assess progress and modify the
program as needed to maximize benefit.
formative evaluation — Periodic reevaluation based on
midtests administered during the training, usually at
regular intervals (2). It enables monitoring of the athlete’s
progress and adjustment of the training program
according to the athlete’s individual needs. It also
allows evaluation of different training methods and
collection of normative data. Regular modification of
the training program based on formative evaluation
keeps the training program fresh and interesting and
helps avoid physical and mental staleness.
posttest — Test administered after the training period
to determine the success of the training program in
achieving the training objectives.
Evaluation of Test Quality
Test results are useful only if the test actually measures
what it is supposed to measure (validity) and if the
measurement is repeatable (reliability). These two characteristics
are the key factors in evaluating test quality
and must be present in order for the test to be beneficial.
Validity
Validity refers to the degree to which a test or test item
measures what it is supposed to measure, and is one of
the most important characteristics of testing (2, 22). For
tests of physical properties such as height and weight,
validity is easy to establish. For example, close correspondence
between the readings on a spring scale and the
readings on a calibrated balance scale indicates validity
of weighing with the spring scale. The validity of tests
of basic athletic abilities or capacities is more difficult to
establish. There are several types of validity, including
construct validity, face validity, content validity, and
criterion-referenced validity.
?? Validity is the degree to which a test or
test item measures what it is supposed to
measure; this is one of the most important
characteristics of testing.
Construct Validity
Construct validity is the ability of a test to represent the
underlying construct (the theory developed to organize
and explain some aspects of existing knowledge and
observations). Construct validity refers to overall validity,
or the extent to which the test actually measures what
it was designed to measure (21). Face validity, content
validity, and criterion-referenced validity, defined next,
are secondary to and provide evidence for construct
validity.
To be valid, physical performance tests should measure
abilities important in the sport, produce repeatable
results (see the later section on reliability), measure the
performance of one athlete at a time (unless otherwise
specified in the protocol), appear meaningful, be of
suitable difficulty, be able to differentiate between various
levels of ability, permit accurate scoring, include
a sufficient number of trials, and withstand the test of
statistical evaluation. Given the choice between two
valid tests, consideration should be given to simplicity
and economy of test administration.
Face Validity
Face validity is the appearance to the athlete and other
casual observers that the test measures what it is purported
to measure. If a test or test item has face validity,
the athlete is more likely to respond to it positively (1).
The assessment of face validity is generally informal
and nonquantitative. In other fields, such as psychology,
tests may be deliberately constructed to have poor face
validity because if examinees realize what a test or test
item is supposed to measure, they can answer deceptively
to manipulate their scores. For tests of basic athletic
abilities, however, face validity is desirable based on
the assumption that anyone taking a test of physical
ability wants to do well and is thus motivated by a test
that appears to measure a relevant capability.
Content Validity
Content validity is the assessment by experts that the
testing covers all relevant subtopics or component abilities
in appropriate proportions (1). For athletic testing,
these include all the component abilities needed for a
particular sport or sport position. Examples of component
abilities in athletics are jumping ability, sprinting
ability, and lower body strength (34). For example, a
test battery for potential soccer players should include,
at minimum, tests of sprinting speed, agility, endurance,
and kicking power. To ensure content validity,
the test developer should list the ability components to
be assessed and make sure they are all represented on
the test. In addition, the proportion of the total score
attributable to a particular component ability should be
proportional to the importance of that component to total
performance. While the terms face validity and content
validity are sometimes used interchangeably, the latter
relates to actual validity while the former relates to the
appearance of validity to nonexperts (1).
Criterion-Referenced Validity
Criterion-referenced validity is the extent to which
test scores are associated with some other measure of
the same ability. There are three types of criterion-referenced
validity: concurrent, predictive, and discriminant.
Concurrent validity is the extent to which test scores
are associated with those of other accepted tests that
measure the same ability. Criterion-referenced validity
is often estimated statistically. For example, a Pearson
product–moment correlation coefficient based on the
scores on a new body fat assessment device and those
from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry would provide
a measure of the concurrent validity of the new test.
Convergent validity is evidenced by high positive
correlation between results of the test being assessed
and those of the recognized measure of the construct
(the “gold standard”). Convergent validity is the type of
concurrent validity that field tests used by strength and
conditioning professionals should exhibit. A test may be
preferable to the gold standard if it exhibits convergent
validity with the standard but is less demanding in terms
of time, equipment, expense, or expertise.
Predictive validity is the extent to which the test
score corresponds with future behavior or performance.
This can be measured through comparison of a test score
with some measure of success in the sport itself. For
example, one could calculate the statistical correlation
between the overall score on a battery of tests used to
assess potential for basketball and a measurement of
actual basketball performance as indicated by a composite
of such quantities as points scored, rebounds, assists,
blocked shots, forced turnovers, and steals.
Discriminant validity is the ability of a test to distinguish
between two different constructs and is evidenced
by a low correlation between the results of the test and
those of tests of a different construct (2). It is best if
tests in a battery measure relatively independent ability
components (e.g., flexibility, speed, aerobic endurance).
Good discriminant validity of tests in a battery avoids
unnecessary expenditures of time, energy, and resources
in administering tests that correlate very highly with
each other.
Reliability
Reliability is a measure of the degree of consistency or
repeatability of a test (2, 15). If an athlete whose ability
does not change is measured two times with a perfectly
reliable test, the same score is obtained both times. On
an unreliable test, an individual could obtain a high
score on one day and a low score on another. A test must
be reliable to be valid, because highly variable results
have little meaning. However, even a reliable test may
not be valid, because the test may not measure what it
is supposed to measure. For example, both the 60 m
(66-yard) dash and the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) run are reliable
field tests, but only the 1.5-mile run is considered a valid
field test for aerobic fitness. It is also possible for a test
to be highly reliable for one group (e.g., college tennis
players) but only moderately reliable for another group
(e.g., high school tennis players) because of differences
in physical or emotional maturity and skill level, which
can affect test performance.
There are several ways to determine the reliability of
a test; the most obvious one is to administer the same test
several times to the same group of athletes. Statistical
correlation of the scores from two administrations provides
a measure of test–retest reliability. Any difference
between the two sets of scores represents measurement
error. Another statistic that can be calculated is the typical
error of measurement (TE), which includes both
the equipment error and biological variation of athletes
(15). The difference between two sets of scores can arise
from a number of different factors (2):
• Intrasubject (within subjects) variability
• Lack of interrater (between raters) reliability or
agreement
• Intrarater (within raters) variability
• Failure of the test itself to provide consistent
results
?? Reliability is a measure of the degree of
consistency or repeatability of a test. A test
must be reliable to be valid, because highly
variable results have little meaning.
Intrasubject variability is a lack of consistent performance
by the person being tested. Interrater reliability,
also referred to as objectivity or interrater agreement
(2), is the degree to which different raters agree in their
test results over time or on repeated occasions; it is a
measure of consistency. A clearly defined scoring system
and competent scorers who are trained and experienced
with the test are essential to enhance interrater reliability.
For example, even a test that appears simple, such
as timing a 40-yard (37 m) dash with a stopwatch, can
exhibit both random and systematic error if the timer is
not trained and experienced. Sprint times obtained using
handheld stopwatches are typically shorter than those
obtained using automatic timers, because raters using
stopwatches exhibit reaction-time delay when pressing
the start button in response to the gun but do not delay
in pressing the button at the finish line because they
can see the athlete approaching. Interrater reliability
is particularly important if different scorers administer
tests to different subgroups of athletes. A subgroup with
a relatively lenient scorer will have artificially inflated
scores. To get an accurate measure of improvement, the
same scorer should test a group at the beginning and
the end of the training period. If there are two scorers
and the scorer at the beginning is more or less lenient
than the scorer at the end, the resulting measurements
may be worthless for comparative purposes. Consider
a situation in which an athlete is tested in the squat. If
the pretest scorer is more lenient (requiring less depth
on the squat) than the posttest scorer, the athlete may
achieve a lower test score on the posttest despite having
made a significant improvement in strength.
Sources of interrater differences include variations
in calibrating testing devices, preparing athletes, and
running the test. Different testers may motivate athletes
to different degrees, based on factors such as personality,
status, physical appearance, demeanor, and sex. A
common scenario that increases interrater variability
occurs when the coach tests some of the athletes while
an assistant tests others. The athletes may be inspired to
do better on the tests administered by the coach.
Intrarater variability is the lack of consistent scores
by a given tester. This differs from interrater reliability,
which refers to the degree of agreement between
different testers. For example, a coach eager to see
improvement may unintentionally be more lenient on
a posttest than on a pretest. Other causes of intrarater
variability include inadequate training; inattentiveness;
lack of concentration; or failure to follow standardized
procedures for device calibration, athlete preparation,
test administration, or test scoring. To avoid such problems,
accurate and consistent athletic testing should be
a priority for all strength and conditioning professionals.
Finally, sometimes the test itself might fail to provide
consistent results. This may occur if a physical performance
test requires a technique in which the athlete has
not developed consistency. More technique-intensive
tests generally exhibit greater variability in results and
require more pretest practice to produce consistency.
Test Selection
When evaluating tests for high levels of validity and
reliability, the strength and conditioning professional
must rely on her or his knowledge base and practical
experience with the sport. The strength and conditioning
professional must consider sport specificity (e.g.,
metabolic energy systems, biomechanical movement
patterns), athlete experience, training status, age, and
environmental factors when selecting tests.
Metabolic Energy System Specificity
A valid test must emulate the energy requirements of
the sport for which ability is being assessed. Thus, the
strength and conditioning professional should have a
thorough understanding of the basic energy systems
(phosphagen, glycolytic, and oxidative) and their interrelationships
in order to apply the principle of specificity
when choosing or designing valid tests to measure
athletic ability for specific sports (7, 10, 16, 33). For
example, in choosing an appropriate test for running
ability in basketball, the strength and conditioning
professional must understand that basketball is predominantly
an anaerobic running sport (3, 23) and also be
familiar with the distances and directions of sprints in
a basketball game. It is best for the tests to simulate the
physical movements and energy demands of a real game.
Biomechanical Movement Pattern
Specificity
All else being equal, the more similar the test is to an
important movement in the sport, the better. Sports differ
in their physical demands. For example, the vertical
jump test is very specific to basketball and volleyball,
both of which involve vertical jumping during play, but
less relevant to hockey, which does not involve vertical
jumping. Positions within a sport differ as well. An
American football defensive lineman needs pushing
strength to move opposing linemen out of the way
and 5- to 15-yard (5 to 14 m) sprint speed to reach the
opposing quarterback, while a wide receiver depends
less on pushing strength but must be able to sprint 30 to
100 yards (27–91 m) quickly. Thus, the bench press and
10-yard (9 m) sprint test would be more relevant to the
lineman, while sprint tests of 30 to 100 yards (27–91 m)
would be more relevant to the wide receiver.
?? For a test to be valid, it must emulate the
energy requirements and important movements
of the sport for which ability is being
tested.
Experience and Training Status
For a well-trained, experienced athlete, a technique-intensive
test may be appropriate because it can be very
sport specific, and one can assume that poor technique
will not impair performance of the test. However, this
assumption cannot be made for an athlete just learning
or trying out for a sport. The number of one-leg hops
needed to travel 27 yards (25 m) may represent a valid
and reliable test of plyometric strength for an experienced
long jumper but not for a novice (8).
Testers must also consider the training status of the
athletes being tested. It would not be ideal, for example,
to ask a baseball player to perform a 3-mile (4.8 km) run
test a week before the beginning of fall practice, because
the player has probably been doing interval training
and relatively short runs (29). A lower body strength
test using the parallel squat would not be an ideal test
for an athlete who has trained using the leg press
exclusively.
Age and Sex
Both age and sex can affect the validity and reliability
of a test. For example, the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) run may
be a valid and reliable field test of aerobic power for
college-aged men and women (18) but may not be
appropriate for preadolescents because of their probable
lack of experience and interest in sustained running
(27). A test of the maximum number of chin-ups that
can be performed may be a valid test of elbow flexion
muscular endurance for male wrestlers, but it may not
be as valid for females due to differences in upper body
pulling strength (24). The test may not be capable of
differentiating muscular endurance levels in females.
Therefore using a modified prone pull-up with the feet
supported may be a more valid test.
Environmental Factors
It is necessary to consider the environment when selecting
and administering tests of basic athletic ability.
High ambient temperature, especially in combination
with high humidity, can impair endurance exercise performance,
pose health risks, and lower the validity of
an aerobic endurance exercise test. Aerobic endurance
performance (26, 32) and intermittent sprint performance
(13) may be impaired when the temperature approaches
80 °F, especially if the humidity exceeds 50% (17). The
effects of temperature and humidity on testing performance
can create problems for comparing the results of
tests administered at different times of year, on different
days, and even at different times of day. For example,
the maximal oxygen uptake of an athlete impaired by the
heat is underestimated by the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) run test.
Run times can also be impaired by cold temperatures.
Thus, outdoor aerobic endurance tests may be inappropriate
at locations characterized by wide fluctuations in
temperature. In such places, aerobic endurance tests can
be administered on an indoor track, if available, or with
a treadmill or stationary cycle.
Altitude can also impair performance on aerobic
endurance tests, although not on tests of strength and
power (11). Norms on aerobic endurance tests should
be adjusted when testing at altitudes exceeding 1,900
feet (580 m). Up to about 9,000 feet (2,740 m), maximal
oxygen uptake declines by approximately 5% for each
3,000 feet (910 m) of elevation. At even higher altitudes,
maximal oxygen uptake declines more sharply. Athletes
who arrive at a relatively high altitude after living near
sea level for an extended period of time should be given
at least 10 days to acclimatize before undergoing aerobic
endurance tests (31). For all testing, it is good practice
to measure and document the environmental conditions
and then to consider these factors when interpreting the
results.
?? Athletes’ experience, training status, age,
and sex can affect test performance, so
these factors should be considered in test
selection. Environmental factors such as
temperature, humidity, and altitude can
also influence test performance, so testers
should try to standardize environmental
conditions as much as possible.
Test Administration
To achieve accurate test results, tests must be administered
safely, correctly, and in an organized manner.
Strength and conditioning professionals should ensure
the health and safety of athletes; testers should be carefully
selected and trained; tests should be well organized
and administered efficiently; and athletes should be
properly prepared and instructed.
Health and Safety Considerations
Even though all athletes should be medically cleared
before being permitted to physically train and compete,
the strength and conditioning professional must be
aware of testing conditions that can threaten the health
of athletes and be observant of signs and symptoms of
health problems that warrant exclusion from testing
(4). The strength and conditioning professional must
remain attentive to the health status of athletes, especially
before, during, and after maximal exertions that occur
during training, testing, and competition. Strenuous
exercise, such as maximal runs or 1-repetition maximum
(1RM) tests, can uncover or worsen existing heart problems,
such as impaired blood flow to the heart muscle
and irregular heartbeats. Standard medical screening
cannot always reveal hidden heart problems, which
occasionally result in fatality among young athletes (27).
Heat injury is also a risk during heavy physical exertion
in hot environments, especially when humidity is high.
Athletes should wear light clothing in warm weather
and drink water ad libitum according to the dictates
of thirst before and during heavy physical exertion in
the heat (refer to chapters 9 and 10 for more detailed
hydration guidelines). Musculoskeletal injuries can also
be a problem. If symptoms are ignored, recovery can be
greatly delayed.
Medical referral may be warranted for an athlete who
persistently has any of the following symptoms: chest
pressure, pain, or discomfort; listlessness; light-headedness;
dizziness; confusion; headache; deeply reddened
or cold and clammy skin; irregular pulse; bone or joint
pain; blurred vision; nausea; or shortness of breath, rapid
pulse, or weakness either not commensurate with the
level of exertion or unresponsive to rest. Such symptoms
can occur long after exercise is terminated. Even
symptoms that occur only once, if severe (such as loss
of consciousness), call for immediate medical attention.
When aerobic endurance exercise tests are being
administered in a hot environment, caution must be
observed to protect both the health and safety of the
athlete and the validity of the test. Figure 12.1 lists
temperature limits at various ranges of relative humidity
for strenuous exercise testing, and the sidebar lists
guidelines for aerobic endurance testing in the heat.
Selection and Training of Testers
Test administrators should be well trained and should
have a thorough understanding of all testing procedures
and protocols. The testing supervisor should make sure
that all novice personnel perform and score all tests
correctly, as in timing sprint speed with a stopwatch or
determining a 1RM back squat. It is essential that all
testers have sufficient practice so that the scores they
obtain correlate closely with those produced by experienced
and reliable personnel. The testers should be
trained to explain and administer the tests as consistently
as possible. Test reliability is impaired, for example,
if one test administrator provides considerable verbal
encouragement to a group of athletes while another tester
provides no verbal encouragement to another group.
Administrators should have a checklist of materials
needed for testing and written test protocols to refer to
if questions arise during the testing process.
Recording Forms
Scoring forms should be developed before the testing
session and should have space for all test results and
comments. Factors such as environmental conditions
should be documented. The specific details of setup for
the testing should also be noted. For example, for a 1RM
squat, the tester can note the pin height that was used
for the barbell. This allows test time to be used more
efficiently and reduces the incidence of recording errors.
Test Format
A well-organized testing session, in which the athletes
are aware of the purpose and procedures of the testing,
will enhance the reliability of test measures. Reliable
measures obtained from valid tests are a great asset in
assessing fitness levels and evaluating changes over a
period of time.
Test planning must address such issues as whether
athletes will be tested all at once or in groups and
whether the same person will administer a given test to
all athletes. The main consideration here is the number of
athletes that are being tested. It is preferable to have the
same person administer a given test if time and schedules
permit, because this eliminates the issue of interrater
reliability. If this is not feasible, the test supervisor can
allow simple, well-defined tests (such as counting correct
push-ups) to be administered by different testers and tests
requiring schooled judgment (as of proper form in the
squat) to be scored by the most skilled and experienced
personnel. As a rule, each tester should administer only
one test at a time, especially when the tests require
complex judgments. It is permissible to have one tester
alternate between two testing stations to avoid wasting
time as athletes get ready. However, the tester must focus
on only one test at a time. Planning and practicing the
testing sessions beforehand will go a long way toward
ensuring an efficiently run testing session.
Testing Batteries
and Multiple Testing Trials
When time is limited and the group of athletes is large,
duplicate test setups may be employed to make efficient
use of testing time. For example, when one is conducting
the 300-yard (274 m) shuttle, two test courses can be set
up (12). A tester can administer up to two nonfatiguing
tests in sequence to an athlete as long as test reliability
can be maintained. For example, at a two-test lower body
power station staffed by only one tester, the athlete can
perform the vertical jump test and the static jump test
immediately afterward.
When multiple trials of a test (e.g., the repeated trials
it takes to find a 1RM) or a battery of tests is performed,
allow complete recovery between trials (28). There
should be at least 2 minutes of rest between attempts
that are not close to the athlete’s maximum and 3 minutes
between attempts that are close to the maximum,
as judged by the relative difficulty of the previous trial
or testing set (19). When administering a test battery
(e.g., one in which wrestlers perform maximal repetition
pull-up and push-up tests for assessment of local
muscular endurance), tests should be separated by at
least 5 minutes to prevent the effects of fatigue from
confounding test results (also see the following section,
“Sequence of Tests”).
Sequence of Tests
Knowledge of exercise science can help determine the
proper order of tests and the duration of rest periods
between tests to ensure test reliability. The fundamental
principle with test sequencing should be that one test
should not affect the performance of a subsequent test.
This should allow for optimal performance in each test
and also allows for valid comparisons with previous
testing results. For example, a test that maximally taxes
the phosphagen energy system requires 3 to 5 minutes
of rest for complete recovery (5, 9), whereas a maximal
test of the anaerobic glycolytic energy system requires at
least 1 hour for complete recovery (7). Therefore, tests
requiring high-skill movements, such as agility tests,
should be administered before tests that are likely to
produce fatigue and confound the results of subsequent
tests. A logical sequence, although there are some variations,
is to administer tests in this order:
1. Nonfatiguing tests (e.g., height, weight, flexibility,
skinfold and girth measurements, vertical
jump)
2. Agility tests (e.g., T-test, pro agility test)
3. Maximum power and strength tests (e.g., 1RM
power clean, 1RM squat)
4. Sprint tests (e.g., 40 m sprint with split times at
10 m and 20 m)
5. Local muscular endurance tests (e.g., push-up test)
6. Fatiguing anaerobic capacity tests (e.g., 300-yard
[275 m] shuttle)
7. Aerobic capacity tests (e.g., 1.5-mile [2.4 km] run
or Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test)
The test order should also be designed to require minimal
recovery time between tests, allowing for a more
efficient testing session. An effort should be made to
administer fatiguing anaerobic capacity tests and aerobic
tests on a different day than the other tests. However, if
performed on the same day, these tests should be performed
last, after an extended rest period.
It is important that test sessions be conducted at the
same time of day to avoid fluctuations in physiological
responses due to differences in circadian rhythm (30).
It is also recommended that tests be conducted indoors,
which will allow for climate and testing surfaces to
remain more consistent.
?? The order of tests should be designed in
such a way that the completion of one test
does not adversely affect performance in
subsequent tests.
Follow these guidelines to minimize health risks and obtain accurate results when testing athletes in hot
environments (6, 20, 27):
1. During the weeks before the test, athletes should engage in enough training to establish a baseline
of fitness in the activity being tested. Strength and conditioning professionals should be aware that
responses to exercise in the heat are highly individual.
2. Avoid testing under extreme combinations of heat and humidity. Figure 12.1 lists the combinations
of temperature and humidity at which heat injury risk is present. Using temperature limits at least 5
°F (3 °C) below those listed is recommended, especially on sunny days, to provide a safety margin
and enable better test performance. On days when the temperature has exceeded or is expected
to exceed the recommended limits, indoor facilities should be used if available; or testing should be
conducted during morning or early evening hours when temperatures are acceptable.
3. The athletes, especially those coming from cool climates, should be acclimatized to the heat and
humidity for at least one week before testing. Start with short workouts and progress to workouts of
longer duration.
4. Athletes should make sure they are well hydrated in the 24-hour period preceding aerobic endurance
testing in the heat. A good indication of adequate hydration is a plentiful volume of clear urine (refer
to chapter 9 for more detailed preexercise hydration guidelines). Salt tablets should generally be
avoided.
5. Athletes should be encouraged to drink during exercise in the heat. Plain water is most appropriate
for exercise up to 1 hour in duration. Snack breaks during longer durations of training can help replenish
fluids and be important in replacing electrolytes. The amount and rate of fluid replacement depend
on individual sweat rates, duration of exercise, and environment. Refer to chapter 9 for specific guidelines
and how to calculate sweat rate if needed.
6. Athletes should wear a light-colored, loose-fitting tank top and shorts that are breathable (i.e., synthetic
porous, moisture-wicking material). Male athletes may be allowed to go shirtless.
7. Heart rate may be monitored to detect reactions to the heat.
8. Be attentive to possible symptoms of heatstroke or heat exhaustion: cramps, nausea, dizziness, difficulty
in walking or standing, faintness, garbled speech, lack of sweat, red or ashen skin, and goose
bumps.
9. Be aware of the symptoms of hyponatremia or water intoxication, a potentially fatal condition in
which excess water intake reduces blood sodium to dangerously low levels. Symptoms may include
extremely dilute urine in combination with bloated skin, altered consciousness, or loss of consciousness,
with no increase in body temperature. A victim of hyponatremia should never be given fluid and
should be treated by a physician.
10. Proficient medical coverage should be readily available so that an athlete encountering a test-related
health problem can be very rapidly treated or evacuated (or both).
Preparing Athletes for Testing
The date, time, and purpose of a test battery should be
announced in advance to allow athletes to prepare physically
and mentally. To maximize test reliability, athletes
should be familiar with test content and procedures.
A short, supervised pretest practice or familiarization
session one to three days before the test, in which the
athletes exert themselves at somewhat less than full
intensity, is often beneficial. If this is done, it should
be repeated at all future testing sessions. One strategy
could be to incorporate familiarization of the tests into
training sessions.
The instructions should cover the purpose of the
test, how it is to be performed, the amount of warm-up
recommended, the number of practice attempts allowed,
the number of trials, test scoring, criteria for disallowing
attempts, and recommendations for maximizing performance.
The instructions that are given to the athletes
need to be clear and concise as this will increase the
reliability and objectivity of the test (22).
As an important supplement to reading test instructions
aloud, the test administrator or a competent assistant
should demonstrate proper test performance when
possible. The athletes should be given opportunities to
ask questions before and after the demonstration. The
test administrator should anticipate questions and have
answers prepared. It is important to motivate all athletes
equally rather than giving special encouragement to only
some. Whenever possible, tell athletes their test scores
immediately after each trial to motivate them to perform
better on subsequent trials (2).
Reliability of testing improves with pretest warm-up
(2). An appropriately organized warm-up consists of a
general warm-up followed by a specific warm-up. Both
types of warm-ups include body movements similar to
those involved in the test. An organized, instructor-led
general warm-up ensures uniformity. It is acceptable
to allow two or three activity-specific warm-up trials,
depending on the test protocol, and have subsequent
trials actually count toward the score. Depending on the
test protocol, the score can be the best or the average of
the post-warm-up trials (2).
?? General and specific warm-ups performed
before a test can increase the test’s reliability.
Administer a supervised cool-down period to athletes
following tests that dramatically increase heart rate
and at the completion of the test battery. For example,
after the 300-yard (274 m) shuttle, the athlete should
not sit or lie down; active recovery using low-intensity
movement and light stretching will enhance the recovery
process (7).
Conclusion
Tests and measurements can be used to assess athletic
talent, identify physical capacities in need of improvement,
provide reference values to evaluate the effectiveness
of a training program, and set realistic training
goals. To optimize test quality, testers must understand
and consider validity and reliability. Test selection
involves consideration of the physiological energy systems
required by the sport; movement specificity; and
the athletes’ experience, training status, age, and sex.
Testers must also consider environmental factors such
as temperature, humidity, and altitude before administering
tests. Strength and conditioning professionals
must always remain conscious of potential health risks
during testing and attentive to signs and symptoms of
possible health problems that require medical referral.
Testers must be carefully selected and well trained, and
the testing session must be well planned and organized
using the appropriate testing sequence. Consistent and
effective preparation of athletes for testing is essential.