Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MORGAN, K.
Right arrow Articles by PHILIPP, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by MORGAN, K.
Right arrow Articles by PHILIPP, R
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1984 Oxford University Press

research-article

Reliability of a Test of Cardiovascular Fitness

KIERAN MORGAN*, A O HUGHES{dagger} and R PHILIPP{dagger}

*Medical Research Council, National Survey of Health and Development, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Bristol Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK.
{dagger}Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Bristol

Morgan K (Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK), Hughes A 0 and Philipp R. Reliability of a test of cardiovascular fitness. International Journal of Epidemiology 1984, 13: 32–37.

The reliability of a simple, cheap and portable test for estimating cardio-respiratory fitness (the Canadian Home Fitness Test) was assessed by the test/retest method. Substantial intra-subject variation was demonstrated which was between 49% and 85% of the observed group variation. At the 95% confidence level, this intra-subject variation represented an error of between 19.2% and 25.9% on the key measurement (mean post-exercise heart rate) depending on the degree of work done. The probable reason for this poor repeatability was observer error and this is discussed. It is concluded that this test is not suitable for either clinical or population research and alternative methods, such as historical review of physical activity, may be more useful.

Revised 1 February 1983


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.