Cooper S-M, Baker J S, Tong R J, Roberts E, Hanford M
University of Wales Institute Cardiff, UK.
Br J Sports Med. 2005 Apr;39(4):e19. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.013078.
To investigate the repeatability and criterion related validity of the 20 m multistage fitness test (MFT) for predicting maximal oxygen uptake (Vo(2max)) in active young men.
Data were gathered from two phases using 30 subjects (x+/-s; age = 21.8+/-3.6 years, mass = 76.9+/-10.7 kg, stature = 1.76+/-0.05 m). MFT repeatability was investigated in phase 1 where 21 subjects performed the test twice. The MFT criterion validity to predict Vo(2max) was investigated in phase 2 where 30 subjects performed a continuous incremental laboratory test to volitional exhaustion to determine Vo(2max) and the MFT.
Phase 1 showed non-significant bias between the two applications of the MFT (x(diff)+/-s(diff) = -0.4+/-1.4 ml kg(-1) min(-1); t = -1.37, p = 0.190) with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) +/-2.7 ml kg(-1) min(-1) and heteroscedasticity 0.223 (p = 0.330). Log transformation of these data reduced heteroscedasticity to 0.056 (p = 0.808) with bias -0.007+/-0.025 (t = -1.35, p = 0.190) and LoA+/-0.049. Antilogs gave a mean bias on the ratio scale of 0.993 and random error (ratio limits) x/divided by 1.050. Phase 2 showed that the MFT significantly underpredicted Vo(2max) (x(diff)+/-s(diff) = 1.8+/-3.2 ml kg(-1) min(-1); t = 3.10, p = 0.004). LoA were +/-6.3 ml kg(-1) min(-1) and heteroscedasticity 0.084 (p = 0.658). Log transformation reduced heteroscedasticity to -0.045 (p = 0.814) with LoA+/-0.110. The significant systematic bias was not eliminated (x(diff)+/-s(diff) = 0.033+/-0.056; t = 3.20, p = 0.003). Antilogs gave a mean bias of 1.034 with random error x/divided by 1.116.
These findings lend support to previous investigations of the MFT by identifying that in the population assessed it provides results that are repeatable but it routinely underestimates Vo(2max) when compared to laboratory determinations. Unlike previous findings, however, these results show that when applying an arguably more appropriate analysis method, the MFT does not provide valid predictions of Vo(2max).
研究20米多级体能测试(MFT)在预测活跃青年男性最大摄氧量(Vo₂max)方面的重复性和标准关联效度。
使用30名受试者(x±s;年龄 = 21.8±3.6岁,体重 = 76.9±10.7千克,身高 = 1.76±0.05米)分两个阶段收集数据。在第一阶段,21名受试者进行两次测试,研究MFT的重复性。在第二阶段,30名受试者进行持续递增的实验室测试直至自愿力竭,以确定Vo₂max和MFT,研究MFT预测Vo₂max的标准效度。
第一阶段显示,MFT的两次测试之间无显著偏差(x差异±s差异 = -0.4±1.4毫升·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹;t = -1.37,p = 0.190),95%一致性界限(LoA)为±2.7毫升·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹,异方差性为0.223(p = 0.330)。对这些数据进行对数转换后,异方差性降至0.056(p = 0.808),偏差为-0.007±0.025(t = -1.35,p = 0.190),LoA为±0.049。反对数给出的比率尺度上的平均偏差为0.993,随机误差(比率界限)x/除以1.050。第二阶段显示,MFT显著低估了Vo₂max(x差异±s差异 = 1.8±3.2毫升·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹;t = 3.10,p = 0.004)。LoA为±6.3毫升·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹,异方差性为0.084(p = 0.658)。对数转换将异方差性降至-0.045(p = 0.814),LoA为±0.110。显著的系统偏差未消除(x差异±s差异 = 0.033±0.056;t = 3.20,p = 0.003)。反对数给出的平均偏差为1.034,随机误差x/除以1.116。
这些发现支持了之前对MFT的研究,表明在所评估的人群中,它提供的结果是可重复的,但与实验室测定相比,它通常会低估Vo₂max。然而,与之前的发现不同,这些结果表明,当应用一种 arguably 更合适的分析方法时,MFT并不能有效预测Vo₂max。