View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development of 1-Mile Walk Tests to Estimate Aerobic Fitness in Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development of 1-Mile Walk Tests to Estimate Aerobic Fitness in Children
Language: English
Authors: Sung, Hoyong, Collier, David N., DuBose, Katrina D., Kemble, C. David, Mahar, Matthew T.
Source: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2018 22(2):167-176.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Test Construction, Physical Fitness, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Physical Activities, Multiple Regression Analysis, Preadolescents, Early Adolescents, Measurement Techniques, Equipment, Diaries, Questionnaires, Body Composition, Body Weight, Body Height, Exercise Physiology, Statistical Analysis
DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1405810
ISSN: 1091-367X
Abstract: To examine the reliability and validity of 1-mile walk tests for estimation of aerobic fitness (VO[subscript 2max]) in 10- to 13-year-old children and to cross-validate previously published equations. Participants (n = 61) walked 1-mile on two different days. Self-reported physical activity, demographic variables, and aerobic fitness were used in multiple regression analyses. Eight models were developed with various combinations of predictors. The recommended model for fitness testing in schools was: VO[subscript 2max] = 120.702 + (4.114 × Sex [F = 0, M = 1]) - (2.918 × 1-mile Walk Time [min]) - (2.841 × Age), R = 0.73, standard error of estimate = 6.36 mL·kg[superscript -1]·min[superscript -1]. Cross-validation of previously published equations demonstrated lower correlations with measured VO[subscript 2max] than the newly developed walk tests. Evidence of reliability and validity for 1-mile walk tests to estimate VO[subscript 2max] in young children was provided. The model that included 1-mile walk time, age, and sex may be appropriate for youth fitness testing in physical education, particularly for unmotivated or overweight young children.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 31
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1172511
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF-gxWZaepJaw-_9JGg1pyEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBpAZ5pilEx4C718rwIBEICBm7bWoH7qFuH3jMdYL37swGSKoUvslsnB5yCCSGD7Mdi5s8Re-KRWQHMDi9WjH3y9l9LanYVotp1vLQ_0-MzXhbj0Pl4Annzb7HGqjlEPztgL9CSu-fHy_2fZojtZQLl3Puv8Ad8-mGchhDXZTC1pGiYSwlz7IgukcXWoPZnpJN-1q44IcWMY79HX1vHa9O-qqWjWm98oMlB9oeHc
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0128422073;7mm01apr.18;2018Mar13.12:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0128422073-1">Development of 1-mile walk tests to estimate aerobic fitness in children </title> <p>To examine the reliability and validity of 1-mile walk tests for estimation of aerobic fitness (VO<sub>2max</sub>) in 10- to 13-year-old children and to cross-validate previously published equations. Participants (<italic>n </italic>= 61) walked 1-mile on two different days. Self-reported physical activity, demographic variables, and aerobic fitness were used in multiple regression analyses. Eight models were developed with various combinations of predictors. The recommended model for fitness testing in schools was: VO<sub>2max</sub> = 120.702 + (4.114 × Sex [F = 0, M = 1]) - (2.918 × 1-mile Walk Time [min]) - (2.841 × Age), <italic>R </italic>= .73, standard error of estimate = 6.36 mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>. Cross-validation of previously published equations demonstrated lower correlations with measured VO<sub>2max</sub> than the newly developed walk tests. Evidence of reliability and validity for 1-mile walk tests to estimate VO<sub>2max</sub> in young children was provided. The model that included 1-mile walk time, age, and sex may be appropriate for youth fitness testing in physical education, particularly for unmotivated or overweight young children.</p> <p>submaximal test; fitness test; estimated VO<sub>2</sub>max; youth fitness; field test</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Direct measurement of VO<subs>2max</subs> is considered the most accurate method to assess aerobic fitness. However, direct measurement of VO<subs>2max</subs> is not practical for testing large numbers of people because it requires expensive laboratory equipment, dedicated laboratory space, and trained technicians (Kline et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>] ; McSwegin, Plowman, Wolff, & Guttenberg, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>] ; Pober, Freedson, Kline, McInnis, & Rippe, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>] ). To avoid these limitations, several field-based tests such as the 20-m multi-stage shuttle run (Léger, Mercier, Gadoury, & Lambert, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>] ), Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER; Meredith & Welk, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>] ), 1-mile run/walk (Cureton, Sloniger, O’Bannon, Black, & McCormack, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>] ), and Anderson test (Andersen, Andersen, Andersen, & Anderssen, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>] ) have been developed to estimate VO<subs>2max</subs>. Participants must provide maximal exertion for accurate and meaningful results not only during the direct measurement of VO<subs>2max</subs>, but also during the PACER or any of the maximal effort distance run tests, which will be demanding for unmotivated, overweight, or unfit children.</p> <p>Some authors (e.g., Aadland, Terum, Mamen, Andersen, & Resaland, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>] ; Batista et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>] ; Melo et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>] ) conclude that reliability and validity evidence for estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> is adequate on a group level, but that estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> at the individual level have a substantial degree of variability. Nevertheless, in certain situations it may be desirable or necessary to provide the best estimate of VO<subs>2max</subs> available from field-based tests. For example, measures of aerobic fitness on the FitnessGram<sups>®</sups>, the national youth fitness test for the United States, are used to provide estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> from performance on field-based tests. Because the criterion-referenced healthy fitness zone standards for aerobic fitness were developed in the currency of VO<subs>2max</subs> (i.e., milliliters of oxygen per kg body mass per minute [mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>]), it is sometimes necessary to use equations to provide estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> from field-based tests.</p> <p>A walk test that does not require a maximal effort may provide a practical alternative test of aerobic fitness. However, few studies have examined walk tests for young children, especially for children under 14-years-old. Kline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>] ) developed regression equations for the 1-mile walk test for participants 30- to 69-years-old. In this study, participants were instructed to walk as fast as possible for 1 mile. The Kline et al. equations were shown to overestimate measured VO<subs>2max</subs> in college-age participants (Dolgener, Hensley, Marsh, & Fjelstul, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>] ), but several studies (Dolgener et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>] ; McSwegin et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>] ) supported its accuracy with high school students and highly fit adult participants. The equations developed by Dolgener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>] ) were demonstrated to be more accurate for young and lower fit participants than the Kline et al. equations (Dolgener et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The 6-minute walk test is a submaximal walking test used to quantify functional exercise capacity for individuals with various heart or lung diseases (American Thoracic Society, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>] ). The validity evidence for the ability of this test to estimate VO<subs>2max</subs> in children is weak. Few studies have examined the relationship between 6-minute walk test performance and measured VO<subs>2max</subs> in healthy children (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>] ). Li et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>] ) reported a correlation of.44 between 6-minute walk test performance and measured VO<subs>2max</subs> in 74 healthy adolescents. Calders et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>] ) reported correlations of.33 at admission and.46 at 3-month follow-up between 6-minute walk test performance and measured VO<subs>2max</subs> in 65 obese children and adolescents. The few other studies that examined the validity evidence for estimation of VO<subs>2max</subs> from 6-minute walk test performance were conducted on small samples of diseased patients (Gulmans, van Veldhoven, de Meer, & Helders, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>] ; Lelieveld, Takken, van der Net, & van Weert, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>] ; Nixon, Joswiak, & Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>] ). Little validity evidence is available for either the 6-minute walk test or the 1-mile walk test in young children.</p> <p>The primary purpose of this study was to develop and examine the validity and reliability of 1-mile walk test regression equations to predict aerobic fitness in children 10- to 13-years-old. A secondary purpose was to cross-validate previously published 1-mile walk equations.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-3">Methods</hd> <hd id="AN0128422073-4">Participants</hd> <p>Thirty boys and 31 girls 10- to 13-years-old were recruited from a university listserve, a pediatric obesity clinic, and by distribution of flyers. As monetary incentive, participants received $20 cash or gift card, and parents received $5 for transporting their children to the research site. The study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from the participant’s parent or guardian and assent was obtained from the participant. Every participant was screened for cardiovascular and orthopedic contraindications to the 1-mile walk and maximal treadmill test with the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (American College of Sports Medicine, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>] ). No participants had contraindications, and none were taking medication that could influence the heart rate response during exercise.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-5">Procedures and measurements</hd> <p>Testing took place in two sessions. During the first session, physical activity from self-report instruments, height, body mass, and percent body fat from the BOD POD were assessed, and participants completed a 1-mile walk test. The second 1-mile walk test was administered during the second session. At least 1 week was required between the first and second sessions. A maximal treadmill test was completed either during the first or second session following adequate rest after the 1-mile walk. Self-report instruments were administered at both sessions to allow an estimate of test-retest reliability. Instruments examined were the 30-Day Physical Activity Recall (30-Day PAR; Baumgartner, Jackson, Mahar, & Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>] ), Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>] ), Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>] ), and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (Kowalski, Crocker, & Donen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>] ). Height was measured with a stand-alone stadiometer to the nearest.1 cm (model 217, Seca Corporation, Birmingham, UK). Body mass was measured on an electronic-scale (COSMED USA, Inc., Concord, CA) to the nearest.1 kg. Before the BOD POD test (BOD POD Body Composition System, COSMED USA, Inc. Concord, CA), the system was warmed-up and calibrated. The Lohman ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>] ) density model was used to estimate percent body fat.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-6">1-mile walk</hd> <p>The 1-mile walk was performed indoors on a measured course. Participants wore a heart rate monitor (Polar Electro Incorporation, Woodbury, NY), and the tester wore the receiver watch of the heart rate monitor and used a stopwatch to time the walk. Before the test, participants were asked to walk with a slow, medium, and fast pace, and the tester asked “which pace do you think you can keep constant for one mile?” Participants were tested individually and instructed to walk at the chosen pace constantly for the entire distance. The tester walked with the participant, and verbal encouragement to complete the 1-mile distance was provided. The times and heart rates at a quarter-mile, a half-mile, and 1-mile walk distances were recorded.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-7">Maximal treadmill test</hd> <p>Participants were administered a graded exercise test to volitional exhaustion on a Trackmaster (model TMX425C, Carrollton, TX) treadmill to measure VO<subs>2max</subs> following the procedures of Mahar, Guerieri, Hanna, and Kemble ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>] ). Treadmill speed was set at 2.5 mph (2.0 mph for unfit participants) for the first minute and increased by.5 mph each minute until 5.0 mph (4.0 mph for unfit) was reached. Treadmill grade was maintained at 0% until 5.0 or 4.0 mph was reached. After reaching 5.0 mph (4.0 mph for unfit), speed was maintained, and grade was increased by 3% (2% for unfit) each minute until the participant was no longer able to continue. For the purposes of treadmill testing, unfit was defined as a participant with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg·m<sups>−2</sups> or a participant who took more than 20 minutes to complete the 1-mile walk. During the maximal treadmill test, VO<subs>2</subs> of participants was measured using a COSMED K4b<sups>2</sups> portable metabolic system (COSMED USA, Inc., Concord, CA). No participants reported limitations to their mobility or vision during the test. VO<subs>2max</subs> was accepted as a maximal index if two of the following three conditions were satisfied: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>) signs of intense effort such as hyperpnea, facial flushing and grimacing, unsteady gait, and sweating; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>) maximal heart rate reaching a value of at least 90% of age-predicted maximal heart rate (220-age); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>) respiratory exchange ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 (Armstrong & Welsman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>] ; Mahar et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-8">Self-reported physical activity</hd> <p>Participants completed four measures of self-reported physical activity twice with approximately 1 week between sessions. The 30-Day PAR (Baumgartner et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>] ) asks participants to rate their overall level of physical activity for the previous month on a 0 to 7 scale, with higher scores representing higher levels of physical activity (see Figure 1). An item from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>] ) asks participants how many of the past 7 days they participated in physical activity for a total of 30 to 60 minutes, or more, over the course of the day, and responses range from 0 to 7 days. The Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>] ) asks participants to answer a series of questions to arrive at a score on a 0 to 7 scale similar to the 30-Day PAR. The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (Kowalski et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>] ) asks participants to respond to items about their physical activity for the past 7 days. Eight items are scored on a 5-point scale and the average of those items represents a summary physical activity score.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-9">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>For the first stage of validation, data from the first walk test were used to develop new equations. The initial predictor variables were body mass, sex, age, self-reported physical activity from four instruments, time to walk 1 mile, and heart rate at the end of the walk. Body mass, sex, age, 1-mile walk time, 1-mile walk heart rate, and 30-Day PAR were used as final predictors because they were stronger predictors of measured VO<subs>2max</subs> than the other variables. The 30-Day PAR (see Figure 1) was selected over the other self-report instruments because it had acceptable test-retest reliability, a relatively high correlation with measured VO<subs>2max</subs> (see Table 2), and was easy to administer and complete. Multiple regression was used to estimate measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. The variables of body mass, age, heart rate, and 30-Day PAR were excluded from or added to other variables to examine whether that variable contributed significantly to the prediction of measured VO<subs>2max</subs>.</p> <p>Participant characteristics (M ± SD).</p> <ct id="AN0128422073-10"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tr><td>Variable</td><td align="center">Boys (n = 29)</td><td align="center">Girls (n = 29)</td><td align="center">Combined (n = 58)</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td>11.5 ± 1.2</td><td>11.8 ± 1.1</td><td>11.6 ± 1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Height (cm)</td><td>151.1 ± 9.1</td><td>152.1 ± 8.6</td><td>151.6 ± 8.8</td></tr><tr><td>Body Mass (kg)</td><td>43.5 ± 12.9</td><td>49.3 ± 18.8</td><td>46.4 ± 16.3</td></tr><tr><td>BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>18.7 ± 3.7</td><td>21.0 ± 6.6</td><td>19.8 ± 5.4</td></tr><tr><td>BMI percentile</td><td>50.0 ± 32.8</td><td>56.8 ± 28.8</td><td>55.3 ± 30.8</td></tr><tr><td>BMI z-score</td><td>0.01 ± 1.16</td><td>0.33 ± 1.11</td><td>0.17 ± 1.14</td></tr><tr><td>Body Fat (%)</td><td>20.8 ± 9.3</td><td>24.0 ± 10.2</td><td>23.2 ± 10.6</td></tr><tr><td>30-Day PAR</td><td colspan="3" /></tr><tr><td> 1st session</td><td>4.24 ± 1.99</td><td>4.55 ± 2.31</td><td>4.40 ± 2.14</td></tr><tr><td> 2nd session</td><td>4.69 ± 1.91</td><td>4.50 ± 2.19</td><td>4.60 ± 2.03</td></tr><tr><td>Measured VO<sub>2max</sub> (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>46.1 ± 7.7</td><td>40.2 ± 10.0*</td><td>43.1 ± 9.3</td></tr><tr><td>Maximal heart rate (b·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>196.8 ± 6.5</td><td>201.8 ± 9.1*</td><td>199.3 ± 8.2</td></tr><tr><td>Maximal RER</td><td>1.15 ± 0.10</td><td>1.15 ± 0.13</td><td>1.15 ± 0.12</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Percent body fat was measured from BOD POD; 30-Day PAR, 30-Day Physical Activity Recall; RER is respiratory exchange ratio.</p> <p>*p < .05, mean for girls is significantly different from mean for boys.</p> <p>Reliability estimates of self-reported physical activity measures and correlations with measured VO2max.</p> <ct id="AN0128422073-11"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="8"><tr><td>Instrument</td><td align="center">1st session</td><td align="center">2nd session</td><td align="center">ICC (2 trials)</td><td align="center">ICC (1 trial)</td><td align="center">p</td><td align="center">ES</td><td align="center">r</td></tr><tr><td>30-Day PAR</td><td>4.35 ± 2.13</td><td>4.60 ± 2.03</td><td>.87</td><td>.77</td><td>.20</td><td>−0.12</td><td>.59</td></tr><tr><td>Youth Risk Behavior Survey</td><td>4.58 ± 1.78</td><td>4.51 ± 1.57</td><td>.68</td><td>.52</td><td>.74</td><td>0.04</td><td>.46</td></tr><tr><td>PA Readiness Questionnaire</td><td>4.37 ± 2.19</td><td>4.30 ± 2.08</td><td>.74</td><td>.58</td><td>.79</td><td>0.03</td><td>.53</td></tr><tr><td>PA Questionnaire for Older Children</td><td>2.67 ± 0.60</td><td>2.70 ± 0.70</td><td>.85</td><td>.74</td><td>.59</td><td>−0.05</td><td>.48</td></tr><tr><td>Walk Time 1-mile (min)</td><td>15.94 ± 1.94</td><td>15.43 ± 1.98</td><td>.91</td><td>.83</td><td><.01</td><td>0.25</td><td>−.59</td></tr><tr><td>Heart Rate 1-mile (b·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>147 ± 22</td><td>147 ± 19</td><td>.83</td><td>.72</td><td>.70</td><td>−0.04</td><td>−.05</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. M ± SD; ICC is intra-class correlation coefficient (consistency model); p is p-value for mean comparison between 1st session and 2nd session; ES is effect size; r is correlation with measured VO<subs>2max</subs>; 30-Day PAR is 30-Day Physical Activity Recall; PA is Physical Activity. N = 57 for reliability analyses because one participant was missing data from the 2nd session.</p> <p>The developed equations were cross-validated with the PRESS (Predicted Residual Sum of Squares)-related statistic (Holiday, Ballard, & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>] ). Prediction accuracy of newly developed equations were examined by producing PRESS R<sups>2</sups> (R<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups>) and PRESS SEE (SEE<subs>p</subs>) from cross-validation on all data from the first session. R<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> was calculated as: R<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =  1 - (sum of squares of PRESS residual / sum of squares [total]). SEE<subs>p</subs> was calculated as: SEE<subs>p</subs> = √Sum of Squares of PRESS residual/N.</p> <p>Reliabilities for the following variables were estimated with an intraclass correlation using a relative (two-way) model (Baumgartner et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>] ): 30-Day PAR, 1-mile walk time, heart rate at end of the 1-mile walk, and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs>. Paired samples t-tests were calculated to compare differences between the first and second sessions for these variables. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated using Cohen’s delta as shown below.</p> <p>To allow comparison of prediction accuracy between newly developed equations and previously published equations, a second stage of validation was conducted. The second stage of validation consisted of splitting the sample into a model development sample and a hold-out cross-validation sample. This allowed development of prediction models using the variables of interest and cross-validation of the newly developed models on an independent sample of participants. Accuracy of previously published equations (Dolgener et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>] ; Kline et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>] ) was examined with the same independent sample of participants. Prediction error was calculated as the standard error of estimate (SEE): SEE = S<subs>Y</subs>√1 - R<sups>2</sups><subs>YY</subs><subs>´</subs>. S<subs>Y</subs> is the standard deviation of the dependent variable (i.e., measured VO<subs>2max</subs>) and R<sups>2</sups><subs>YY</subs><subs>´</subs> is the coefficient of determination between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs>. The cross-validation SEE (referred to as total error [TE]) was calculated as: TE = √∑(Y - Y´)<sups>2</sups> / N. Y is measured VO<subs>2max</subs> and Y´ is VO<subs>2max</subs> estimated from the equations. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-12">Results</hd> <p>Among 61 participants, there were 2 participants who did not reach the criteria for maximal exertion during the maximal treadmill test, and 1 participant did not reach 110 b·min<sups>−1</sups>, the minimum criterion selected for heart rate during the walk test (American College of Sports Medicine, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>] ; Golding, Meyers, & Sinning, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>] ). Thus, data from the remainder of participants (n = 58) were used for analyses. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Test-retest reliability estimates and correlations with measured VO<subs>2max</subs> for self-reported physical activity measures are presented in Table 2. The 30-Day PAR and the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children had acceptable estimates of reliability (reliability for one test administration ≥ .70). The 30-Day PAR had a higher correlation with measured VO<subs>2max</subs> than the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children. Because the 30-Day PAR had acceptable test-retest reliability, a relatively high correlation with measured VO<subs>2max</subs>, and was easy to administer and complete it was selected over the other self-reported measures and further analysis excludes the other self-report measures.</p> <p>The differences between first and second sessions for the 30-Day PAR, 1-mile walk time, and heart rate response to the walk were compared and reliability was estimated as shown in Table 2. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICCs) were.83 for one trial for 1-mile walk time and.72 for one trial for heart rate. Average time for the 1-mile walk at the 1<sups>st</sups> session was significantly slower than that of the 2<sups>nd</sups> session (p < .05), whereas effect size was small (ES = 0.25).</p> <p>To examine relative intensity throughout the 1-mile walk, heart rates at different distances (i.e., quarter-mile, half-mile, 1-mile) for both the first and second sessions were compared to each other. No statistically significant differences were found among any comparisons for either session. Heart rate was similar at the quarter-mile, half-mile, and 1-mile distance, indicating that participants were able to maintain a steady walking pace.</p> <p>Correlations between measured VO<subs>2max</subs> and the predictor variables were: body mass (r = -.81); 1-mile walk time (r = -.59); 30-Day PAR (r = .59); sex [F = 0, M = 1] (r = .32); and heart rate (r = -.05). All predictor variables were significantly correlated with measured VO<subs>2max</subs> (p < .05), except heart rate.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-13">Stage 1 validation</hd> <p>Regression coefficients to estimate measured VO<subs>2max</subs> for the 1-mile walk test at the first session are described in Tables 3 and 4. Model 1 replicated variables used in the Rockport Walk Test (Kline et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>] ). All predictor variables were entered in Model 2 (i.e., 30-Day PAR was added to variables used in Model 1). In Models 1 and 2, all variables except for heart rate and age were significant predictors of measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. The multiple R and SEE for Model 1 were.87 and 4.56 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>, respectively. Model 2 was slightly more accurate than Model 1 upon cross-validation. Model 3 excluded heart rate and age as predictors. For Model 3, the SEE was similar to the SEE for Model 2, and all variables in Model 3 were significant predictors of measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. Model 4 excluded heart rate, age, and 30-Day PAR. Although this model was less accurate than Models 2 and 3, its accuracy was similar to that of Model 1.</p> <p>Regression coefficients to estimate VO2max (mL·kg−1·min−1) for 1-mile walk data (n = 58).</p> <ct id="AN0128422073-14"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="5"><tr><td>Variable</td><td align="center">Model 1</td><td align="center">Model 2</td><td align="center">Model 3</td><td align="center">Model 4</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>92.312</td><td>66.670</td><td>66.994</td><td>80.643</td></tr><tr><td>Body Mass (kg)</td><td>−0.344*</td><td>−0.318*</td><td>−0.317*</td><td>−0.376*</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>3.129*</td><td>4.081*</td><td>4.066*</td><td>3.243*</td></tr><tr><td>Time (min)</td><td>−1.585*</td><td>−1.057*</td><td>−1.044*</td><td>−1.360*</td></tr><tr><td>HR (b·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>−0.017</td><td>−0.006</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>−0.606</td><td>0.113</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>30-Day PAR</td><td align="center">-</td><td>1.261*</td><td>1.252*</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>R</td><td>.87</td><td>.90</td><td>.90</td><td>.87</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.76</td><td>.82</td><td>.82</td><td>.75</td></tr><tr><td>SEE (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>4.56</td><td>3.99</td><td>3.99</td><td>4.63</td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></td><td>.70</td><td>.77</td><td>.79</td><td>.72</td></tr><tr><td>SEE<sub>p</sub> (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>5.07</td><td>4.49</td><td>4.29</td><td>4.90</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Sex: 0 = girl, 1 = boy; HR, heart rate; SEE, standard error of estimate; R<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> and SEE<subs>p</subs> are PRESS R<sups>2</sups> and PRESS SEE, respectively.</p> <p>*p < .05, statistically significant variable for prediction.</p> <p>Regression coefficients to estimate VO2max (mL·kg−1·min−1) for 1-mile walk data without body mass as a predictor (n = 58).</p> <ct id="AN0128422073-15"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="5"><tr><td>Variable</td><td align="center">Model 5</td><td align="center">Model 6</td><td align="center">Model 7</td><td align="center">Model 8</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>95.157</td><td>86.029</td><td>130.708</td><td>120.702</td></tr><tr><td>Body Mass (kg)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>5.083*</td><td>5.239*</td><td>3.978*</td><td>4.114*</td></tr><tr><td>Time (min)</td><td>−2.421*</td><td>−2.149*</td><td>−3.234*</td><td>−2.918*</td></tr><tr><td>HR (b·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>−0.057</td><td align="center">—</td><td>−0.076</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td>−1.248</td><td>−1.588*</td><td>−2.304*</td><td>−2.841*</td></tr><tr><td>30-Day PAR</td><td>1.570*</td><td>1.650*</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>R</td><td>.81</td><td>.80</td><td>.75</td><td>.73</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.65</td><td>.64</td><td>.56</td><td>.54</td></tr><tr><td>SEE (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>5.53</td><td>5.63</td><td>6.19</td><td>6.36</td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></td><td>.57</td><td>.57</td><td>.48</td><td>.47</td></tr><tr><td>SEE<sub>p</sub> (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td>6.10</td><td>6.07</td><td>6.70</td><td>6.73</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Sex: 0 = girl, 1 = boy; HR, heart rate; SEE, standard error of estimate; R<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> and SEE<subs>p</subs> are PRESS R<sups>2</sups> and PRESS SEE, respectively.</p> <p>*p < .05, statistically significant variable for prediction.</p> <p>Models 5 through 8 excluded body mass as a predictor so that prediction of VO<subs>2max</subs> in heavy participants was not unduly influenced by body mass. In Model 5, all variables were significant predictors of measured VO<subs>2max</subs>, except heart rate and age. The multiple R and SEE for Model 5 were.81 and 5.53 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>, respectively. Model 5 was less accurate compared to Model 2, which included body mass as a predictor.</p> <p>Model 6, which excluded body mass and heart rate, had a prediction accuracy similar to that of Model 5. All variables in Model 6 were significant predictors of measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. In Model 7, excluding body mass and 30-Day PAR, all variables were significant predictors of measured VO<subs>2max</subs>, except heart rate (p = .09). In Model 7, the multiple R was lower than for Model 5 (.81 versus.75) and the SEE was higher than for Model 5 (5.53 versus 6.19 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>), indicating that excluding self-reported physical activity from the model substantially decreased prediction accuracy. Model 8 had the lowest multiple R (.73) and the highest SEE (6.36 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>) of all models examined.</p> <p>VO<subs>2max</subs> was estimated from the models developed from data collected during the first session. Data from the first and second sessions were used to calculate estimates of reliability. Estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> and ICC reliability estimates are presented in Table 5. All models developed in the current study produced highly reliable (ICC ≥ .89 for 1 trial) estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs>. Estimates of reliability of VO<subs>2max</subs> from the Kline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>] ) and Dolgener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>] ) equations for the first and second sessions were also high. Estimates of mean VO<subs>2max</subs> for the first and second session were within 2 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>. Although estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> between the first session and second session were considered significantly different (p < .05), effect size estimates suggest that these mean differences were small.</p> <p>Reliability of VO2max estimation from regression models.</p> <ct id="AN0128422073-16"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="7"><tr><td rowspan="2">Regression Model</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Estimated VO<sub>2max</sub> (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" rowspan="2">ICC (2 trials)</td><td align="center" rowspan="2">ICC (1 trial)</td><td align="center" rowspan="2">p</td><td align="center" rowspan="2">ES</td></tr><tr><td align="center">1st session</td><td align="center">2nd session</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 1</td><td>43.1 ± 8.5</td><td>43.8 ± 8.4</td><td>.99</td><td>.98</td><td><.01</td><td>−.09</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 2</td><td>43.1 ± 8.5</td><td>41.2 ± 8.5</td><td>.98</td><td>.97</td><td><.01</td><td>.22</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 3</td><td>43.1 ± 8.2</td><td>43.9 ± 8.4</td><td>.98</td><td>.97</td><td><.01</td><td>−.10</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 4</td><td>43.1 ± 8.2</td><td>43.8 ± 8.3</td><td>.99</td><td>.98</td><td><.01</td><td>−.08</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 5</td><td>43.1 ± 7.5</td><td>44.6 ± 8.1</td><td>.95</td><td>.91</td><td><.01</td><td>−.20</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 6</td><td>43.1 ± 7.3</td><td>44.6 ± 7.8</td><td>.94</td><td>.90</td><td><.01</td><td>−.19</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 7</td><td>43.2 ± 6.6</td><td>44.7 ± 7.6</td><td>.95</td><td>.90</td><td><.01</td><td>−.22</td></tr><tr><td>1-mile Model 8</td><td>43.2 ± 6.1</td><td>44.6 ± 7.2</td><td>.94</td><td>.89</td><td><.01</td><td>−.21</td></tr><tr><td>Kline et al.</td><td>48.7 ± 9.1</td><td>50.2 ± 9.7</td><td>.97</td><td>.94</td><td><.01</td><td>−.16</td></tr><tr><td>Dolgener et al.</td><td>42.8 ± 7.9</td><td>43.4 ± 8.2</td><td>.99</td><td>.98</td><td><.01</td><td>−.08</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. M ± SD; ICC, intra-class correlation coefficient (consistency model); p-values refer to mean comparison between the 1st session and 2nd session. ES, effect size. n = 57 for reliability analyses because one participant was missing Day 2 data. 2nd session estimates were calculated by applying models developed on data from 1st session to data from 2nd session.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-17">Stage 2 validation</hd> <p>To allow comparison of prediction accuracy between newly developed equations and previously published equations a second stage of validation was performed. The sample was split into a development sample (39 randomly selected participants) and a cross-validation sample (19 randomly selected participants). The newly developed models from the 39 participants were then applied to the cross-validation sample to examine prediction accuracy.</p> <p>Previously published 1-mile walk equations (Dolgener et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>] ; Kline et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>] ) were cross-validated on the same cross-validation sample using data from the first session and results are presented in Table 6. The correlations between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> from the Kline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>] ) equation were slightly higher than those from the Dolgener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>] ) equation. However, the Kline et al. equation showed a tendency to overestimate measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. Estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> from the Kline et al. equation was significantly different (p < .05) from measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. TE of the Kline et al. equation was much higher than the SEE indicating a systematic difference between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> for that equation. Accuracy of the new prediction equations from the development sample was generally slightly better (higher R<sups>2</sups> and lower TE for Model 1 through Model 6; similar R<sups>2</sups> and lower TE for Model 7 and Model 8) than accuracy of the Dolgener et al. and Kline et al. models. Model 5, which included self-reported physical activity, tended to overestimate measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. No systematic bias was seen in Model 2 and Model 3, which included self-reported physical activity and body mass.</p> <p>Cross-validation of previously published and newly developed regression equations (n = 19).</p> <ct id="AN0128422073-18"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="5"><tr><td>Model</td><td align="center">VO<sub>2max</sub> (mL·kg<sup>−1</sup>·min<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center">SEE</td><td align="center">TE</td></tr><tr><td>Measured VO<sub>2max</sub></td><td>43.2 ± 10.3</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td>Kline et al.</td><td>49.0 ± 10.0*</td><td>.66</td><td>5.99</td><td>8.36</td></tr><tr><td>Dolgener et al.</td><td>42.5 ± 8.3</td><td>.57</td><td>6.74</td><td>6.61</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1</td><td>43.0 ± 9.4</td><td>.75</td><td>5.18</td><td>5.06</td></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td>43.0 ± 8.5</td><td>.83</td><td>4.28</td><td>4.26</td></tr><tr><td>Model 3</td><td>43.3 ± 9.0</td><td>.85</td><td>4.02</td><td>3.93</td></tr><tr><td>Model 4</td><td>43.1 ± 9.7</td><td>.75</td><td>5.12</td><td>5.04</td></tr><tr><td>Model 5</td><td>47.1 ± 6.9*</td><td>.77</td><td>4.92</td><td>6.56</td></tr><tr><td>Model 6</td><td>44.4 ± 7.2</td><td>.82</td><td>4.43</td><td>4.93</td></tr><tr><td>Model 7</td><td>44.2 ± 8.1</td><td>.65</td><td>6.14</td><td>6.05</td></tr><tr><td>Model 8</td><td>44.5 ± 8.7</td><td>.66</td><td>6.05</td><td>6.04</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. M ± SD; R<sups>2</sups> is the coefficient of determination between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs>; SEE, standard error of estimate; TE, total error.</p> <p>*p < .05, significantly different between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs>.</p> <p>The Kline et al. equation is: VO<subs>2max</subs> = 132.853 - (0.0769 × body mass [lb]) - (0.3877 × age) + (6.3150 × gender) - (3.2649 × Mile Walk Time [min]) - (0.1565 × Mile Walk Heart Rate).</p> <p>The Dolgener et al. equation is: VO<subs>2max</subs> = 88.7688 - (0.0957 × body mass [lb]) + (8.8924 × gender) - (1.4537 × Mile Walk Time [min]) - (0.1194 × Mile Walk Heart Rate).</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Regression equations to estimate VO<subs>2max</subs> for 1-mile walk tests for 10- to 13-year-old children were developed and validated. Eight different models were evaluated to examine the effect of various predictors on estimated VO<subs>2max</subs>. Because practitioners in some situations (e.g., schools) may prefer models that do not require body mass, four models without body mass as a predictor were evaluated. In general, models without body mass were less accurate than those with body mass. Models without the 30-Day PAR measure of self-reported physical activity were less accurate than models with the 30-Day PAR as a predictor. Children’s perceptions of their physical activity levels were relatively highly related to their aerobic fitness levels, and self-reported physical activity was a significant predictor for all regression models in which it was included. The 30-Day PAR is easy to administer and appears to be a simple way for children to estimate their physical activity levels.</p> <p>Aerobic fitness is an important health-related fitness component. However, direct measurement of aerobic fitness is not practical in some settings due to the need for expensive equipment, laboratory space, and trained technicians. Thus, in some situations a field test to estimate aerobic fitness that is practical and easier to administer than direct measurement of aerobic fitness is desirable. Maximal effort field tests, such as the 1-mile run/walk and PACER, require high levels of participant motivation and may be too difficult to complete for some unmotivated, overweight, and unfit children. Heart rate responses were similar at the quarter-mile, half-mile, and 1-mile distances during the 1-mile walk. This indicates that participants maintained a relatively steady walking pace throughout the entire distance. An average 1-mile walk time of about 16 minutes for children is much longer than other aerobic fitness field tests, which may decrease the feasibility of a 1-mile walk test in some settings.</p> <p>Surprisingly, heart rate did not add significantly to the prediction of VO<subs>2max</subs>. Measured VO<subs>2max</subs> and heart rate were not significantly correlated (r = -.05). Kline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref53">18</reflink>] ) reported a weak correlation between measured VO<subs>2</subs> (l·min<sups>−1</sups>) and heart rate (r = -.14), but did not state whether heart rate was a significant predictor of VO<subs>2max</subs> in their regression equation. Similarly, Dolgener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>] ) did not state whether heart rate was a significant predictor of VO<subs>2max</subs> or was significantly correlated with VO<subs>2max</subs>. Overall, excluding heart rate from the walking equations does not substantially reduce the accuracy of prediction and would reduce the burden on the tester.</p> <p>Reliabilities of estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> (ICC ≥ .89 for one trial) in the present study were high and were similar to or higher than that reported by Léger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>] ) from the PACER test (r = .89). In addition, heart rate (ICC = .72 for one trial) and time for the 1-mile walk (ICC ≥ .83 for one trial) between first and second sessions had acceptable levels of reliability. The ICC for walk time in the current study was similar to the ICC for the 1-mile run/walk time (ICC ≥ .85) from grade 4 children reported by Rikli, Petray, and Baumgartner ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>] ). Therefore, the newly developed 1-mile walk models appear to provide reliable estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> in children.</p> <p>The average heart rate during the 1-mile walk was approximately 74% of maximal heart rate, indicating that the 1-mile walk test can be considered a submaximal field-based test. The 1-mile run/walk and PACER field tests require maximal effort from participants. The accuracy of the 1-mile walk tests developed in this study compare favorably to other field tests of aerobic fitness, such as the 1-mile run/walk and PACER tests. Cureton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>] ) reported a multiple R = .71 and SEE = 4.78 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups> for the 1-mile run/walk regression equation in a large sample 8- to 25-years-old. Mahar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>] ) reported a multiple R = .75 and SEE = 6.17 for a PACER quadratic model in a 10- to 16-year-old sample. The newly developed 1-mile walk test (Model 1) had a multiple R = .87 and SEE = 4.56 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups> for 10- to 13-year-old children in current study. SEEs from different studies are not directly comparable because the standard deviation of the predicted variable, which differs from study to study, is used in calculation of the SEE, but correlations from different studies may provide some indication about relative accuracy.</p> <p>Results from the second stage of validation demonstrated that the newly developed regression equations with body mass included as a predictor were more accurate (i.e., no systematic bias, higher R<sups>2</sups>, and lower SEE) than previously published equations. Squared multiple correlations between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> from the Kline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref59">18</reflink>] ) equation and the Dolgener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>] ) equation were R<sups>2</sups> = .66 and R<sups>2</sups> = .57, respectively. For the second stage validation of the 1-mile walk Model 1 developed in the current study that replicated the predictors used by Kline et al., the cross-validation R<sups>2</sups> = .75, which was a stronger coefficient of determination than those found with the Kline et al. and Dolgener et al. equations. In addition, SEEs from the Kline et al. and Dolgener et al. equations were 5.99 and 6.74 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>, respectively, which were slightly higher than the SEE (5.18 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>) of the 1-mile walk Model 1. Although these comparisons should be made with caution because cross-validation was conducted on a relatively small sample of 19 participants, it appears that the newly developed 1-mile walk regression equations provide slightly more accurate estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> than previously published equations.</p> <p>Evaluation of two previously published equations revealed that mean estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> from the Dolgener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref61">12</reflink>] ) equation was similar to the mean measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. However, the Kline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>] ) equation tended to overestimate measured VO<subs>2max</subs> of participants in the current study. George, Fellingham, and Fisher ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>] ) provided results that supported the accuracy of the Dolgener et al. equations on participants of the same fitness level as children in current study. In contrast, two studies (Greenhalgh, George, & Hager, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>] ; McSwegin et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref65">25</reflink>] ) that supported the accuracy of the Kline et al. equations had relatively highly fit participants (average measured VO<subs>2max</subs> = 48.5 and 45.4 mL·kg<sups>−1</sups>·min<sups>−1</sups>, respectively).</p> <p>This is the first study to develop a 1-mile walk test for 10- to 13-year-old children. A major strength of the study is that a practical and accurate 1-mile walk test for children was developed. The 1-mile walk test is simple to take and may be practical for use in schools and other settings, although the time to complete the test of approximately 16 minutes is a limitation compared to other field tests of aerobic fitness. Another strength of this study is that eight different models were developed, so test users can choose one of the models depending on their circumstances. Evidences of reliability and validity were provided for the new 1-mile walk test equations. Additionally, evidence of some degree of representativeness of the sample used in the current study can be provided by comparison with a large-scale study. Estimated VO<subs>2max</subs> from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Welk, Laurson, Eisenmann, & Cureton, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>] ) on a large, nationally representative sample 12- to 18-years-old was similar to measured VO<subs>2max</subs> in the current study.</p> <p>The current study has several limitations. First, motivation to walk fast at the same pace was not always apparent in a small number of children in the present study. Second, pacing ability differed slightly among children. Third, self-report measures of physical activity in children may lack absolute validity. However, the self-report measure used in model development was highly reliable and significantly correlated with measured VO<subs>2max</subs>. Finally, sample size was small compared to some other studies of field tests of aerobic fitness, but does represent the largest sample of this age group to be studied with respect to walking tests used to estimate aerobic fitness.</p> <p>For estimation of VO<subs>2max</subs> in young children, it is recommended that the Models 2, 4, 7, and 8 developed in the current study be used, depending on the purpose of testing, which may differ depending on intentions and situations. Model 2 is recommended because it is the most accurate regression equation developed in the current study. Model 2 could be appropriately used in a clinical setting where children would be more likely than in a mass testing environment to provide a true answer for their self-reported physical activity. Model 4 is recommended for researchers who do not want to measure or use self-reported physical activity and heart rate. Model 4 may be appropriate in a school setting where it might be difficult to assess many students on self-reported physical activity or where students might be tempted to overestimate their physical activity to achieve a higher predicted VO<subs>2max</subs>. Models 7 and 8 may be the most appropriate models for youth fitness testing in a school environment. Use of Model 7 or Model 8 eliminates the problem introduced by including body mass as a predictor. Specifically, inclusion of body mass as a predictor of aerobic fitness penalizes heavier individuals. Because dividing VO<subs>2max</subs> (mL·min<sups>−1</sups>) by body mass (kg) does not effectively remove the effect of body mass on the outcome variable, the consequence is that a heavier person who may have the same exact performance specifications (i.e., 1-mile walk time and heart rate) will have a lower predicted VO<subs>2max</subs>. This is an untenable situation in schools because it is difficult for teachers to explain to students and is unfair to heavier individuals. Model 8 is the most feasible model for school-based use because heart rate and body mass are not included as predictors. Model 8 appears to be slightly less accurate than other field tests such as the 1-mile run/walk and PACER, based on a comparison of correlations between measured and estimated VO<subs>2max</subs>.</p> <p>In conclusion, results of the current study provided evidence of reliability and validity for the 1-mile walk test estimates of VO<subs>2max</subs> in children 10- to 13-years-old. The regression equations developed in the current study were more accurate than previously published 1-mile walk equations. The 1-mile walk test is easy to administer and might be particularly useful when estimates of aerobic fitness are desired for unmotivated or unfit children. Future research should examine the effect of motivation and pacing education on the validity of walk tests for children. Validity of the 1-mile walk test in settings where large numbers of children walk at the same time rather than individually should be also examined.</p> <hd id="AN0128422073-20">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors wish to express their appreciation to research assistants Mark Whaley, Seongwon Yun, and Wenjie Zhang for data collection and participant recruitment.</p> <ref id="AN0128422073-21"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Aadland, E., Terum, T., Mamen, A., Andersen, L. B., & Resaland, G. K. ( 2014 ). The Anderson aerobic fitness test: Reliability and validity in 10-year-old children. PLoS One, 9, e110492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110492 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>American College of Sports Medicine. ( 2013 ). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription ( 9th ed.). Philadelphia, PA : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>American Thoracic Society. ( 2002 ). ATS statement: Guidelines for the six-minute walk test. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166, 111 - 117. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Andersen, L. B., Andersen, T.-E., Andersen, E., & Anderssen, S. A. ( 2008 ). An intermittent running test to estimate maximal oxygen uptake: The Andersen test. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48, 434 - 437. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref34" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Armstrong, N., & Welsman, J. R. ( 1994 ). Assessment and interpretation of aerobic fitness in children and adolescents. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 22, 435 - 476. doi: 10.1249/00003677-199401000-00016 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Batista, M. B., Cyrino, E. S., Arruda, M., Dourado, A. C., Coelho-E-Silva, M. J., Ohara, D., & Ronque, A. C. ( 2013 ). Validity of equations for estimating VO2peak from the 20-m shuttle run test in adolescents aged 11-13 years. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27, 2774 - 2781. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182815724 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref25" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Baumgartner, T. A., Jackson, A. S., Mahar, M. T., & Rowe, D. A. ( 2016 ). Measurement for evaluation in kinesiology ( 9th ed.). Burlington, MA : Jones & Bartlett. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Calders, P., Deforche, B., Verschelde, S., Bouckaert, J., Chevalier, F., Bassle, E., … Franckx, H. ( 2008 ). Predictors of 6-minute walk test and 12-minute walk/run test in obese children and adolescents. European Journal of Pediatrics, 167, 563 - 568. doi: 10.1007/s00431-007-0553-5 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2005 ). National health and nutrition examination survey cardiovascular fitness procedures manual. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes%5f05%5f06/CV.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes%5f05%5f06/CV.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref26" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2009 ). Questionnaires and item rationales. Middle school youth risk behavior survey. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/questionnaire/2009MiddleSchool.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/questionnaire/2009MiddleSchool.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref6" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Cureton, K. J., Sloniger, M. A., O’Bannon, J. P., Black, D. M., & McCormack, W. P. ( 1995 ). A generalized equation of prediction of VO2peak from 1-mile run/walk performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27, 445 - 451. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199503000-00023 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref12" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Dolgener, F. A., Hensley, L. D., Marsh, J. J., & Fjelstul, J. K. ( 1994 ). Validation of the Rockport Fitness Walking Test in college males and females. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 152 - 158. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1994.10607610 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref63" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>George, J. D., Fellingham, G. W., & Fisher, A. G. ( 1998 ). A modified version of the Rockport fitness walking test for college men and women. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 205 - 209. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1998.10607685 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref45" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Golding, L. A., Meyers, C. R., & Sinning, W. E. ( 1989 ). The Y’s way to physical fitness ( 3rd ed.). Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref64" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Greenhalgh, H. A., George, J. D., & Hager, R. L. ( 2001 ). Cross-validation of a quarter-mile walk test using two VO2max regression models. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5, 139 - 151. doi: 10.1207/S15327841MPEE0503_2 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref21" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Gulmans, V. A., van Veldhoven, N. H., de Meer, K., & Helders, P. J. ( 1996 ). The six-minute walking test in children with cystic fibrosis: Reliability and validity. Pediatric Pulmonology, 22 ( 2 ), 85 - 89. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0496(199608)22:2<85::AID-PPUL1>3.0.CO;2-I </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref40" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Holiday, D. B., Ballard, J. E., & McKeown, B. C. ( 1995 ). PRESS-related statistics: Regression tools for cross- validation and case diagnostics. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27, 612 - 620. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199504000-00022 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref1" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Kline, G. M., Porcari, J. P., Hintermeister, R., Freedson, P. S., Ward, A., McCarron, R. F., … Rippe, J. M. ( 1987 ). Estimation of VO2max from a one-mile track walk, gender, age, and body weight. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19, 253 - 259. doi: 10.1249/00005768-198706000-00012 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref28" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Kowalski, K. C., Crocker, P. R. E., & Donen, R. M. ( 2004 ). The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A) manual. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.dapa-toolkit.mrc.ac.uk/documents/en/PAQ/PAQ%5fmanual.pdf">http://www.dapa-toolkit.mrc.ac.uk/documents/en/PAQ/PAQ%5fmanual.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref4" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Léger, L. A., Mercier, D., Gadoury, C., & Lambert, J. ( 1988 ). The multistage 20 meter shuttle run test for aerobic fitness. Journal of Sports Sciences, 6, 93 - 101. doi: 10.1080/02640418808729800 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref22" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Lelieveld, O. T., Takken, T., van der Net, J., & van Weert, E. ( 2005 ). Validity of the 6-minute walking test in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research), 53, 304 - 307. doi: 10.1002/art.21086 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref18" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Li, M., Yin, J., Yu, C. C. W., Tsang, T., So, H. K., Wong, E., … Sung, R. ( 2005 ). The six-minute walk test in healthy children: Reliability and validity. European Respiratory Journal, 25, 1057 - 1060. doi: 10.1183/09031936.05.00134904 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref29" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Lohman, T. G. ( 1986 ). Assessment of body composition in children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 19 - 30. doi: 10.1123/pes.1.1.19 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref30" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Mahar, M. T., Guerieri, A. M., Hanna, M. S., & Kemble, C. D. ( 2011 ). Estimation of aerobic fitness from 20-m multistage shuttle run test performance. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41 ( Suppl. 2 ), S117 - S123. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.07.008 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref2" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>McSwegin, P. J., Plowman, S. A., Wolff, G. M., & Guttenberg, G. L. ( 1998 ). The validity of a one-mile walk test for high school age individuals. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 2, 47 - 63. doi: 10.1207/s15327841mpee0201_4 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref10" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Melo, X., Santa-Clara, H., Almeida, J. P., Carnero, E. A., Sardinha, L. B., Bruno, P. M., & Fernhall, B. ( 2011 ). Comparing several equations that predict peak VO2 using the 20-m multistage-shuttle run-test in 8-10-year-old children. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111, 839 - 849. doi: 10.1007/s00421-010-1708-z </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref5" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Meredith, M. D., & Welk, G. J. (Eds.). ( 2010 ). Fitnessgram & Activitygram: Test administration manual ( Updated 4th ed.). Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref23" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Nixon, P. A., Joswiak, M. L., & Fricker, F. J. ( 1996 ). A six-minute walk test for assessing exercise tolerance in severely ill children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 129, 362 - 366. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(96)70067-7 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref3" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Pober, D. M., Freedson, P. S., Kline, G. M., McInnis, K. J., & Rippe, J. M. ( 2002 ). Development and validation of a one- mile treadmill walk test to predict peak oxygen uptake in healthy adults ages 40 to 79 years. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 27, 575 - 589. doi: 10.1139/h02-033 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref56" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Rikli, R. E., Petray, C., & Baumgartner, T. A. ( 1992 ). The reliability of distance run tests for children in grades K-4. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 270 - 276. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10608742 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref66" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Welk, G. J., Laurson, K. R., Eisenmann, J. C., & Cureton, K. J. ( 2011 ). Development of youth aerobic-capacity standards using receiver operating characteristic curves. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41 ( Suppl. 2 ), S111 - S116. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.07.007 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. 30-day physical activity recall.</p> <aug> <p>By Hoyong Sung; David N. Collier; Katrina D. DuBose; C. David Kemble and Matthew T. Mahar</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1172511
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development of 1-Mile Walk Tests to Estimate Aerobic Fitness in Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sung%2C+Hoyong%22">Sung, Hoyong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Collier%2C+David+N%2E%22">Collier, David N.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22DuBose%2C+Katrina+D%2E%22">DuBose, Katrina D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kemble%2C+C%2E+David%22">Kemble, C. David</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mahar%2C+Matthew+T%2E%22">Mahar, Matthew T.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+in+Physical+Education+and+Exercise+Science%22"><i>Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science</i></searchLink>. 2018 22(2):167-176.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Fitness%22">Physical Fitness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Regression+Analysis%22">Multiple Regression Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preadolescents%22">Preadolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement+Techniques%22">Measurement Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equipment%22">Equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diaries%22">Diaries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Body+Composition%22">Body Composition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Body+Weight%22">Body Weight</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Body+Height%22">Body Height</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Exercise+Physiology%22">Exercise Physiology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1405810
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1091-367X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To examine the reliability and validity of 1-mile walk tests for estimation of aerobic fitness (VO[subscript 2max]) in 10- to 13-year-old children and to cross-validate previously published equations. Participants (n = 61) walked 1-mile on two different days. Self-reported physical activity, demographic variables, and aerobic fitness were used in multiple regression analyses. Eight models were developed with various combinations of predictors. The recommended model for fitness testing in schools was: VO[subscript 2max] = 120.702 + (4.114 × Sex [F = 0, M = 1]) - (2.918 × 1-mile Walk Time [min]) - (2.841 × Age), R = 0.73, standard error of estimate = 6.36 mL·kg[superscript -1]·min[superscript -1]. Cross-validation of previously published equations demonstrated lower correlations with measured VO[subscript 2max] than the newly developed walk tests. Evidence of reliability and validity for 1-mile walk tests to estimate VO[subscript 2max] in young children was provided. The model that included 1-mile walk time, age, and sex may be appropriate for youth fitness testing in physical education, particularly for unmotivated or overweight young children.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 31
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1172511
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1172511
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1405810
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 167
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Fitness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Regression Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preadolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equipment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diaries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Body Composition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Body Weight
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Body Height
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Exercise Physiology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development of 1-Mile Walk Tests to Estimate Aerobic Fitness in Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sung, Hoyong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Collier, David N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: DuBose, Katrina D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kemble, C. David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mahar, Matthew T.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1091-367X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 22
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1