Technical Report 610

Validation of the Military Entrance

Physical Strength Capacity Test

David C. Myers, Deborah L. Gebhardt,

Carolyn E. Crump, and Edwin A. Fleishman

Advanced Research Resources Organizatioki

Selection and Classification Technical Area

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

l•-"1--•• DTIC ELECTE•

JUN 19 1984

0-- AMR

Li-J U.S. Army

ReSerch Institute for the Behavioral and Social S,:iences

January 1984

A'proved for Oubhl- telease; distribution unhsnterj.

Reproduced From 84 06 18 082

Best Available Copy 0
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITLIIE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDG;AR M. JOifNSON Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Department of the Army

Advanced Research Resources Organization

Technical review by

Newell K. Eaton

John J. Mellinger ARI

Clinton B. Walker

Hilda Wing

MAJ Scott W. Madole--U.S. Air Force

Joe W. McDaniel--U.S. Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory

David W. Robertson--tNavy Personnel Research and Development Center

James A. Voge1--Army Research Insti tute for Environnmental rMedicine

NOTICES

OISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been mad* by ARI.

Please addro.s correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ATTN.:

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria$ Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not return It to the U.S. Army Research institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position. unless so designated by other authorized

documents.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 0o THIS PAGE (Whoo U1ofs p'f'd __________

REO* DIuETTINPG RViAD INSTRUCTIONS

NUM~t2. G.)VT ACCESSION No. I H CWIIFNT`ý (;ATA'j)(. mli'UEI4

Technical Report 610 __ t- 4TSI 0. 1.4f~b1'~r) l~n '~PO A "FPRI() rCOVI741rF

Technicral Report

VALIDATIONl OF THE MILITARY EtýTRAIICE January 19b2 - .July 1983',

PHYSICAL 'TRENGTH CAPACITY TE'T PF. RFORdINVr ORr. RFPORT NME

No 3 -10 __

* 7 AUHOR.) CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMHER(.) -

7.ATHR.

David C. Myers, Deborah L. Gebhardt, Carolyn 'E. Cruwp , Edwin A. Fleishman MOA 903-812-C-0140

9. Pý-RFORMING ORGANIZATIO;4 NAME AND ADDRESS '10 PROGRAM ECLLENT.PROJECT. TAIF

Advanced Research Resources OrqanizationARA4WK )INlnF,

4330 East West Hiqhway, Suite 900 2B22A9

A.bethesda, MD 2081142Q167A79

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS *2 REPORT DAYR

U.S. Army Research Institute for the behavioral Jnay18

and Social Sciences Janar N 1M9RFAE

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 2233 1UBR88PAE

14 MONITORING AGENCY N4AMIE A AOOnESS(II different from Controlling Offce) IS. SECURITY rLASS. (of this report)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Scienc,ýs UIJCLASSI FlLB

5001 Eisenhower Avenue I.OCASFCTO/ONRDN

Alexandria, VA 22333 SCHEOUL F

16. OISTRIBUTI ON STATEMENAT (o1 this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. OISTPIOUTION STATEMENT (of th. abstract ente~red In Block 20, if diffrn f It rom,, I po.,, t)

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NO0TES

Technical quality of this research monitored by Hilda Wn.

St. KýEY WOFDS (Coo~ntinu on t.o,.e0 aid- lnoc..eary and Identifly by block nwamer)

C'terion C performance tasks Job analysis

Var~iationDifferential prediction

Ph sical abilities

2b ýT*RAET (C..1h0 ao m to~ efle if nvww..oy oi Identify by block tnu.ber)

A battery of physical ability tests was valid&;ed using a predictive,

cril non-related strategy. The battery was given to 1,003 female soldiers

and 80 male soldiers before they had begun Basic Training. Criterion

ineas res which represented physical competency in Basic Training (i.e.,

phys cal proficiency tests, sick call, profiles, arid separation data) as

well as on the .job (i.e., lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling activities)

were correlated with the soldiers' scores on the physical ability tests. -- 7

The job performance measures (i.e., criterion performance tasks). -(Gont!-616_d)

DI FR"1473 EDMTOM Of IWOV 6SIS OBSOLE TEUN ASIE

iSECURITY CLASSIF ICATIONt OF THIS-PAGE (1111bo, Pots Entered)

0
UiCLA7SIt ILD

I [te 1 20 (Continued)

were designed to evaluate proficienc/ in the performance of tasks deteroined

to. be important in physiu:ally d-iiandlnqi Priy jo.L, (i .e. , Lift, Carry, Push

and Torque). The cri ter;on performance tasks were administered to the 951

soldiers who had comilet'.!d Adalced Individual Training (AIT). The results

indicated that test valiity wa;ý high (R = .('4). The Lift 60 accounted for

67' of the variance in c:i'terioli performancc, while Lean body Mass (LUM)

and the Upright Pull te!.I'. ac:ounted for an addi tional ?, and 17, respectively. The f.irnes; ar lysi; showed that th.re were non-significant slope

differences and only sl I 11t i itercert differerces which suggested minimal

overprediction for wow.f

Accession :;or

N1TIS GRAS ?

DTIC TA; ]

Unariu oi u: c e I

Just ii' ie t i on

By--

Di s' 1but i mn/

Av:ý,i la)11itir Codes •- ~t''•'" an,/or--

Dist Special

- )

' % copy TIC

'T'

7

UNCLASSIFIED

1 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGF( eh.. Doel. Enfe.d)
F4~*r•.• -.. " -..-.- I ~*. .s x- . " ~ ~ *.- ,Il -. * , I , ' S* , - , -,';,•

Technical Report 610

"Validation of the Military Entrance

Physical Strength Capacity Test

David C. Myers, Deborah L. Gebhardt,

- Carolyn E. Crump, and Edwin A. Fleishman

Advanced Research Resources Organization

Hilda Wing, Contracting Officer's Representative

Submitted by

Newell K. Eaton, Chief

Selection and Classification Technical Area

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by

Joyce L. Shields, Director

Manpower and Personnel

Research Laboratory

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonneI

"Department of the Army

January 1984

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel

20162722A791

ApI romwed for public rouese: distibution unlimited.

N

S~iii

.4
i,7 . . .77... 7 

ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recomimendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

4

i V

Ii

-C ! ==• •"
FOREWORD

During the late 1970's the Military Entrance Physical Strength

Capacity Test (MEPSCAT) was developed at the U.S. Army Research i

Institute for Environmental Medicine (ARIEM). This test battery

assessed the physical strength and stamina of Army applicants. During

these same years, there was a dramatic increase in the percentage of

women soldiers. This increase caused concern among field commanders

about readiness and about injury and attrition rates for women. Tn

1981, the Army instituted a temporary freeze on the numbers of female

enlistees and establ-.4hed the Women in the Army Policy Review Group (WITAPRG) to review relevant programs and policies.

One Policy Review Group initiative was the Physical Demands

Analysis of Army MOS based upon strength requirements. One conclusion

was that a test battery such as the MEPSCAT could be a valid predictor

of physical performance in Army MOS. Based on a preliminary

recommendation from WITAPRG, on 8 July 1982, the Chief of Staff, Army,

approved initiation of the MEPSCAT validation project. This report

describes that validation research.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Tech..ical Director

V"

4m

vm

___________ '
.. .. . - . . ... .. - ;_7 .' " J - BE,-

VALIDATION OF THE MILITARY ENTRANCE PHYSICAL STPENOTH CAPACTTY TEST -'

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The Women in the Army Policy Review Group (WITAPRG) performed a

Physical Demands Analysis of Army MOS which indicated that MOS varied in

their physical strength requirements. The Military E'listment Physical

Strength Capacity Test (MEPSCAT) is a battery of six physical ability

tests. Fo,- evaluate physical strength: Lift to 60 inches, Lift to 72

inches, Upright Pull, and Hand Grip. The fifth, Predicted Maximal

Oxygen Consumption, is a measure of aerobic capacity or stamina. The

sixth, the anthropometric measure of Lean Body Mass, can be used as a

surrogate measure of stamina. The battery was developed by the U.S.

Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine (ARIEM) to be

administered to applicants for Army service. The research assignment

was to validate the MEPSCAT, using the WITAPRG job analysis as the basis

for the criterion measures, in a longitudinal criterion-related validity " "

research effort.

Procedure:

The battery (MEPSCAT) was given to 1,003 female soldiers and 980

male soldiers before they had begun Basic Training. Criterion measures

which represented physical competency in Basic Training (i.e., physical

proficiency tests, sick calls, profiles, separation data) as well as on

the job (i.e., lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling activities) were

taken and correlated with the soldiers' scores on the physical ability

tests. The criterion performance tasks were administered to the 951

soldiers who had completed Advanced Individual Training (AIT) within 8-

16 weeks of starting Basic Training and were available for testing. The

job performance measures (i.e., criterion performance tasks) were

designed to evaluate proficiency in the performance of tasks determined

to be important in physically demanding Army jobs (ie., Lift, Carry,

Push, and Torque).

Findings:

The results indicated that test validity was high (R = .84) for the

total sample. The Lift 60 accounted for 67% of the variance in

criterion performance, while Lean Body Mass and the Upright Pull tests

accounted for an additional 3% and 1%, respectively. These findings are

in accord with research on physically demanding jobs in the other

military services and in private industry. The fairness analyses showed

a minimal overprediction for women. The medical data of Basic Training

were not predictable by MEPSCAT. However, the deficiencies of these

medical data as research criterid are the most likely reason for the

failure to document 'heir validity in this research.

vii

Preceding Page,

Left Blank

: . -----.. ,,! 

"I / / , / -/
.~~~* . . . . . .

Utilization of Findings:

This research shows the MEPSCAT to be a valid predictor of performance on physically demanding tasks which were developed to be representative of the generic strength requirements of Army MOS. One "* component of the MEPSCAT, the Lif'. 60, accounted for most of the

1 criterion variance. Other criteria of importance to the Army, such as attrition eid injury rates, were not predictable from MEPSCAT in this research. Such operational criteria require extra care and attention

during data collection in order that they meet the psychometric . requirements of criterion-related validity research. This research has been presented to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, for consideration in establishment of physical performance standards for

Armny enlistment.

v

•-•r4

vii

'o .
TABLE OF CONTENTS

* Page

ABSTRACT . . 1....................1

PREFACE .... ..................................... 2

, INTRODUCTION .............. ........................... 3

METHOD ............................................... 10

* Instruments ......... ......................... ... 10

A¶ Procedure ............ .......................... 19

p."

Research Participants ............................... 19

RESULTS ............................... ......... 23

Descriptive Statistics Based on Total Sample ........... .. 23

Gender Differences .............................. 2. K.

Reliability . . . . .. . .. ... .. . . .. .. . STest-Retest 34

., Correlation Analysis of Pre-Basic and Post-AIT MEPSCAT

Measures ....... .......................... . .36

Analysis of Medical Data .... ............... . ... 36

Correlations Among MEPSCAT Measures .... ............. .. 41

Validity Analysis ........... ...................... 41

Fairness Ar.alysis .... ..................... 54 U

Differences in Validity When Comparing Men and Women . .. 57

Comparisons Among Job Categories ......... ............. 58

MEPSCAT Predictors and Scatter Plots .... ............ .. 58

DISCUSSION ................................ 67

REFERENCES ................................ 72

APPENDIX A: Example of the Job Analysis Results

APPENDIX B: Results of Review of WITAPRG Physical Demands Analysis

ix

pa

/ --
APPENDIX C: Criterion Performance Tasks Specifications

APPENDIX D: Test Item Procedures for MEPSCAT

APPENDIX E: CPT Score Sheet

APPENDIX F: Differenc*. in H¶EPSCAT Scores Between Pre-Basic and

Post-Basic, and Post-Basic and Post-AIT

APPENDIX G: Differences in Scores on the MEPSCAT, CPTs, and Physical Proficiency Tests Between the Subsample Tested During'

Post-Basic and the Total Sample

APPENDIX H: Correlation Matric Including Anthropometric Data,

MEPSCAT, and CPT Variables

APPENDIX I: Correlations Between Different Combinations of Criterion

Measures

APPENDIX J: Separate Regression Equations Using Criterion 1,

Criterion 2, and Criterion 3 for Men

APPENDIX K: Scatter Plct Criterion 1 by Lift 60 for Total, Men and

Women

x

.%"
List of Tdbles

Page

1. Rank Order of Most Frequent Physical Tasks in Amy Jobs' . 11

2. Characteristics of Examinees ........ ........ 24

3. Mean MEPSCAT Scores of Men and Women .... .. ...... 25

4. Descriptive Statistics for Criterion Performance Measures

of len and Wom~n ...................... 30

5. Mean Physical Proficiency Test Scores of lien and Women . . . 31

6. Test-Retest Reliability for the Criterion Perfomance Tasks , 35

7. Correlation Between Pre-Basic and Post-AIT Scores for the

Total Sample on the MEPSCAT . . . . . . . . 37

8. Number of MEPSCAT Soldiers Who Had One or More Sick Calls

During Basic Training. ......... .. ....... 39

9. Percentage of Sick Calls for Men and Women Classified by

Body System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

10. Percentage of Sick Calls for tlusculoskeletal System Divided

by Body Part and Gender. ...... ............. 42"

11. Total Number of Days .-n Profile by Gender . . . . . . . . . . 43

12. Correlations Among MEPSCAT Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

13. Separation Data on MPSCAT Soldiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

14. Correlations Bet een MUEPSCAT, CPTs, PT Scores and Days on

Profile and Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

15. Validity Correlations Between Predictor and Criterion Mleasires 48

16. Correlations Among the Criterion Measures ........ .. 50

17. Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Comparing

Different Predictor and Criterion Combinations (Total Sample)

(Total Sample). . . . . ...... ...... .............. ...... ... 52

18. Test of Differential Prediction for Men and Women . . . . .. 55

19. Differences in Pre-Basic tHEPSCAT Scores Between the Physical

Demand Levels of MOS (Total Sample) ............... 59

xi
List of Tables (Continued)

Page

20. Differences in Pre-Basic MEPSCAT Scores Between the Physical

_Demand Levels of IIOS (Male Sample) ..... . . . . . . . 60

21. Differences in Pre-Basic tIEPSCAT Scores Between the Physical

Denand Levels of MOS (Female Sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

22. IEPSCAT and CPT Samples Broken into the Physical Demands

Levels of Examinees ......... . . .. . . . .. 62

23. Percentage of Individu..s Who Achieved Specific Levels on

the CPTs as a Function of Scores on the Lift 60 for the Total

Group (n - 959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

24. Percentage of Individuals Who Achieved Specific Levels on

the (,PTs as a Function of Scores on the Lift 60 for Men "-"(n - 476),.. 65

25. Percentage of Individual's Who Achieved Specific Levels on

".'the CPTs as a Function of Scores on the Lift 60 for Women """•(n •483) .......................... 66

X.

t .. '1

"'"" xii

SO:I
List of Figures

1. Five Physical Demand Categories ..... ..... ............... 7

2. Description of Criterion Performance Tasks .............. . 13

3. Basic Training Criteria . .. . . . . . .. . .. ....... lg

4. Description of ?¶EPSCAT. . .................... 2)

5. Chronology of IIEPSCAT Validation ....... ................ 21

6. Organization of Medical Data for Analysis . . ... . . . . 3

61

P

C4,

xiii
ABSTRACT

A battery uf physical ability tests was validated using a predictive, criterion-related strategy. The battery was given to 1,003 female

soldiers and 980 male soldiers before they had begun Basic Training.

Criterion measures which represented physical competency in Basic Train-.

ing (i.e., physical proficiency tests, sick call, profiles, and separation data) as well as on the job (i.e., lifting, carrying, pushing,

pulling activities) were correlated with the soldiers' scores on the

physical ab'lity tests. The job performance measures (i.e., criterion

performance tasks) were designed to evaluate proficiency in the performance of tasks determined to be important in physically demanding Army

jobs (i.e., Lift, Carry, Push and Torque). The criterion performance

tasks were administered to the 951 soldiers who had completed Advanced

Individual Training (AIT). The results indicated that test validity was

high (R = .84). The Lift 60 accounted for 67% of the variance in

criterion performance, while Lean Body Mass (LBM) and the Upright Pull

test accounted for an additional 3% and 1%, respectively. The fairness

enalysis showed that there were nonsignificant slope differences and

only slight intercept differences which suggested minimal overprediction

for woien.

M

I,,

.,?

'S

Sl
PREFACE

The validation research required the assistance and cooperation of

numerous technical representatives and officials. We would like to

recognize the efforts of these people. Dr. Hilda Wing and Or. M. A.

Fischl served as Army Research Institute Contracting nfficer's Technical

Representative (COTR) during different phases of the project. They

provided valuable technical guidance and direction during the research. Maj. Dennis M. Kowal, Office of Assistant Secretary of the

Defense for Health Affairs', developed the overall validation plan and

participated in several of theý research activities. Dr. James A. Vogel,

Director of the Exercise Physiology Division, Army Research Institute

for Environmental Medicine, was responsible for the development and

administration of the U.S. Army's physical ability test battery.

NNO

~~/

U2
INTPOPNCTION

It has been estimated that costs associated with rapid attrition of

Army recruits may be over $190 million a year (Kowal, Vogel, Sharp, &

Knapik, 1982). Some of these new accessions may have left the military

because of failure to cope with the physical and stressful nature of

military training and work. For example, it has been determined that

about 50% of the women assigned to jobs which require liftinq 100 pound

objects or more leave the Army prior to completion of their first term

of service (Women in the Army, November 1982). Although some women may

have difficulty in performing physically demandinq task- in some Army

specialties, it is also true that a portion of the male population may

have difficulty in performing these tasks as well. The present research

effort was undertaken to Validate tests that would allow the Army to

assign soldiers to jobs which match their level of physical capacity,

regardless of the individual's gender.

In 1976, the General Accounting Office issued recommendations to

the military services to develop physical and operational fitness standards for job specialties which are the same for men and women. The

military services have decided to follow several avenues to achieve

these goals. First, efforts have been made to determine the physical

requirements of jobs. Second, training programs and standards have been

developed that are designed to ensure fitness. Third, screening systems

are being developed to ensure that new accessions meet the physical

demands of job specialties. The anticipated benefits from using such a

system in an operational environment include greater productivity and

efficiency, and decreased injury rate.

The services have also begun to design screening procedures which

can be used to select and assign personnel to jobs depending on the

match between the person's physical capabilities and the job demands.

In the Air Force, approximately 16,000 supervisors made estimates of the

. 3
physical demands of 67,000 job tasks (First Annual Report, December

1982). Tasks for 188 job specialties were rated on a scale from 0 to 9

*in terms of their physical demand level. This was followed by the

development of a method for integrating physical demands of tasks with

g percent of first term enlisted personnel who perform the tasks. The Air

*Force is presently developing mathematical models to ensure that raters

from less demanding jobs will give similar ratings to the same tasks as

* will raters in more demanding Jobs. The Air Force Aerospace Medical

Research Laboratory is developing a strength and stamina test battery

based on the task and physical demand data.

The Navy's efforts to develop and validate physical fitness stand-'

ards and tests have followed a similar approach es other services

h(Robertson, 1982). They have developed a Strength.Test Battery (STB)

concurrently with the measuring of the critical job tasks. The STS.

.4 assesses eight physical abilities (e.g., dynamic strength, static

strength, and power) and six anthropometric characteristics (e.g., skin

fold). The test battery was given to 400 men and 250 women. The results provided insight into differences in test performance between

gender groups. There was little overlap between men and women. For men

the best predictor of simulated job tasks (e.q., cranking and pumping

N activities) was lean body weight (r - .45) and for women it was arm-pull

(r - .36). The test-retest correlations were in the .90's.

A job analytic methodology was developed for the Army and applied

to seven Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) .(e.g., Infantryman,

Military Police and Medical Specialist). T'e Physical Abilities Analyss eeoe by Advanced Research Resources Organization (ARRO), was

refined and updated to reflect more recent findings in the measurement

ofphysical performance (Laubach, 1976; Myers, Gebhardt, & Fleishman,

199) Profiles depicting physical demands and task bank manuals were

developed for each of the seven MOS. These rating procedures were found

to be highly reliable in that incumbent raters agreed upon the physical

ability requirements in jobs. In addition, the Physical Abilities

Analysis developed for the Army was validated. The findings indicated

that performance in job tasks, which had been judged by incumbent soldiers to require a relatively high level of a particular physical abil4 '
ity (e.g., stamina), were correlated with basic ability tests which

measured the same ability (e.g., step test). Because the research

"demonstrated a statistical link between the perceived and the actual

physical ability requirements of tasks in different Army jobs, the L

authors concluded that the Physical Abilities Analysis methodology-is a

reliable and valid strategy'to identify the physical ability requirements of jobs (Myers, Gebhardt, Price, & Flelshman, 1981). The multiple

correlations between the ability tests and the work sample tasks were in

the range of .60 to .92.

The Army has begun to investigate the impact of physical capacity

on the accomplishment of mission objectives as well as to develop a

battery of tests which measure a broad range of physical abilities. In

the late 1970's the Exercise Physiology Division of the U. S. Army.

Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM) was tasked by

Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) to develop, for

pilot testing, a battery of physical fitness tests suitable for screening new accessions for MOS classification during the Armed Forces

Entrance Evaluation Station medical exam. USARIEM carried out several

studies that resulted in a battery of tests referred to as Military

Entrance Physical Strength Capacity Test (14

EPSCAT). The test battery

has been given to over a thousand recruits at Ft. Jackson, South "J

Carolina and Ft. Stewart, Georgia (Sharp, Wright, Vogel, Patton, •

Daniels, Knapik, & Kowal, 1980).

The measures which make up the MEPSCAT include strength and cardiovascular measures. An individual's aerobic capacity is measured by the

step test which yields a prediction of maximal oxygen consumption (V02

Max). It also includes several anthropometric measures for determining

lean body mass (e.g., skinfold). The incremental lift test, which was

developed by the Air Force involves the use of maximum lift capacity

(MLC) as the primary index. The test involves repetitive lifting of

increasing weights to specific heights (e.g., 60 and 72 inches). Two

regression models have been developed whi'h indicate that these measures

predict strength and aerobic capacity (Sharp et al., 1980).

5
Some preliminary steps have been taken to validate the MEPSCAT

using criterion measures which represent physical proficiency. Kowal

(1980) found that for women the major causes of injury in Basic Training

were lack of prior conditioning, excess body weight, high percentage of

body fat, and limited leg strength. He also reported thai. the average

training time loss was 13 days and that early training or "overuse

syndrome" accounted for 42% of the reported injuries (e.g., tibial

stress fracture, sprains and Achilles tendinitis). He concluded that it

is important to identify these limitations before Basic Training so as

to minimize their impact through proper remedial activities. Kowal et

al. (1982) found that endurance capacity was related to success in

completing Basic Training. Prediction of attrition was best accomplished by lean body mass in men (r = .20) and by leg and trunk strength

in females (r = .50). He also reported that MEPSCAT tests were predictive of performance in common soldering tasks. The multiple correlations ranged from .45 to .67.

Another research project which parallels the Army's research on job

analysis and test development has been carried out by the Women in the

Army Policy Review Group (WITAPRG). A recent report by WITAPRG dealt

with the physical standards in Army jobs and how they were related to

mission, combat readiness, quality of life, and the use of female enlisted soldiers in the Army (Women in the Army, November 1982). This

report described two major areas of research. First, Physical Demands

Analysis was used as a basis for identifying the physical requirements

of all Army jobs (e.g., lifting). The method was derived from the job

analysis method developed by the Department of Labor (Handbook, 1972).

There were several categories which represented different levels of

physical demand, i.e., light to very heavy (Figure 1). --Twenty-two------------------

factors, which were slightly different from the DOL method, were used to

determine the physical demands of Army jobs (e.g., lift, push, pull,

carry, dig, throw, and run). Based on the analysis, each job was

assigned to one of the five categories. Using available attrition data

WITAPRG determined that about 50 percent of the women in the Heavy and

6

--------------------------- ./ '--
I I 4, cuW jo- L. Lm

C '-4) 4 0 0

= .0 a .04 toc ino 4 o &A m

O-0 CD 4) %.)

_j A -4 )..O 4AO

(U,

%A~4 -04

c (A 4- 4-

<) *,-oO

0L 0)4 >

4J r- J Gili4J'

*~ .C4JC) .0 014

EU2300

*r"~iU.0L.0~4

.00

0 J .0 J

Lil 0. (U

toti 0C 04-4 4-) '

C5- E ).- a- r- 0 c

uLJ~ o V; :3 -- iz LL.-

4Ji C ELC IA~ gr39I Li C- 0~0 'U CD U.. 

o j tA u 0 3 

coL

I CA 0

00 ton I-- u 0 41 41 tn CU

0 IA , C f - U) .J.

= _ CA 4n-. 0g

0 .0 4) 4J .0 U. iJ

41 r- wC ~ Z-4 CDC

4-Jl E 41 aGDi4L. 0 z 

c 4J

cm (0 n I- >0

tO a4)J ý- wU~ CfC IA JC' (U -AJ 4 

C.U 4- - 11 c.* * m =i:5i.

C-. 0 -4-'U M-- . a) og 4J0 4 inC I- C4

j +-X o Ln =U

W -04-. ui = 0

w w 4-.0 
7 W ,-ý 77.1.

Very Heavy MOS job families leave the Army prior to completion of their

first term of service. The second research area dealt with the development of a procedure, called Direct Combat Probability Assessment, which

was used to determine tr~e probability that soldiers assigned to a particular MOS would be involved in combat. Women are excluded from serving in positions forward of the brigade rear boundary where the hiqhest

probability exists of routinely engaging in direct combat (i.e., PI).

Although thirty-eight MOS had been excluded under the orininal combat

exclusion policy, the Direct Combat Probability categorization yielded

an additional 23 MOS for closure.

The WITAPRG made several conclusions. First, the Physical F'emands

Analysis and Combat Probability Assessment were judged as effective

analytical tools and should be adopted. Second, the Army should vali-.

date the MEPSCAT as soon as possible. Third, an algorithm should be

implemented which would allow the Army to assign soldiers who have the

physical capacity at the levels required by the MnS."

The purpose of the research was to conduct a predictive, criterionrelated validation of the MEPSCAT. A large number of soldiers enterinq

Basic Training were given the MEPSCAT and then followed throuqh Basic

Training and AIT where data were coll2cted on the soldiers' ability to

meet the physical demands of Army traininq and work. A maJor activity

in the research was the development of Criterion Performance Tasks

(CPTs) that measured the soldiers' physical capacity at the completion

of AIT. Generic criterion measures were used, based on the results from

the WITAPRG study. These types of measures were expected to provide an

efficient yet effective method to evaluate competency in terms of the

important dimensions of physical proficiency found common across a larae

number of Army jobs.

It was not part of the research to set critical assignment scores

for the.MEPSCAT. Instead, the goals of the research were to establish

the range of human performance in each of the Criterion PerFormance

8

*"-3
Tasks and to determine the empirical relationships between these

measures and the predictor tests in the MUPSCAT. The development of

critical assignment scores on the MUPSCAT was beyond the scope of the

present effort. The determination of single MUPSCAT scores for the

purpose, of assigning soldiers to particular job families was considered -

a policy decision to be made by the Army based on the present researchfindings.

93⁄4
METHOD

Instruments

Several measurement instruments and scoring procedures were

developed. The following section describes the development of the CPTs,

Basic Training criteria, as well as the MEPSCAT predictors.

Development of criterion performance tasks. To ensure that the

criteria used in the validation were representative of the physical

activities performed across Army jobs, the results from WITAPRG's job

analyses were used as the basis for developing the Criterion Performance

Tasks (CPTs). These job analyses described MOS in terms of the level of

the physical demands and the most demanding tasks. Using the job

analysis results provided by WITAPRG we determined the most frequently

occurring physically demanding tasks when collapsing across all Army

jobs analyzed. For each MOS the number of tasks in each of the 22

categories (e.g., lift, carry, run, march, throw and stoop) was

tabulated. The results of our tabulation indicated that the most

frequent physically demanding activities included lifting, carrying,

pushing, and pulling (Table 1). Results of the WITAPRG's job analysis

for one MOS are shown in Appendix A.

Appendix B shows that the weight lifted in the lifting tasks ranqed

from 30 lbs to about 200 lbs. Lifts of weight over 200 lbs usually

involved more than one individual. Increasingly heavier equipment was

lifted by soldiers assigned to MOS in the Very Heavy category when

compared to the Moderately Heavy Category. In the same table, the data

indicated that the height lifted was most often in the range of 3 to 4

feet above ground level.

The carry activity was also categorized into different classes of

weights and distances. Appendix B shows the frequencies of different

weights and distances of carries for MOS of three levels of physical

demands. For example, soldiers in the Very Heavy MOS category lifted

and carried objects weighting from 30 to 200 lbs over a distance of ?00

o yards. There were a few instances where objects were carried over 880

10-

S10 4..

I po

L .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .
TABLE 1

Rank Order of Most Frequent Physical Tasks in Amy Jobs'

Very Moderately

Heavy Heavy Heavy

Physical Tasks Total MOS MOS MOS

Lift/Lower 41% 40% 40% 43%

Carry/Load Bear 30% 31% 30% 28%

Pull/Torque 6% 8% 6%

Push5% 5% 5% 7%

Cl imb/Descend 4% 4% 5% 3%

Reach 2% U% 2% 1%

Stoop 2% 2% 2% 2%

Dig 1% 1% 1% 2%

Crawl ]% 1% 1% 41%

Kneel 1% 1% 1% 1%

Crouch 1% 1% 1% 1%

Hanmmer/Pound 1% 1% 1% 1%

Stand 4I% 0% 0% <1%

Recline 41% <1% <1% <1%

Handle/Finger <1% 01% 1% 01% -

Throw 4I% 41% 0% 0%

Walk/March 41% 0% 41% 41%

Run/Rush 41% <1% 0% 0%

Swim/Dive <1% <1% 0% <1%

Sit 0% 0% 0% 0%

""

a.

'.I

Analysis of 1,999 critical tasks across all job categories (Very Heavy =

1,255; Heavy = 263; Moderately Heavy = 481).

11 PT!

"I-

"I

............ .Lý .• ••mf-l-lI•-.-.D Wv. J%-o • - •.•.-%, ... -V,-.. -16-• •- , - ' ,.° - . • . -° • P ." •' .g• - •
yards but these were usually lighter pieces of eruipment (i.e., less

than 85 lbs). Although similar results were found for the Heavy and

Moderately Heavy categories, the weights and distances carried were

smaller for the less demanding MOS categories.

Similar analyses of the push and pull activities are shown in

Appendix B. The push and pull tasks involved objects of greater weight

than the other activities (e.g., carry) but the distances were usually

no more than eight yards. The torque task was reported separately in

the WITAPRG job analysis. The range of pounds of torque required is

presented in Appendix B.

The review of the job analysis data yielded the most important

physical performance dimensions common across all Army jobs in the three

most demanding MOS categories (i.e., MH, H and VH). It provided a

synthesis of all of the most physically demanding tasks that were performed in these MOS. The analysis indicated not-only the four most

important types of physical activities common across all of the MOS

(i.e., lift, carry, push, and pull), but it also suggested the different

parameters and design strategies that should be used in the development

of the CPTs. For example, it indicated the range in weights of objects

that were lifted and the distances objects were carried and pushed. N Each Criterion Performance Task (CPT) was developed to represent

one of the four dimensions identified in the Army's previous job analysis efforts. Together these generic tasks measured the important physically demanding components of Army Jobs. The CPTs were developed

to be generalizable and job-related. The CPTs were administered to the

soldiers upon :ompletion of AIT.

The four CPTs (Figure 2) involved lifting, carrying, pushing, and

pulling (i.e., torque). Prior to designing the CPTs the conditions

under which they would be administered were reviewed to determine the

feasibility of administration at the four military installations selected by the Army. Our previos experience in developing work sample tasks

12
4.4ad

Cl=C

It-4 0-510E

to I. A 1 .

0~~~ 2aw

M 8 CL0

5' 4A4. c~

0L u s Z=2S

0% 0 44 =-

- C 01

0.0

Z,. -W C

L. CL -. -C-* 0-c 4

_2 oo z 4- C. -

_ ~ ~ ~OS-C4 ~ O 40 -E.- 

0a %A t- Ad u eIDC

4D A5 ap- us A us U 06 m vi b

0 4J IA %. 'A A: A U 005

4' u - aiaCJ W- 2 0. fn- X

.U ~I =0 . * j1~ 

ad . ~ uD

-~ - . 0

- 4. C us-~u13
for Army Jobs indicated that it was important to establish a scoring

system which provided for an unrestricted range of scores (Myers et al.,

1981). Also, since the administration of the CPTs would not take place

in a laboratory setting, the safety of the participants and the standardization of the testirg were critical to successful conduct of the

study.

The Lift Task was designed based on the job analysis results, which

indicated that lifting activities were common across physically

demanding Army jobs. The job analysis specified that three to four feet

was the height to which equipment was most frequently lifted.

Additionally, many MOS required soldiers to lift items to the bed of a

two and a half ton vehicle (132 cm). Further, research has shown that

the amount of weight an individual is able to lift decreases as the

height increases and this weight decreases dramatically if the height

lifted exceeds the person's chest or shoulder height (Snook & Irvine,

1967; Snook & Ciriello, 1974; Chaffin, Herrin, Keyserling, & Garg,

* 1977). Due to the marked difference in one's ability to lift heavy

items to chest height or higher, the chest (or axilla) height was

selected as the standard point to which the boxes were lifted. This ,

-required both short and tall individuals to lift to the same point

anthropometrically.

In order to account for the differences in ability to lift to chest

height and to standardize the testing, the literature related to anthropometry of men and women was reviewed to establish vertical lifting

heights that would be within the percentiles defined in this literature

(Churchill, Churchill, McConville, & White, 1977; Churchill, McConvill,

3 \Laubach, & White, 1971; White & Churchill, 1977). Using chest height as

a standardized level assured that the relative height of the lift would

> be comparable for men and women. This approach separated the height

factor from the ability to lift specified weights.

In the Lift Task the soldier was requested to lift the heaviest box

possible to chest height. A complete description of the test procedures

is located in Appendix C. This description includes details related to

the determination of chest height and initial weight selection.

Pi

14

C'
Initially the object to be lifted was a piece ot Army equipment normally

handled by one soldier. However, the variability in sizes of such equipment

presented measurement problems in that as the size varied with increases or

decreases in weight, the torques (moment of force) placed upon the musculature

of the lumbosacral area of the back also varied. Therefore, variation in size

objects could increase the difficulty of the lift as well as increase tha risk

of injury. Further, there were difficulties in procuring identical equipment

at each military installation. Therefore boxes of uniform size (i.e., 20" x

12" x 15") were constructed at each military installation. Each box was filled

with materials so that it weighed the desired amount (i.e., 40 lbs. to 200

lbs.).

The Carry Task was designed based on the job analysis results, which

indicated that carrying activities were common across physically demandinq

Army jobs. Past research related to manual materials handling has demonstrated

significant gender differences in the ability to carry a maximum amount of

weight (Snook & Ciriellu, 1974) The rationale for using the heaviest weight

lifted to chest height centered around the safety aspects related to

performance of the task and the need to maximize the range of scores, thus

reducing the potential for range restriction. For examile, if an individual

carried the heaviest possible weight to chest height, the distance carried

might have been very short and the risk of injury might have been greater. In

this research, individuals carried the assigned weight at waist heiaht. A

complete description of the Carry Task is located in Appendix C.

The job analysis results indicated that pushing activities were com-ron

across Army jobs, and therefore, the Push Task was developed. Althouqh

isometric pushing forces have been measured in past research studies, little

research has invo'iv.d dynamic pushing. The research related to isometric

pushing has shown that hand and foot placement, body position, and traction had

an effect upon the amount of force that could be generated (Ayoub & Mcnaniel,

1974; Caldwell, 1964; Kroemer, 1969). The lack of reseach related to Jynamic

pushing is partially due to the difficulty in maintaining a constant

coefficient of kinetic friction (uk) and in determining the coefficient of

static friction (uk).

15
To minimize the problems associated with dynamic pushing, three

'A factors were taken into consideration. First, a sled was designed which

46 Pcould withstand both the vertical and horizontal pushing forces exerted

by the soldiers. In an attempt to standardize the coefficient of friction between the sled and the plyw ood runway at the four installations

and to minimize the Army's constructon costs and time, a sheet of Type

304/18 gauge (0.048 inch thick) stainless steel was mounted on the

bottom of the sled. Further the type of plywood (AC Ferr) was also

Ike specified.

Second, to standardize the body position, the soldier pushed at the

point which corresponded to 70 percent of the soldier's height. The

selection of 70 percent was based upon past research by Kroemer (1960),

who determined that the greatest force could be applied in this position. Finally, the footwear specified for the testing session w~s Army

issue combat boot:. Use of non-issue boots (i.e., jump boots) or personal footwear would have allowed for excessive variance in the amount

of traction the soldier could attain.

Since sandbags had to be used for weight due to the lack of availability of marked lead weights, the administrators were instructed to

weigh the sandbags prior to each test session to determine if the weight

was correctly marked. If the weights were incorrect, bags were filled

to maintain the correct weight. A complete description of the Push Task

is found in Appendix C.

The Torque Task was designed because the job analysis indicated

that many physically demanding Army tasks involved pulling movements for

such activities as engine repair or changing tires. These tasks

consisted of torquing movements with wrenches (e.g., luge, t',rque, open

end). A hydraulic system was considered in the design of the torquing

task; however, the cost and lack of technical services at the four

military installations prohibited the use of such a system. Therefore

an isometric pulling movement that simulated the use of a torque wrench

was designed.

4/' The Torque Task required a soldier to pull on a torque wrench until

maximum force was attained on the dial. A bolt was welded to a plate

16
and fastened to. the shelving standard. The torque wrench was placed on

the bolt at a 45 degree angle to reduce the magnitude of force the

*soldier could generate. This ensured that the forces would not exceed

the maximum of -the torque wrench (600 ft-lb). As described for the Lift

Task, the anthropometry literature was used as the basis to standardize

the vertical height at which the soldier pulled on the torque wrench

(Churchill et al., 1971; Churchill et al., 1977; White & Churchill,

* 1977). To eliminate the factor of body weight in the task, the instruc- P . tions specified that the soldier must lean against the shelving standard. A complete description of this task is located in Appendix C.

*The lengt-h of the moment arm in the Torque task was one foot.

Therefore the force in pounds was recorded directly from the dial. ISince the moment arm was not perpendicular to the force generated by the

soldier, the known values were substituted into an equation to obtain

the force value (i.e., Torque - rFsin, 8, where r is the radius, F is

the force, and 6 is the angle (450) between r and F).

To provide consistency in the units of measurement with the USARIEM

data, the English units associated with the CPTs were transformed into

metric units.

Basic training criteria. Several other criterion measures of

physical capacity were selected. Physical Proficiency Test scores

(i.e., Sit-ups, Push-ups, and Run), sick call, profiles, and separation

data were collected because they were expected to indicate a soldier's

ability to cope successfully with the physical demands of Army work I (Figure 3). The Physical Proficiency Tests were selected for two

reasons. First, this training has been shown to be an important

component of a soldier's physical readiness and is required to complete

B~~sic Training. Second, the professional guidelines established by the

American Psychological Association (Principles, Division 14, 1980)

stipulate that measures of training effectiveness should be a part of a

validation study because of the need to consider improvement in

abilities that may take place during this time period. In contrast to.

Physical Proficiency Test scores, the medical and separation criteria

were found to be often confounded by other variables such as attitude

and motivation. For example, the accuracy of the reasons stated for

17
j *

b r

*L.. U.

4J 4J 0I o

4L 0 4J 0

0 0

'I 4. U) U

2:E4 4)4)U.

Eu,' 0 ' ,U 

6 .' 4.A 0

10 4I A 4n ) I

C) out CD 

4D %0 t 4-

c 0 " C 4- 0 4- . .

-A0 0 0 

.i Iwo

"0) " 1" 

uIr VI

.0 .. c

44)

Al I-- - 09- 0

4-A 4'

CA a) #A5. C4

*'G; " " •" U..

.0.00 0- r- wm b

m z

C = I- 4€ U• u .-.

I u I = to %l ,- go -- :0 -, .

U ( p• 1 " '-.• - Si 

InAn

,"If U

ai

I%

1.. .- 4..0,

,.~ 0~t4

EU 4.0
separation were varied and uncertain. Therefore, analyses related to

these criteria were secondary to those involving the CPTs and Physical

Proficiency Tests.

Description of MEPSCAT. The MEPSCAT was developed by the Exercise

Physiology Division of the USARIEM (Sharp et al., 1980). In the present

research, the battery included six tests (Figure 4). The tests assessed

several areas of physical capacity including body composition, isometric

and isotonic strengths, and aerobic capacity (Appendix n). USARIEM

selected these tests because they were hypothesized to be predictive of

physical performance in physically demanding job tasks (Robertson, 19P2;

Kowal, 1980; Sharp et al., 1980).

Procedure

The specifications for the CPTs were sent to officials at each

installation so that the necessary equipment could be obtained (Appendix

C). Initially, the installations were requested to obtain actual Army

equipment for the Lift and the Carry Tasks (Appendix!C, p. 22). o

However, the Army was unable to procure the same equipment at each post

or even similar equipment with the same weight and dimensions. .

Therefore, in ordpr not to undermine the standardization and reliability

in the CPT administration, the request was revised. Wooden (20" x 12" X

15"') boxes were constructed at each installation and weiqhted to the

pounds specified. i

We conducted two-day training sessions in CPT a ministration at

each Installation (Forts Lee, Gordon, Jackson, and Sam Houston). These

sessions consisted of presentations related to instructions and scoring

procedures or tha first day, followed by practice administration of the

.PTs to a small group of soldiers on the second day. Research staff

were present on the first day of the actual CPT administration to address problems with scoring or administration. A copy of the score

sheet used for administering the CPTs is in Appendix E.

Research Participants

Research participants were 980 male and 1,003 female soldiers.

Figure 5 shows the schedule which was followed in the validation. The

MEPSCAT was administered by USARIEM before and after Basic Training, and

19

9.°

I /i

__ I,
LA CA 41 41 .

Q) wo n 41 4. 4

4) ~4/1 E. to ' 41 tA 4/1 41.C

La.. ~.- ~ -. L

' - o .-

#a 4 3 u _ 

0. 4- 1 41C

> O U))U)U)

C°

I I-

-- Li

00

La.. )- U E °.-

o - LL. CAu

00"

w di 4

Um en. Ch

I- 4. 4J

0. -a.- = 7 u Im *n

0 a,

'a 'a

4)41

0) 41 C x

&A >5 0.O. -u

- 01- 0 0 4J cc 41 E-U

fa tm@15

20
C

0

L -

r -

a. Im

IACA

Co w

4A-

-. 0

U) a;c O ) 0 -r .c. 

*A 9. > o &A = > .

4A H P J

C U)4 - a a C t

fa -J c -4

L"a,
7-w . J1 magain after AIT. The number of soldiers who took the MEPS.AT varied

with time of administration. The sample of soldiers who took the test

battery at the end of Basic Training was small because it was to be used

in an analysis which addressed an issue considered less important than

the validation. This secondary analysis examined the change in physical

proficiency as a function of training. "

The CPTs were given at the end of AIT to soldiers who had taken the

MEPSCAT before Basic. About 53 percent (or 1,042) of the oriqinal grout)

of 1,983 soldiers who took the MEPSCAT before Basic were not given the

CPTs at the end of AIT (i.e., 513 women and 529 men). There were

several reasons for this loss of participants. First, officials at

several of the installations assumed that testing did not have to be

ready to begin until January 1983; therefore, students in the self-paced

AIT schools graduated without taking the CPTs. Second, the administrators responsible for giving the CPT at the end of AIT did not have a

complete list of all MEPSCAT participants. Third, some soldiers who had

taken the MEPSCAT before Basic at Ft. Jackson may have been subsequently

given a different MOS and sent to an AIT school not located at one of

the four military installations (Forts Lee, Gordon, Jackson, and Sam

Houston).

22
RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics Based on Total Sample . ..

Characteristics of examinees. The sample was composed of 1,983

soldiers (980 men and 1,003 women) with a mean age of 20.0 years (Table

2). The men's height and weight were 175.1 cm and 72.9 kg, respectively, while the women's were 162.6 cm and 58.5 kg (Table 2).

MEFSCAT total sample. The means and standard deviations for the

MEPSCAT are presented in Table 3. The label pre-Basic indicates the

soldiers who took the MEPZCAT before Basic Training. Post-Basic is the

label used to identify a subsample (n a 202) of soldiers out of the

oricinal 1,983 who also took the MEPSCAT at the end of Basic Trainina.

This post-Basic group was used to establish the level of improvement in

the MEPSCAT following eight weeks of training. Finally, post-AIT was

another subsample defined as the soldiers who completed Advanced Individual Training (AIT) in a specific MOS. Paired T tests were used to

probe for significant differences between these three administrations of'

the MEPSCAT (Appendix F).

As mentioned previously, the MEPSCAT Battery consisted of six

tests: Lean Body Mass (Percent Body Fat), Handgrip, Lift 60 Inches,

Lift 72 Inches, Upright Pull (38 cm), and Predicted Max V02. Percent

Body Fat (% Fat) was used to compute Lean Body Mass (LBM) from the

following equation:

Equation 1: LBM Body Weight (kg) - % Fat X Body Weiqht (kq)

Since LBM is a derivation of % Fat, these concepts will be discussed

simultaneously. Although the total sample exhibited little chanqe in -

Fat, there was a significant (p <.001) increase of 3.1% in LRM from preBasic to post-AIT. The total sample had a pre-Basic % Fat of 20.7% and

an LBM of 52.1 kg. The post-AIT % Fat and LBM were 20.5% and 53.7 kq,

respectively.

23

/ 9.
j~~~.V :;a a -

3 N -0 .I

c~ ~%c cC rC fC

13--

Ci Q. %0 r- ý ' 0O

c t a D %.-o aLV; 0 0 CO CO toC

cg 6 41 y0 0% 40g % C 4w

it C; i nf t4C It

.. J I "~ 40- 40- ~ 40 CD - ~

U10C C" m OC L %D "C r: "a

'a 12C C $ 0 0-a -

Id u

IACA

'a 0 0.

41 411

41 4141 41 M

'a. ... .C . .9
c 4c oS 0

c; .

C~ qrEin 6 -_ p. u

40.q

40 kn

lo Wb a I A

a SSE*

-C 6C

~ zsr~ m or.

C e~d.- qfr02
I. c

t*c.

63.

kA i A A .

-. , fm An ft 6o

ft 't In

a a %D - an q- %n in

4-0% z-f z4 !q e t -' M 4-%a -9 _G

a -9 o -

a aat a in 0

a . a4C . AC a 0;c 9

-t -= -%ft -a0% _t" 0%p 

-~C fC C4 1:';'c a C ;*c c .5i

_ w O S t

5'6 U~~~V at a aaa

to~~~~C t . n f CL. 06u 

a 4. a

in26P n i P .i o t
W 0

GoC 161 em C t 

k" A "c"" I 'n oc V" 1 C

c - Go

Ca -% Pa :.... . * u• ,,

- a .. -'-".. a In a

- E• - tf --- ,

v ta 0% 

,P....|C CCC,,..C

-- -..

- .. a . - f

I•-. P0% Jam

-,. 4." %~

.°.

a a a

u.,j P tO P a ar * 16P t

Ota a (d.~~t 27O ~ 

21O~ ~
The strength tests consisted of the Handgrip, Lift 60 and 72, and

Upright Pull. The mean for the Handgrip was 38.7 kg at pre-Basic and

42.9 kg post-AIT. The scores for the Lift 60 and 72 of 45.1 kg and 41.0

kg, respectively, were similar to the pre-Basic scores. Likewise the

scores at post-AIT, 49.6 kg and 45.9 kg, only differed by 3.7 kg. The

pre-Basic and post-AIT means for the Upright Pull showed the largest

improvement rising from 100.6 kg to 121.4 kg. These improvements on the

strength tests ranged from 10.9% to 20.8% and were all significantly

different (p <.001).

The predicted Maximal Oxygen Consumption (Max V02 ) at pre-Basic,

41.e ml'kg'l~min 1

, was above average for a normal population with a

mean age of 20. Following Post-AIT it increased significantly (p< .001)

I to 47.9 ml-kg'l-min"1.

The subsample of 202 soldiers who were given the MEPSCAT at postBasic improved significantly (p <.001) on all the MEPSCAT tests. The

percentage of improvement ranged from a 3.1% for LBM (52.1 to 53.7 kg)

and 7.6% for Lift 72 (41.0 to 44.1 kg) to 13.7% for the Upright Pull

(100.6 to 114.4 kg). Similar improvements were seen from post-Basic to

post-AIT on Upright Pull (p<.001), Max V02 (p<.001), Lift 72 (p<.01),

and LBM (p <.05). However, this subsample showed no improvement on the

Handgrip or Lift 60. Conversely, there was a significant (p <.001)

increase in % Fat from post-Basic to post-AIT. Results of tne MEPSCAT

for this subsample indicated that improvement did take place from preBasic to post-Basic and that these levels of fitness either remained

S stable or improved following AIT.

The level of performance on all measures was about the same when

comparing scores based on the subsample of 202 soldiers with those based

on the total sample. When this post-Basic subsample was compared to the

total sample on the MEPSCAT at pre-Basic, post-Basic, and post-AlT no

significant differences were found. When the subsimple and total sample

were compared on the CPT's a significant (p <.05) difference was only

found for the Lift Task (Appendix G). Similarly, oD the Physical

Proficiency, significant differences (p <.05) were gund for only the

running task.

28

-,%
.. ,7. *.7777. F.77- C . 777!.. Nt.% 4 r. C

Criterion performance tasks. On the average, the total sample was

able to lift 40.7 kg to chest height (Table 4). Each eAaminee carried

the heaviest weight lifted as far as possible (maximum 60.96 m), which

resulted in a mean value of 4,349.3 kgm. Following the Push pretest,

the sled was pushed as far as possible (maximum 18.29 m) in 30 seconds,

which resulted in a mean score of 2,116.1 kgm for this task. The mean

for the Torque Task, generated from threz trials, was 1644.53 N for the

total sample.

Physical Proficiency Tests. The Physical Proficiency Tests con-

"sisted of Push-ups, Sit-ups, and a One Mile (pre-Basic) and Two Mile

(post-Basic) Run, Table 5 shows that significant (p <.001) improvement

was made from pre-Basic to post-Basic in the Push-ups and Sit-ups. The

means for the pre-Basic and post-Basic Push-ups were 16.3 and 33.3,

respectively. This represented a 120.2% increase. The Sit-ups increased from 40.4 to 57.8 or a 45.8% increase. The One Mile Run mean at

pre-Basic was 8 minutes and 15 seconds (495 seconds) and the post-Basic

Two Mile Run was 15 minutes and 52.8 seconds (952.7 seconds). The

percent improvement could not be calculated based on time to complete

the Run. Therefore, the times for each soldier were converted to

ml.kg-].min - 1. The score for the p os-Basic One Mile Run was 44.7

ml-kg- 1.min-1, while the score for the post-Basic one Mile Run was 45.0

l.kg-.1

.min-I. Thus the soldiers improved their oxyqen uptake from oreb- Basic to post-Basic. In order to standardize the Run times, all further

analyses (e.g., regression, correlation) used the oxygen uptake value

instead of the Run time.

"Gender Differences

The following sections give an overview of the differences between

men and women on the MEPSCAT, CPTs, and Physical Proficiency Tests.

Hotellings T2 analysis was us.ed to test for overall gender differences

..- in the MEPSCAT, CPTs, and Physical Proficiency Tests due to the high

.; Interrelationship of physical performance parameters. Following the

Hotelling's T2 analysis, separate univariate t-tests were computed to

probe for differences. The t-value used was either T (separate) or T

(pooled) depending upon the test for homogeneity of variance.

29
a' c

-epZ.

4 ca ta '

-ja

.'a cctn ff rt

90 4Aa

ca

-C 1. 0: c

410 o .9- N CL 

L~Go

30
L.77

I S~C Lo . 5

p 00

-C

%a - a

* - Cd &A C

c on 3 % -d!

4/) "- 'o - 0 g-- ~ so a *

4J c- Cc ; am am ,

1ý- cS c N' 4 C n 0 sa;

* CaLP ai

%a c 4" Cd 7 w fnaPSa - a C - a" pn - ca 

C40 ~a sPS *a Iaa qa

~~z a z- a- 0.

'31
- Al

. 7.~ -* 7.¶ 7.~ 7. 7., 7. 7. 70 7. 7. 7.

MEPSCAT. The results of the Hotelling's T2 indicated that there

were significant (p< .001) differences between men and women at each of

the testing periods. The data presented in Table 3 indicate that the

men had a significantly (p <.001) higher LBM of 52.1 kg pre-Basic

compared to 43.7 kg for the women. This pattern remained the same

throughout post-Basic and post-AIT with the women's LBM being 72.0% to

72.4% of the men's. These results were similar to those found in past

research which indicated that women's LBM was 43.5 kg to 45.9 kg and

men's was 62.4 kg to 66 kg (Daniels, Wright, Sharp, Kowal, Mello, &

Stauffer, 1980; Sharp, et. al., 1980). Both the men and women showed

significant (p <.001) increases in LBM from pre-Basic to post-AIT.

The women were found to possess a significantly (p <.001) Qreater

amount of body fat. When the women's % Fat was expressed as a percentage of the men's, the women at pre-Basic were found to possess'54.9%

greater fat than men and 70.2% greater at post-AlT. Although the men's

% Fat decreased significantly from pre-Basic to post-AIT and the women's

increased significantly, these increases and decreases were within measurement error (i.e., 3%). Further,. women usually have approximately 5%

to 9% more essential body fat stored in bone marrow, organ tissues, and .4

tissues in the spinal cord and brain than do men (McArdle, Katch, &

SKatch, 1981). The % Fat for men (14% to 16.2%) and women (24.3% to

25.7%) was within the ranges found in past research on U.S. Army personnel (Daniels et al., 1980; Sharp et al., 1980).

u The men demonstrated significantly (p <.001) higher scores on the p

four strength tests at pre-Basic, post-Basic, and post-AIT (Tablc 3).

The women's percentage of the men's score ranqed from 45.1% to 64.3%,

"with the women more closely approximating the men in the Handqrip and / /

Upright Pull. The men's Upright Pull was 121.4 kg at post-AlT and the owomen's was 95.2 kg (78% of men's score), as opposed to the post-AIT

, Lift 72 scores for men and women of 45.9 kg and 30.4 kg (R6.2% of men's J

. score), respectively. These results were similar to past research which

indicated that the absolute strength of women in the upper and lower

body was 50% to 70% of those for men (Berger, 1982; Wilmore, 1982; -

S .3

32•'

% C.
Laubach, 1976; Cooper, Schemmer, Gebhardt, Marshall-Mies, & Fleishman,

1982; Knaplk, Kowal, Riley, Wright, & Sacco, 1979; Knapik, Vogel, &

Wright, 1981). Further, both the men and women demonstrated significant

(p .-.001) increases in all strength tests from pre-Basic to post-AIT.

Although the Max V02 was significantly (p <.001) differentbetween

men and women, the women's score of 42.8 ml-kg 1.min 1 was 80.6% of the

men's mean of 53.1 ml-kg "1.min' 1 at post-AIT. Both groups showed

significant (p <.001) improvement from pre-Basic to post-AIT with the

men increasing 13.5% and the women 17.3%.

"CPTs. The men's scores in the four CPTs were greater (p <.001)

than the women's (Table 4). The men were able to lift 50.8 kg and the

women lifted 30.2 kg or 59.4% of the men's lift. Likewise the women's

scores in the Carry Task was 3,195.0 kgm or 58.3% of the men's 5,477.2

"kgm. However the women were able to score proportionally higher ir the

,* Push and Torque Tasks with scores of 1,638.5 kgm and 1,351.1 N, respecj tively. These scores were 63.5% of the men's Push Task score (=

2,581.8 kgm) and 69.6% of the men's Torque Task score (X.- 1,940.5 N).

* Physical Proficiency Tests. The women's scores on the Push-ups,

Sit-ups, and Run ranged from 34.4% to 92.2% of the men's across pre- and

* post-Basic (Table 5). The men's scores were significantly (p <.001)

better than the women's on all three tests. Initially the women were

- able to perform 7.6 Push-ups to the men's 16.3. However the women improved to 21.8 or 186.8% improvement. This improvement brought the

women to 49.3% of the men's post-Basic score of 44.2. In the sit-ups

.16' the women's percentage of the men's performance at post-Basic was 92.2%

with the women's mean being 55.5 Sit-ups in 60 seconds and the men's

60.2. This percentage (92.2%) is slightly higher than the ones reported

*" by other researchers for the trunk musculature (Berger, 1982; Myers et

al., 1981; Myers, Gebhardt, Crump, & Fleishman, 1983). Finally the

women's times for the One and Two Mile Runs were 9 minutes 38 seconds

and 17 minutes 47 seconds, respectively, and the men's were 7 minutes 25

seconds and 14 minutes 6 seconds.

33 .

p5

/ 7 -

I--
Test-Retest Reliability

"The test batteries and criterion measures (i.e., ME2SCAT, CPTs, ard

Proficiency Tests) SPhysical were evaluated for test-retest reli-

'. ability. The reliability of the CPTs was evaluated at the four military I installations, while the other two measures had been evaluated in previous research efforts.

MEPSCAT. The MEPSCAT tests have been shown in past research to be

reliable measures of strength and cardiovascular endurance. The Upright

38 cm Pull was reported to have a reliability ranging from .39 to .97

(Cooper et al., 1982; Knapik et al., 1981), while the Handgrip had a

reliability of .91 (Fleishman, 1964; Vogel, Note 1). The lifts to 60

* and 72 inches ha',e a reliability of .90 (Vogel, Note 1). The methods

and protocols (step test and bicycle ergometer) used to determine the

"predicted Max V02 have been shown to be reliable and interchangeable

measures of Max V02 (Astrand & Ryhming, 1954; Vogel, Note 1). The

reliability of the Step Test protocol developed by USADIFM was .88

(Vogel, Note 1). Furthermore, the test..retest reliability of skinfold

for the determination of percent fat has been shown to be .95 (AAHPEpn,

1980).

IP CPTs. The reliability of the CPTs was determined by retesting 123

(men - 60, women = 63) MEPSCAT soldiers at the four military installations (Lee, Gordon, Jackson, and Sam Houston) with a one to three day

-, intcrval between administrations. The correlations between the scores

obtained in the two test sessions were calculated. The resulting estimates of test-retest reliability are presented in Table 6. All of the

*; CPT test scores showed considerable stability over time. Reliabilities

for the Carry and Push Tasks were expected to be lower because of the

ii single trial nature of the two tasks, and the uncontrollable variation

• 2in such factors as motivation of the soldiers and friction between the

sled and the runway.

d Physical Proficiency Tests. The reliability of th? Physical ProI. ficiency Tests has been established by past research over several dec-

% cades. Fleishman (1964) demonstrated a reliability of .88 for Push-ups

% and .72 for sit-ups. Other researchers have found these reliabilities 'I,

34

. . .
TABLE 6

Test-Retest Reliability for the

Criterion Performarce Tasks

"Total Men Women

Lift Task .90 .67 .69

(n=123) (n=60) (n=63)

Carry Task .64 .57 .45

(n=123) (n=60) (n=63)

W3

SPush S(n=122) Task .71 .54 .69

(n=60) (n=62)

Torque Task .92 .83 .82

"(n=104) (n=52) (n=52)

35.

°* I

I.

-I

d

w%

a., '%

'.1

6.

°4

'C,

'C2
for Sit-ups to range from .68 to .94 (AAHPERD, 1980). Correlations

between runs of various distance and Max V02 have been found to ranqe

from .54 to .90 for males and females (Cooper, 1968; Katch, 1970). .5

Correlational Analysis of Pre-Basic and Post-AMT MEPSCAT Measures

Appendix H contains a complete correlation matrix of the followinq

measures: Sex, Age, Height, Weight, MEPSCAT measures at pre-Basic,

post-Basic and post-AIT, CPT measures, and Physical Proficiency measures

at pre- and post-Basic. This matrix contains the correlations for the

total MEPSCAT sample (T),. and the men (M) and the women (W) separately.

The correlations between the pre-Basic and post-AlT scores on the

MEPSCAT for the total sample were quite high overall (Table 7). They

ranged from .86 to .98, with the exception of .66 for the Max V02.

Athough the separate correlations for men and women (r = .48 to .94)

were lower, they basically paralleled those for the total sample except

for men's and women's Max V02.

Analysis of Medical Data

Medical data were collected on the total sample in order to determine if there were relationships between sick calls and days on profile

(i.e., restricted duty), and scores on the MEPSCAT. Figure 6

illustrates how the medical datawere organized for analysis. Table 8

presents the numter of sick calls for men and women during Basic

Training. The results of this analysis were similar for both groups in

that 62% of the men had no sick calls and 59% of the women had no sick

calls. Likewise the remaining percentages for one through six or more

sick calls were similar for men and women. "" ,

The sick calls were categorized by body system (e.g., musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, etc.) to determine which system accounted for

the majority of the sick calls in the total sample, and the men's and

women's sample (Table 9). Due to the infrequency of sick calls in the

neurological, visual, auditory, skin, and hemopoietic systems a cateqory

of "other" was created to form a composite of these systems. The results indicated that the musculoskeletal system accounted for the Qreatest percentage of injuries (i.e., 56%) followed by the respiratory

36

* /!
TABLE 7

Correlation Between Pre-Basic and

Post-AIT Scores for the Total Sample on the MEPSCAT

1-

p

Total Men Women

""Mandgrl p .92 .79 .75

(n-946) (n-462) (n-484)

Lift 60 .95 .80 .69

(n-933) (n-459) (n-474)

Lift 72 .95 .80 .68 7n-9312) : n-4591 (n-472)

Upright Pull .86 .63 .39

(n-944) (n-461) (n-483)

Lean body Mass .98 .94 .92

(n-951) (n-465) (n-486)

Percent Fat .88 .17 .73

(n-95l) (n-465) (n-486)

Nax VO .66 .48

02 (n-662) (n-343) (n-. '

3%7

'Vo

Np.I

.%

3 7 -•

..................... .............. .. ..
I .. !goI

a~ P: a;e 4:;s

4 -- - Tc.~u 1 q

2.

I A

S*O.4C. t'4 .9

U 2 ,AJSt ;Z W - .

.4

AA A+ 4..-'

S - -", , .-

A. _ 4', V A'.. - •_ •. -

It Cc

a w ~

3 j I

' , ,E" r

A. o 4_= , ,

t 4" F-I 6. 0 0

[ "

A - .• iii ii I

ir0

44

A.U-a- all4

- 2. . . . . . . .

U '4 ** C 40 U- a C U

d;-ý V 404 0 4 -Zv

38

---------
TABLE 8

Number of MUPSCAT Soldiers Who Had One or More

Sick Calls During Basic Training

Number of Sick Calls Number of Men Number of Women

During Basic Training (n =980) (n 1,003)

0 607 62% 589 59 Ot

1 204 21% 188 195

2 96 10% 114 11%

3 41 4% 57 6%

4 17 2% 27 3%

5 9 1% 21 2%

6 or more 6 1% 7 1

39
TABLE 9

Percentage of Sick Calls tor Men and Women

Classified by Body Systeml

Total Men Women

System2 (n - 787) (n - 372) (n - 414)

Musculoskeletal 56% 50% 67%

- Cardiovascular 5% 6% 4%

"Respiratory 12% 15% 11%

Gastrointestinal 5% 7% 5%

"" Genitourinary 5% 41% 10%

Other 14% 17% 11%

Missing Information 3% 4% 3%

Total Number of Sick Calls 1,511 668 768

7Number of Sick Calls Adjusted 668 692

for Different Sample Size

Percentage of Sick Calls for 49% 51%

Men and Women Adjusted for

Sample Size Difference

! Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.

2 See Figure 6 for the specific symptoms in each bodily system.

S..'

.. "40

%.

I.:

1-.'%-;
_7

system (i.e., 12%). Sinilar results were found fcr both the men's and

women's samples, with the musculoskeletal system accounting for 67% of

the women's sick calls and 50% of the men's. However, the women did

have a greater percentage of sick calls related to the genitourinary

system. When the total numLer of sick calls was adjusted for sample

size, the women were found to account for 51% of the total sick calls

and the men for 49%.

The musculoskeletal injuries were further divided by body part and

I'•gender (Table 10). The greatest percentage of the muscul3skeletal sick

calls for the total sample were associated with the feet, knee, back,

ankle, and leg. Although simitar percentages were found in the men's

and women's sample, the women did have a higher percentage of leg injuries than the men.

.. Table 11 illustrates the number of sick calls for men and women

that resulted in days on profile (i.e., restricted duty). For example,

"16 of the men's sick calls and 12 of the women's resulted in one day on

profile; while 39 of the men's sick calls and 69 of the women's resulted

in five days on profile. When the total was adjusted for differences in

sample sizes, the percentage of profile days for men was 40% and the

]• percentage of profile days for women was 60%.

In summary, the medical data indicated that sick calls and profiles

were primarily related to the musculoskeletal system. Further, women

were not receiving a greater percentage of sick calls than men, but did

account for 20% more days on profile.

Correlations Amonq MEPSCAT Measures

The correlations among the MEPSr'AT measures ranged from .83 to .9S

for the strength measures (Table 12). However, the correlations between

these strength measures and Max V02 were lower, ranqinq from .40 to

.47. These results demonstrated that there was some independence be-

"tween the strength and cardiovascular measures.

Validity Analysis

Validation usinq separation and medical data. The separation deta

(i.e., medical discharge, recycle, and an AP-635 discharge) were

correlated with scores on the MEPSrAT to determine if significant

41

L:-
S_ -v -• • t, -. .. . . . . • . .* • • * ... .,. .. * ,• - •- •• - *..-• -j -- .4 -.-.. '. "• •- ' •

TABLE 10

Percentage of Sick Calls for Musculoskeletal System

Divided by-Body Part and Gender 1

Body Part Total Men Women

Feet 26 26 26.

Knee 18 16 20

Back 17 16 17

4. Ankle 13 12 13

Leg 11 7 13

Shoulder 4 5 3

Arm 2 3 1

HHip 2 2 2

Toes 2 3 1

Groin 1 3 0

Fingers 1 1 1

Hands 1 2 <1

Neck 1 2 1

Side 1 <1 1

Head <1 0 <1

Abdomen <1 0 1

Wrist <1 1 1

- Elbow <1 <1 <_

Number of Sick Calls Related to the 849 332 517

Musculoskeletal System

"-,' 1 Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.

42

N-,-

kOA
TABLE 11

Total Number of Days on Profile* Ly Gender

Stotal Total

Cumulative Cumulative

Number Number

Number of Number of of Sick Number of of Sick

Days on Sick Calls Days for Sick Calls Days for 4 Profile for Men Yen for Women Women

1 16 16 12 12

2 24 64 43 98

3 119 421 141 521

4 10 461 16 585

5 39 656 69 930

6 1 662 8 978

7 21 809 77 1,517

8 9 881 6 1,565

9 0 881 2 1,583

10 5 931 12 1,703

11 0 931 0 1,703

12 1 943 3 1,739

"13 0 943 0 1,739

14 1 957 5 1,809

15 s 2 987 2 1,839

16 0 987 0 1,839

17 0 987 0 1,839

18 0 987 0 1,839

19 0 987 0 1,839

20 2 1.027 0 1,839

21 1 1.048 2 1,881

2.21 4 1,136 2 1.925

4 Adjusted Totals 1,136 1.734

for Different (n-373) (n-414)

Sample Size

Percentage Adjusted 40% 60%

for Sample Size

Difference

*Restricted duty (e.g., light work only).

43
Itr~ ei 4 It 9 It 4 Ite

% "o- . ...- -

-. r c4

'4.. .~ ..- . .~f . I P.. .0 EP.I

"C4 %nv%

S- - -;z

4.=• =. .. . .,. ... -. 

-- S. . .. . . .

- 4 .- . = . .

IA I mo

a% a%~ , ___%c% 

4m em co nt -M -

,.U,

-A a*. as OSU __

•.4 1P.4S 1l'~' ~~4.4 

.4m

Z 3B0 - cmI- .- z33 c 0

L Os ~%C

Ci44
relationships existed between these variables. The percentage of the

total men's and women's samples that completed Basic or were separated

from the Army is presented in Table 13. The percentage of the total

sample that completed Basic Training was 78%. When the sample was

separated by sex, 82% of the men and 74% of the women completed Basic

Training. 9f those soldiers separated or recycled 4% received a medical

.4' discharge, 9% received a discharge under AR-635, and 2% were recycled.

"Similar percentages were associated with the men's and women's

samples. It should be noted that there was a higher percentage of

-5 missing information for the women. .5

'A To investigate further the relationships of the separation and

"medical data with the MEPSCAT, correlations were computed (Table 14).

Several significant correlations between the total number of days on

profile and the MEPSCAT were found. The correlations between days on

profile and the predictor tests and the criterion measures may have been

present due to the inability of those s•ldiers on profile to participate

in physical training. In contrast to pre-basic MEPSCAT the sick calls

for the musculoskeletal system were found to be significantly related to

post-AIT MEPSCAT with correlations ranging from -. 14 to -. 21 (p< .01).

Although the correlations for both the musculoskeletal system and the

total of all systems were statisticallyl significant, they did not reach

a level of practical significance. This indicated that the MEPSCAT

would probably not be useful in predicting days on profile.

Furthermore, the separation data (i.e.,I medical discharge, AR-635 discharge, and recycle) yielded no firm indication that the MEPSCAT wculd

' predict separations from the Army. Therefore the medical and separation "data were not used in further evaluating the MEPSCAT's validity.

Validation using basic training criteria and CPTs. The validity

coefficients, correlations between criterion measures and predictor

"variables for the total sample, and for the male and female samples, are

"shown in Table 15. The predictors that had the highest validity

coefficient for two or more of the criterion measures were the Lift 60

and Lean Body Mass. The correlations between Lift 60 and the CPTs

45

S/
TABLE 13

Separation Data on MUPSCAT Soldiers

Total Men Women

4Completed Basic 78% 82% 74%

(n=1,550) (n=806) (n=744)

Recycled 2% 3% 2%

(n=49) (n-29) (n=20)

.1Medical Discharge 4% 3% 4%

(n=71) (n=30) (n=41)

Discharge under AR-635 9% 8% 11%

(n=183) (n=76) (n=107)

r1Missing Informnation 7% 4% 9%

(n=1 29) (n=39) (n=90)

46
TABLE 14

Correlations Between MEPSCAT, CPTs, PT Scores and

Days on Profile and Separation ft.

"Days on Profile Days on Separation Data "Related to the Profile (Completed Basic.

Susculoskeletal Across All Recycled, Medically

SSystem Body Systems Discharged)

Age .06 .08"** -. 03

Sex .09" .08"' -. 08"*

Lean Body Mass Pre Basic -. 02 -.05** .03

Post Basic -. 09 -. 19"* .07

"Post AIT -. 21"' -. 15"* -. 02

"Percent Fat Pre Basic .07" .08"** -. 06"*

Post Basic .08 .22"** -. 14

Post AIT .16*" .13*** -. 03

Lift 60 'Inches Pre Basic -. 06 -. 07"*' .05

':j Post Basic -.05 -. 20** .12*

Post AIT -. 20"* -. 14"** -. 01

"Lift 72 Inches Pre Basic -. 06 -. 07"** .05

" Post Basic -. 07 -. 20** .12"

adiPost A1T -. 20"* .14"' -. 00

Pre Basic Sandgrtp -. 07 -. 07' .03

Post Basic -. 00 -. 16" .10

Post AIT -. 21"' -. 14"** -. 02

Upright Pull Pre Basic -.08' -.07' .02

Post Basic -. 02 -. 15" .02

Post AIT -. 14" -. 11"* .02

Predicted Max VO Pre Basic -. 03 -. 06" .06'

Post Basic -. 12 -. 12' .09

Post A1T -. 19"* -. 11 *** .04

Sit-Ups Pre Basic .03 -. 06" .08"*

Post Basic -. 02 -. 04* .04

Push-Ups Pre Basic -. 03 -. 12"** .11 **

"Post Basic -. 22"** -. 13"** .05'

"One Mile Run Pre Basic -. 04 -. 12"** .06"

"Two Mile Run Post Basic -. 29"** -. 19"* .02

Weight Lifted Post AIT -. 20"* -. 10"** -. 04

Push Work Post AIT -. 10 -. 09"* .03 • Carry Work Post AIT -. 12" -. 10"' .03

Torque Post AIT -. 20"* -. 10" -. 06'

4,

• * p .05 I

II

iip

./

4/

47/
00

0% %a to Pto n P,- G a

J a -'A-- ~

0 %n - - - z - v C

. .. t

c _",,

I ~I

C,. co co Ln co o

:cw

*0 UI 0C.% P..OI~i% 0

-0 m

;;-n - U0 ýS -*8 at Ira - "IS",- .

*i ca. . . . . Ci .*

Mi c 00

0IA- fn"- es- s. ~~s fn rom~.m 

+* S. 0 r! a m o at - - M 

0 06

, 48, C2

S. S

Oini Wii C4n mmi Oini Cif 41 . . . . . .

Er'A MP. 0% F'es -W -Wo .. 0%ý 0.'I

004

0% cini e4 4 n Oflý t o if %n W , n f""M #

1z-,; z' v . z;; Z -COA g

3 ~ ~ ~ ~ - "J~ U%,0 Iifif i cr0D 

r4 C3

I. ". 9 b-Z 3 3 1- 9 2- 0 S 

M "z * inq- SE%.W ~ C ~ 

O%~ 0 oimL

4W 00e~ Nin. Ep.U%~48
- -, ', i , •- • o• • - . • ,. . • • J -.. -% " . . , -. •-. , .,,% -. . •x.o .. . . o. ° -.-. , .-

ranged from .77 for the Lift Task to .43 for the Push Task. The

correlations between Lean Body Mass and the CPTs ranged from .74 for the • ".

Lift Task to .44 for the Push Task. The correlations between Lift 60

and the Physical Proficiency Tests ranged from .69 for Push-ups to .18

"3 for Sit-ups. The correlations between Lean Body Mass and the Physical

Proficiency Tests ranged from .60 for the Two Mile Run to .21 for the

"* Sit-ups.

As expected, the less reliable criterion measures such as rarry

U Task, Push Task, Sit-ups and the Two Mile Run had lower correlations

* with each predictor than the other criterion measures, i.e., Lift Task,

Torque Task, and Push-ups (Table 6). Similarly, the validity coefficients between the criterion and predictor variables, for the men and

women separately, were lower when the criterion measures were less reliable.

"The correlations among the predictors and the criterion measures

were smaller for the subsamples of men and women when compared to the

total group. The decrease in validity coefficients when derived separately for men and women has been reported by others (Robertson,

1982). The distributions for men and women were less linear than when

these two samples were combined. A reason for this was that test and

:* criterion scores were located at nearly opposite ends of the scatter

plots for men (high) and for women (low). There was only some overlap

in the two distributions. Also, the decrease in validities may have

been, in part, a result of statistical artifacts such as a decrease in

reliabilities of the tests (Table 6) and the restriction in the range of

performance on the tests for each subsample (Schmidt, Hunter, & Urry,

1976; Schmidt & Hunter, 1978; Schmidt, Hunter & Pearlman, 1981). For

example, the smaller validity coefficients for women may have been the

result of the lower standard deviations found in the women's test

scores.

Three different combinations of criterion measures were derived f r

the multiple regression analyses. All but one of the correlations amo q

the CPTs and the Physical Proficiency measures were significant (p <

.5 .001) (Table 16). The correlations among the rPTs and the Physical

49 "
F t

a ~ ~ ~ N(% 0 -W ~~al WQ cc P9.m 'n P.l 

C% cu a0 on F c **c "

c 0

4N1 C~W @'W V, @f0 c 4 OA 0 "r -x1 

I"I

Si. 4

OWN cc 0

rAN " f%"O 

4.

0.- N M5 z P O Nm3

0 50
Pr ' 4ency Tests ranged from .03 to .75 (Table 16). These moderate

correlations indicated that the criterion measures were not excessively

redundant. Therefore additive models were used in the analysis. The

three combinations of criteria were:

* Criterion 1: Lift Task, Carry Task, Push Task, and Torque

Task (CPTs).

a Criterion 2: Push-ups, Sit-ups and Two Mile Run (Physical

Proficiency Tests).

a Criterion 3: Lift Task, Carry Task, Push Task, Torque

Task, Push-ups, Sit-ups, and Two Mile Run (CPTs and Physical Proficiency Tests).

L Using the different criterion combinations three sets of reQression

analyses were performed. Standardized variables were used. Appendix T

presents correlations among the three criterion combinations. The first

analysis, Criterion 1, related the four CPfs (Lift Task, rarry Task,

Push Task, and Torque Task) measures to five of the six MEPSCAT

predictors (LBM, Lift 60, Lift 70, Upright Pull, and Handgrip). The Max

V02 was eliminated from the analysis because there were no criterion

measures of aerobic capacity. The second analysis, Criterion 2, related

the three Physical Proficiency Tests (Push-ups, Sit-ups, and Two Mile

Run) to all the MEPSCAT predictors (strength measures and Max Vn2). The

third analysis, Criterion 3, used a composite of the CPTs and Physical

Proficiency Tests as the criteria and all of the MEPSCAT predictors. A

forward stepwise multiple regression was used in all of these analyses.

The results of the multiple regression analysis are summarized in _

¶ Table 17. The MEPSCAT predictors that entered the equation for Criterion I were Lift 60, LBM, and Upright Pull. Lift 60 accounted for 67%

of the variance. Although the LBM and Upright Pull added significantly

- - (p <.01) to the prediction, their contribution was only 3% and 1% re-

¶ spectively. The multiple correlation for Criterion I was .84 {F(1,953)

¶ * 30.67, p <.011. The following prediction equation was obtained (using

unstandardized beta weights).

Equation 2: Predicted Criterion = .05956 (Lift 601 + .09145

(Lean Body Mass) + .02236 (Upright Pull) - 9.72906

I.

51

V.

'I~
%n - CO e IA E-n C , 4d9 r 4 t~~~~~l9 - D4 0 ýr

'4 4A com4

-oa m4 4ý

A 4. Ci.r0

.9- .99

~Lp

LU. 01L.f

4L 41 444' 4

- 3104 0 IS 1a.L

mL 9% 4)A

*A c, em - A,

4-hO. 4C.-

(A 4

-: I

ad f" -0i

to or L. c I -

.4* 0L 04ML 2 Ci 

CIF It %..

4%.4 ::4-Ar.L 7 .

'.4P 52
The second analysis, predicting Criterion 2, yielded a group of

different predictors with a lower multiple correlation (Table 17) The

tests that entered the solution for Criterion 2 were Lift 72, Max V02 ,

LBM, Handgrip, and Lift 60. As with Criterion 1, the first predictor,

Lift 72, accounted for the majority of the variance (45%) with the

remaining predictors adding from 4% to 0.3%. The multiple correlation

for Criterion 2 was .71 {F(1,096) = 6.86, p< .01). The following pre- r"

diction equation was obtained:

Equation 3: Criteiion = .04640 (Lift 72) + .05836 (Max Vn2 ) - .04848 (LBM) + .03265 (4andgrip) + .04135

(Lift 60) - 4..9589

The third analysis combined the measures in Criterion I and 2 and

resulted in a multiple correlation of.87 {F(1,637) - 6.33, (p<.01)}

(Table 17). The order of the predictors was Lift 72, Handgrip, Max vn

Lift 60, and Upright Pull. The first predictor Lift 72, accounted for

the greater percentage of the variance (i.e., 72%), and the remaining

predictors added 2% to 0.3%.

Equation 4: Criterion = .07652 (Lift 72) + .06918 (Handqrip)

+ .06123 (Max V02 ) + .08057 Lift 60) + .01966 (Upright Pull) -

13.81313

An important question in multiple regression was how well the

sample-based regression weights perform when applied to a second sample 4

or to the population. Typically the regression equation will not be as

accurate for the population because the weiqhts are optimally calculated

for the sample data. The difference between the sample multiple P and %%

the expected multiple R, when the weights are applied to the population,

Sis termed shrinkage. A shrinkage formula (Kerlinger & Pedct.iur,_1973)

was applied to the regression results of the three criteria. The

following corrected validity coefficients were computed: Criterion 1, p

*.84, Criterion 2, R - .71, and Criterion 3, P = .87. These were

essentially the same as the uncorrected Rs.

53

.................................
L/ :i'".. .4 45 . .S. . . . . . . . . . .....

Fairness Analysis

To determine whether the predictor tests were fair to both sexes a

moder, ed multiple regression or differential predictor strategy was

employed. It examined statistically whether the regression equations

for the gender subgroup differed significantly from the overall sinqle

- regression equation (Bartlett, Bobko, Mosier, & Hannan, 1978; Kerlinger

"& Pedhazur, 1973). The procedure involved a sequential examination of

correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations. The first

step involved testing for significant differences in subgroup yintercepts. If the y-intercepts of the regression lines differed, it

was concluded that the subgroup differed on the test and/or the crite-

"rion means. The second step was a test for differential slopes in the

subgroup prediction hyperplanes. If significant differences in the

slopes of the subgroup were found, they were attributed to several

possible variations in subgroup test and/or criterion variances, intertest correlations within subgroups, or test-criterion relationships.

The results of the analyses are presented in Table 18. Criterion 1

was found to have a significant intercept difference (F(1,947) - 9.80,

"p <.01}, the men's y-intercept being -8.38 and the women's -9.09. The

. slopes were not significantly different.

Since women as a group performed at a lower level on the physical

ability tests than men, we examined more closely the differential effect

"on women from using a general equation versus an equation based on

females only.

Separate regression equations were calculated for women in order to

determine the difference between the ýrediction score for the total and

the female sample. The mean test scole for the women's sample was used

in each equation. The separate women'ls prediction equation is presented

below.

Equation 5: Criterion - .06227 (Lif 60) + .06019 (LBM)

+ .01906 (Upright Pull) - 8.27286

*554

4.-

*1• 54

ed
M.-~

04S

CC

'41

0-6-

cic

0 ftaG

t-: 42 5 2 M

44~. 55
* Q . ° ---.- . .. . , . .. - . ° ' ' . - ° -

When the women's test means were used in the general equation (Equation

2), the mean predicted score for females was -2.23. When the same test

means oere inserted into the women's equation (Equation 5), the predicted mean criterion score was -2.32. In other words, the general

regression equation computed for the total sample yielded almost the

same predicted scores for the subgroup as did the regression equation

.. calculated specifically for the women. Therefore, the general equation

would overpredict only slightly criterion performance levels of women

who scorle within the range of 2.5 standard deviations below the mean.

Similar results for gender subgroups were found for Criterion 2

I. The men's y-lntercept of 1.00 and the women's -1.48 were significantly

different {F(1,089) =106.56, p <.01). The slope was also significantly

different {F(6,1089) 4.05, p -. 01). Owing to these differences,

separate regression equations were calculated for the women. Test means

for the women were used in the general regression equation (Equation 3)

for Criterion 2 and in the separate women's equation (Equation 6).

Equation 6: Criterion - .08632 (Lift 72) - .08983 (LBM)

+ .041830 (Handgrip) - 1.22406.

3 These calculations resulted in a predicted mean criterion score of -1.48

for the general regression equation and -2.94 for the women's regression

equation, indicating that the general regression equation overpredicted

"the performance of female soldiers.

When the differential prediction was tested in Criterion 3, significant intercept differences {F(1,630) 61.47, p <.01) were found.

The men's y-intercept was -6.62 and the women's was -10.00. However,

- there was no slope difference. To compare the women on the general

regression equation (Equation 4) for Criterion 3 and on the women's

equation (Equation 7), the women's test means were once again used in

each equation.

Equation 7: Criterion - .14578 (Lift 60) + .07860 (Handgrip) "- .07331 (LBM) - 7.36679

56

-%%
.... ~ ~ - ~ ~ ý T.~.- V- Y, 

The results of these calculations yielded a predicted criterion score of

8.82 for the general regression equation and -3.85 for the women's

equation.

To summarize, there was some evidence of differential prediction

for men and women, especially in Criterion 2. The general equation for

Criterion 3 would be most advantageous to the women, while the equation

based on Criterion 1 showed the least amount of differential prediction.

Appendix J includes the regression equation for the male sample

when using the three criteria.

:Differences in Validity When Comparing Men and Women

As mentioned earlier there were differences in the bivariate correlations when comparing the total sample with the male and female subsamples (Table 15). For example, the Lift 60 and the Lift Task yielded

correlations of .77, .43, and .35 for total sample and men and women

subsamples, respcctively. Similarly, LBM and Carry Task yielded correlations of .50, .24, and .09 for the total sample and men and women

subsamples, respectively. In comparing men and women, differences in

validity coefficients have been reported by others (Arnold, Rauschenberger, Soubel, & Guion, 1982; Robertson, 1982; McDaniel, Skandis, &

Madole, 1983). Separate multiple regression analyses wer. computed for

men aid women in order to further explore differences in validities

. found in the present research. As expected, the results demonstrated

that there was evidence of differences in the size of the validity

coefficients which were derived for men and women subsamples. Criterion

combinations 1 and 3 yielded the largest differences in multiple correlations based on male and female subsamples. The first criterion had

multiple correlations for men of .59 (p< .001) and for women .48 (pC

.001), while the third criterion combination produced correlations for

men of .52 (p<.001) and for women .38 (p<.001). In contrast, rriterion 2 yielded almost no difference, but the correlations were much

"-" smaller than the correlations from criterion combinations I and 2 (i.e.,

men's R = .28; women's R = .27, p< .001).

In conclusion, these results provided additional support for the

use of Criterion 1 because it had the largest validities when derived

57

. /
"separately for men and women. It should, however, be emphasized that

the actual difference in the correlations was probably a result of

statistical artifacts associated with sample differences (Abrahams &

Alf, 1972; Trattner & O'Leary, 1980; Schmidt et al., 1976; Schmidt &

Hunter, 1978; Schmidt et al., 1981). There were, for example, significant differences in predictor and criterion variance and the reliabilities varied between the men and women subsamples. Consequently,

the results which involved analysis of differences in validity between

men and women should be interpreted with some skepticism. In fact,

since the purpose of the research was to validate a gender-free, prediction alaorithm, the earlier analysis which examined differential

prediction was considered a more appropriate strategy for determining

the impact of gender on test validity.

Comparison Among Job Categories

"An attempt was made to determine if there were any differences in

performance on the MEPSCAT as a function of the job categories soldiers

were assigned (i.e., Very Heavy, Heavy, Moderately Heavy, Medium,

Light). The results for the MEPSCAT presented in Tatle 19 suggested

that there were significant differences in performance across job

categories. Soldiers assigned to increasingly more demanding MO5 tended

to have higher scores on the MEPSCAT than those assigned to the less

demanding ones. This difference was not apparent when the analysis

compared persons assigned to the three most demanding categories with

soldiers assigned to the Moderate and Light/Sedentary categories. These

differences seemed to hold true for men and women subsamples (Tables 20

and 21). However, comparisons for some job categories were based on

small samples, especially for women. There were relatively more -womenr

assigned to the lighter MOScategorie5 (Table 22). Consequently, the

confounding of the MOS categorization with gender made it difficult to

determine the actual causes of the observed differences in physical

performance when comparing MOS categories.

MEPSCAT Predictors and Scatter Plots

"The results indicated that Lift 60 should be considered by the Army

because it accounted for 67% of the variance in criterion performdnce.

Although second and third predictors were found to be significant (i.e.,

58
: w., "a

X 0 6

-4 , 

w- LZ X CZ SC me

-#4!"!x - .. 9 - 1ý

c o X

@3z oa =9 "v'- %Za =j r 1 e. -: lr w=L 6 w

#4 359
06

V)

ZC "I

06
Z b -6

a'%

4441 A3 -0 t A-a

w LL.

*5* ftC p. -C ftS -

ow m -Em "Z .ý

p .:~i-. .,a=

.4,If -51

IT x

C ~I P U. W

a61
c %n 0 - Ts

WI-- d

b- bG be be b~w

ift t C4 * CD q

*1A PCY as MM -0 ": -

'.. C C4 C CU w C C

Cl - - - --

@1

-ias

-0 Cn Cm C4 Cu

E 00

.4k

-to

di.5

Eu P 'I 

4' ~ - 62
Lean Body Mast and Upright Pull), they accounted for only 3% and 1% of

the variance in criterion performance, respectively. The costs in

administration of these tests will most likely be greater than the

benefits derived from accounting for the small amount of additional

variance.7

Scatterplots were constructed to examine the relationshipr between

the predictor Lift 60 and Criterion 1 (Appendix K). These scatter plots.

were transformned into Tables that showed the distribution of test scores

for the total sample as a function of different levels of criterion

*performance (Table 23). The scores on the predictor were separated into

10 lb. increments. This data is presented separately for men and women

in Tables 24 and 25. The numbers in the cells represent the percentage

of soldiers who obtained a particular score on the criterion measure as

a function of a specific score on the predictor. The Lif~t 60 predictor

accounted for 26% of the variance in the criterion for men, and 17% for

women.

63

_7,
- Go o %Z -A,.%.* .. *

#a 41.; i

-ý a.

Cn 06n . ~ i

0 -ý LA ~~

-LfC4

N4 Nn - Nop.. -i q5p. r * N Cd -

* Oe.

Sr

Lu -4 CJl N~ - MI 2

- U*

o -

U -

W~- - -

4-1 N d -

(p~~I i'n a . JCJ -64
. . . . . . . . . 

. 

to .c 'I ,'.

S - -" - - -- ""= - ---- - -

4 -cC4 P%

L C. 1 @1ff1 3 t

(a I ' - - -+ 0 +

Ow ---

,.+ + •, N N- - :'"

0 --

0c as #A *d

. ... Si .... N -. ... . ° at... ..

- U

-1100

- 5-- - -

i. a ~ o Is

CJ VI
44

0 . e

vi lid

. N

> m

2 • ..j .... a"

c Su 

. .. , . • , 9

fll •all

C.,

,: ~c o to •,

"4' a,, ~- -

0 4 •D -o

U,0 W

3 44 1

W I. U.,.,-

GA - V%

to

C- I

jea.

t4 ?

.4 .~ a, 66

11- 144

04. e.~a i, - a e u
DISCUSSION

The criterion-related validation, which employed a predictive

design, involved the administration of a battery of predictor tests

(MEPSCAT) to a sample of 1,003 women and 980 men prior to entering Basic -

Training. Criteri',.n measures which represented physical proficiency in

Basic Training (i.e., physical proficiency test, sick call, profiles.

and separation data) as well as on the job were correlated with scores

I- on the MEPSCAT. Out of the total sample of 1,983 persons, 951 soldiers -

took the Criterion Performance Task (CPTs) which mEasured the individual's ability to perform the most i.ý.portant physical activities in

physically demanding Army jobs--Lift, Carry, Push, and Torque. The rPTswere administered after the soldiers completed ATT, just prior to beinq

assigned to a field unit. p•.

This research found that most of the tests in the MEPSrAT were

predictive of criteriA which were found to be reliable measures of

soldiers' ability to perform effectively the physically demanding tasks

corr.on to Army jobs. Although the size of the validity coefficients

varied with the composite criterion used, the variance in criterion

performance accounted for by the test battery was more than 70 percent.

The regression equation which was based upon the four CPTs

(Criterion 1) and three predictors (Lift 60, LBm, and Upright Pull) was

considered most effective because it yielded high validity (i.e.. P

.84) and was considered to be fair for the male and female subsamples. C.

In 'ontrast to the other criterion combinations, it had the least

differential prediction when comparing men and women. There were no

slope differences and only slight intercept differences which suggested

some overprediction for women. When comparing the total sample with the

male and female subgroups, the sizes of the bivariate and the multiple

correlations were different. These types of differences in validities

between men and women have been reported by others (Pobertson, 1982:

McDaniel, et al., 1983), but research evidence has suqjested that these

differences might be partly attributed to sample differences in

varidnce, reliability, means, and dis. ibutions of the predictors and

"criteria. For example, restriction in range and decreased reliability

"67

. • . °o1. - • . •. .* %

S. . . . . . .
">"2 for the female subsample may have contributed to the lower validity

coefficients (Abrahims & Alf, 1972; Trattner & O'Leary, 1980; Schmidt et

"al., 1976; Schmidt & Hunter, 1978; Schmidt et al., 1981). Several

'2] studies have attributed differences in the size of the validity

coefficiernts as a function of gender, to subgroup differences in sample

size, variance, and reliability. They also demonstrated that the use of

a common regression line would result in only slight bias against men

(Arnold et al., 1982; Cooper et al., 1982). Like the present research,

the authors concluded that the regression equation, which was derived

using the total sample, could be used without much bias.

There were three MUSCAT tests which came out as significant predictors of which the firs' nree accounted for most of the variance. The

Lift 60 accounted for b7 ai the variance in criterion performance. The

second and third significant tests, Lean Body Mass and the Upriqht Pull,

accounted for only a small amount of additional variance.

-' The present findings appeared to support previous research which

has been conducted by the Air Force and the Navy (McDaniel et al., 1983;

Robertson, 1982;). The results were consistent across the studies in

that the validity coefficients and the scatterplots were similar. They

also found that the validity correlations based on the men and women

subnamples were smaller than the validity correlations which were based

on the total sample.

The present research finding that a single predictor accounted for

"most of the criterion variance seems to support the belief in a general

strength factor. For example, Arnold et al. (1982) found that one test

(i.e., arm dynamometer) could serve as a valid selector in steelworker

jobs. This finding is apparently inconsistent with the factorial

"complexity of strength as identified by Fleishman (1964) and the

physiological independence of muscle groups in different parts of the

body. Arnold et al. (1982) concluded that various kinds of physical

strength are sufficiently interrelated to allow the identification of a

general strength construct. However, the issue of factorial complexity

is still unresolved. For example, Cooper at al. (1982) retained all

four significant predictors even th',ugh they added only small amounts of

variance. They believed that becaute the Job analysis had indicated

F 68
. .. 77 7"

"that a broad range of physical abilities was required by jobs in the

"electric power industry, predictors such as Equilibrium and Flexibility

*• should also be in the final test battery. Also, the factor analytic

research has demonstrated that human physical performance is a

multifaceted ability domain (Fleishman, 1964; Myers, Gebhardt, Crump, &

"Fleishman, 1983).

Examination of the medical data indicated that the sick calls and

profiles were primarily related to the musculoskeletal system. Women

did not receive a greater percentage of sick calls than men, but did

account for 20% more days on profile. The correlations between the

level of physical capacity as determined by the MEPSCAT and frequency of

sick calls, number of days on profile and attrition were usually significant, but very low. For example, in contrast to pre-Rasic and postBasic, th ,ost-AIT administrations of the MEPSCAT yielded small but

sigl.ific't. correlations with number of days on profile which were

related to the musculoskeletal system. It seems likely that being on

profile during Basic Training may have produced a decrease in physical

capacity, which increased the correlations between MEPSCAT scores and

number of days on profile. No significant relationships between the

MEPSCAT and separation data (i.e., medical discharge, AR-635, recycle)

were found, but there was some uncertainty about the accuracy of the

"attrition data. It was, for example, not always clear why the soldiers

left the Army. The data provided to us were often incomplete and the

specific reason given for a medical discharge was not always availSable. Consequently, the medical and separation data were not used in

evaluating the validity of the MEPSCAT.

As mentioned previously, the present research effort found that

tests in the MEPSCAT were highly predictive of performance of tasks in

physically demanding Army jobs. Although much work has been

acLamplished which appears to confirm the Air Force's and the Navy's

-J research findings, there is a need to carry out additional research. A

"limitation of the research accomplished to date is the difficulty in

setting assignment scores for the predictor test. This stems from

problems in translating actual task requirements of particular MOS into

specific levels of performance on the criterion measures.

69

pt'
Within the constrairiLs of the present research, we attempted to

'A develop generic criterion measures that represented the physical demands

of all Army jobs. Obviously, there were several shortcomings associated

with these criteria and, if resolved, it might be easier to set

assignment scores. First, except for the CPT which involved lifting, it

would be difficult to link specific MOS demands with the Carry, Push,

and Torque Tasks. Second, the method used did not totally take into

account differences in bulk, handles, size of equipment lifted or

carried. Third, since the job analysis carried out by WITAPRG

emphasized the strength requirements of Army jobs, the CPT,,, which were

based on this analysis, may not have included all of the important

aspects of physical performance (e.g., cardiovascular endurance,

muscular endurance, and flexibility).

Therefore, future research should expand and refine the criterion

measures to more effectively represent the important aspects of

physically demranding jobs.. The objective of the research would be to

determine the physiological demands of Army MOS and of the generic

.* * ~ criterion performance tasks. Determination of the physiological demands

of MOS would provide a refinement t~o link the criteri:n measures, such

as the CPTs, with the specific requirements of Army jobs. It should be

possible to design a more elaborate standardized classification system

that categorizes MOS by not only weight lifted, but also by other

variables such as distance, height of lift, frequency, dimensions of

ojcand frerequired topush ojcs Itwouldalobdeibe

to expand the tasks to include cardiovascular and muscular endurance.

These additional criteria might, for example, increase the validity of

-the predictor tests and thus involve other predictors (e.g., stamina).

Finally, future research should investigate the cost-benefits of

using the MUPSCAT and the cost-benefits of using different critical

scores to make differential assignments of personnel based on the match

between soldiers' physical capacity and the job demands. The costs

associated with factors likely to be affected by the level of physical

proficiency in soldiers (e.g., costs associated with training,

attrition, disability discharges, medical care, absenteeism from sick

calls, and days on profile) must be determined. The data analysis might

,01

70
follow the model used by Arnold et al. (1982) who found that the savings

of using a valid strength test in the steel industry to be $9 million

each year.

*4* 71
REFERENES

AAHPERD Lifetime Health Related Physical Fitness. Reston, VA: American

Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and nance,

"1980.

Abrahams, N. M., & Alf, E. r. Pratfalls in moderator research. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 245-25i.

Arnold, J. D., Rauschenberger, J. H., Soubel, W. G., & Guion, R. M. The

validation and utility of a strength test for selecting

steelworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 588-604.

Astrand, P. 0., & Ryhming, 1. A nomogram for calculation of aerobic

capacity (physicil fitness) from pulse rate durinq submaximal

work. Journal of Applied Physiology, 1954, 7, 218-221.

Ayoub, M. M., & McDaniel, J. W. Effects of operator stance on pushing

and pulling tasks. AIJE Transactions, 1974, 185-195.

"Bartlett, C. J., Bobko, P., Mosier, S. B., & Hannan, R. Testing for

fairness with moderated multiple regression strategy: An

alternative to differential analysis. Personnel Psycholoqy, 197F, I •:•31, 233-241.

Berger, R. A. Applied exercise physiology. Fhiladelphia, PA: Lea &

Begiger, 12.

Caldwell, L. S. Body position and the strength and endurance of manual ) ]pull. Human Factors, 1964, 6(5), 479-483.

Chaffin, D. B., Herrin, G. S., Keyserling, W. M., & Garg, A. A method

for evaluating the biomechanical stresses resulting from manual

". materials handling. American Industrial Hygiene Association

Journal, 1977, 38(12), 662-675.

Churchill, E, McConville, J., Laubach, L., & White, R. Anthropometry o'

the U.S. Army aviators. (T.R. 7-2-53-CE). Natick, MA: Iu.S. Army "Research and Development Command, 1971.

Churchill, E., Churchill, T., McConville, J., & White, R. Anthropometry

of women of the U.S. Army. Natick, MA: U. S. Army Research and

Development Command, 1977.

Cooper, K. Correlations between field and treadmill testing as a means

for assessing maximal oxygen intake. Journal of American Medical

Association, 1968, 203, 135-138.

72
Cooper, M. A., Schemmer, F. M., Gebhardt, D. L., Marshall-Mies, J., &

Fleishman, E. A. The development and validation of physical

ability tests for jobs in the ectric power industry. Bethesda,

"MUD: Advanced Research Resources Orgaitizion,982.

". Daniels, W. L., Wright, 3. E., Sharp, D. S., Kowal, D. M., Mello, P. D.,

& Stauffer, R. S. The effect of twoyears traininq in aerobic

power and muscular strength of male andTlemale cadets. Technical

Report 12/81. Natick, MA I!.YST.Ayiiyesearch Institute of

Environmental Medicine, 1980..

First Annual Report to the Congress on Joint-Service Efforts to Link

Standards for Enlistment to nn-the-Job Performance. nffice of the

Assistant Secretary of Defese7manpower, Reserve Affairs, and

"Logistics), December, 1982.

Fleishman, E. A. The structure and measurement of physical fitness.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice HaT-I1964.

Handbook for analyzin _jobs. Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of

'. Labor, 1972.

Katch, V. L. The role of maximal oxygen intake in endurance

performance. Paper read at AAHPEP Convention, Seattle, 1970.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in behavioral

research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1973.

Knapik, J. J., Kowal, D. M., Riley, P., Wright, J. N., & Sacco, M.

Development and description of a device for static strength

measurement in the armed forces examination and entrance station.

Technical Report 2/79. Natick, MA: U.S. Army Pesearch Institute of Environmental Medicine, 1979.

Knapik, J. 3., Vogel, J. A., & Wright, J. ". Measurement of isometric

strength in an upright pull at 38 cm. Technical Report 3/81.

Natick, MA: U.S. Army Re~earch Institute of Environmental

"Medicine, 1981.

Kowal, D. M. Nature and causts of injuries in women resulting from an

endurance training program. The American Journal of Sports

Medicine, 1980, 8, 265-269.

Kowal, D., Vogel, 3., Sharp, D., & Knapik, J. Analysis of attrition,

retention and criterion task performance of recruits durinq

training. U.S. Army Medical Research and nevelopment Command

Technical Report T2/82, 1982.

VS

73

"N I
Kroemer, K. H. E. Push forces exerted in 65 common workina positions.

Technical Report AMRL-TR-68-143. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH:

Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, 1969.

Laubach, L. L. Comparative muscular strength of men and women: A

review of the literature. Journal of Aviation, Space, and

Environmental Medicine, 197-4---5-34T2.

McArdle, W. D., Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L. Exercise physioloqy.

"Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1981.

McDaniel, J. W., Skandis, R. J., & Madole, S. W eight lift

capabilities of Air Force basic trainees (AFAWL-TP-83-UO01). U Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Aerospace Medical

Research Laboratory, 1983.

N Myers, D. C., Gebhardt, D. L., & Fleishman, E. A. Development of

physical performance standards for Army jobs: The job analysis

methodology. (APRO Final Report 3045/P79---1O). Bethesda, Mn:

. A-dvanced ReSearch Resources Organization, November 1979.

Myers, n. C., Gebhardt, D. L., Crump, C. E., & Fleishman, F. A. Factor

analysis of strength, cardiovascular endurance, flexibility, and

'J body composition measures. (APO Ti'Ehnical Peport7O077/P83-9).

'Bi esda, MD: Advanced Research Resources nrganization, June 1983.

Myers, D. C., Gebhardt, D. L., Price, S. J., & Fleishman, E. A.

Development of physical performance standards for Army jobs:

Validation of physical abilities analysis methodology. (Final

Report). Bethesda, MD: Advanced Research Resources Organization,

1981.

"Frinciples for the validation and use of personnel selection

procedures: Second Edition. Division of Industrial-(7ganizational

:: Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,

"1980.

Robertson, D. W. Development of an occupational strenqth test battery (eTB). (NPRDT_-R--42). San Diego: Navy P-erso-nn-el Pesearch and

e ve-opment Center, 1982.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, 3. E. Moderator research and the law of small

numbers. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 215-231.

"Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, 3. E., & Pearlman, K. Task differences as

moderators of aptitude test validity in selection: A red herring.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981, 66, 166-185.

. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, 3. E., & Urry, V. W. Statistical power in

criterion-related validity studies. Journal of Applied Psycholoqy,

1976, 61, 473-485.

I,74.
Sharp, D. S., Wright, J. E., Vogel, J. A., Patton, J. F., [aniels, W.

L., Krapik, J., & Kowal, D. M. Screening for physical capacity in

"the U.S. Army: An analysis of measures predictive of strenqth and

stamina. Technical Report 8/80. Natick, FA: U.S. Army Research

Institute of Environmental Medicine, 1980.

t. Snook, S. H., & Ciriello, V. M. Maximum weights and workload acceptable

to female workers. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1974, 16(8),

527-534.

"Snook, S. H., & Irvine, C. H. Maximum acceptable weight of lift.

PuAmerican Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 1967, 28(4), 322-

-329.

Trattner, M. H., & O'Leary, B. S. Sample sizes for specified

statistical power in testing for differential validity. Journal of

"Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 127-134.

White, R. M., & Churchill, E. United States Marine rorps

Anthropometry. Natick, MA: U.S. Army Research and -evelopment

SSommand, 1977.

Wilmore, J. A. Training for sprrt and activity. Boston: Allyn and

"Bacon, Inc., 1982.

Women in the Army Policy Review. Washington, D.C.: fepartment of the

"Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, November,

1 1982.

Reference Notes:

1. Vogel, J. Personal communication, June 16, 1983.

40

575
* i

APPENDIX A

Exapleofthe Job Analysis Results

IN

6 I

0.

i;%"

5. .

, lot "iZW.

-S.

*5

7-

;b 

S.-,

[A

'/I
PROPOSED FORMAT

Ct4F 55

AMMUNITION SPECIALIST

* IEHS 558

Summary

Supervises, performs, or assists in ammunition storage, receipt issue, stock

control, accounting and maintenance operations

Duties

MOSC55810 Assists in receipt, issue and maintenance of ammunition components

and explosives

MOSC55B20 Receives, stores, issues and transports, conventional and special

arnunition components and explosives

MOSC55B30 Supervises 55810 and 55820 duties, with additional supervisory

functions for receipt, storage, issue and transportation of containers, rockets, chemical and non-nuclear special amunition.

Supervises the esteblishment and maintenance of ammunition stock

control records. I..

f1OSC55B40 Supervises ammunition storage platoon receipt, storage and issue

operations, Supervises stock control and accounting cperations.

Supervises non-nuclear amnunition maintenance operations.

TASKS 55BO 55B20 55B30 55840

1 . Loads, unloads, stacks and stores amnuni- X X

2. Stores explosives and all types of amiuni- X X

tion, including guided missiles, using

mater 4 als handling equipment in magazines,

warehouses and open storage areas.

3. Prepares ammunition for shipment on all X X

types of transportation and performs nec-

* cessary bracing and staying of loads.

4. Inventories arnunition in storage and X X

. issues amunition supplies.

S5.-Assists in upkeep of operations area and X X

, facilities.

6. Performs organizational maintenance opera- X X

tions involving removing rust and

! corrosion, package repair and painting

and marking, using equipment such as

buffers, brushers and strapping machines. __'_

[ A-1

-9 --

7
TASKS 55BI0 55B20 55B30 55B40

"7. Performs direct support maintenance func- X X

3 tions to include replacement of fuzes,

performance of electrical checks and

provision of assistance to missile

maintenance personnel.

"8. Assists in ammunition serviceability X X

inspections.

9. Employs and performs preventive main- X X

tenanace on mechanics' common handtools

and power tools and specialized

ammunition maintenance tools.

10. Identifies ammunition by types and X X

physical characteristics.

11. Utilizes quantity distance tables. X X

12. Determines correct item description, X X

national stock number markings aod

_ other storage data.

"13. Posts records and documents. X X

14. Operates materials handling equipment. X X

"15. Packs, packages, crates, stencils, X X

weighs and bands ari1unition for shipment or storage.

16. Prepares loads using webbing slings, con- X X

tainers, platforms, skid boards and

ancillary hardware.

b.-4

V,

A-2.

'4,

•I'. A- 2

.{-t. . . 4 .'.** . . . - - - - - t % 't . t %
PHYSICAL DEIIANDS ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

OfF 55

MOS 55810 LEVEL 1 DATE Feb 82 PAGE 3 OF 21

I. DUTIES

Assists in receipt, storage, issue, and maintenance of ammunition

components and explosives.

II. TASK SUMI1ARY

"rnventory amnunition to determine location and quantity.

III. CRITICAL TASK ELEMENT IV. CRITICAL PERFORIANCE MEASURE

Climbs stacks of ammunition Climbldescend, stand, reach, .

.1 to gain access to stocks. push/pull.

V. ANALYSIS

A s C 0 E F 6

UEIGHT/ IKORZ. VERTICAL WORK RATE/PERFOMtWCE PHYS 0. CATEGURY t1DS FREQ. FACTOR LOAD DISTANCE DISTANCE STANIUARD S L 1 1 H V 0 T 

1. LIFT/LOWER

2. CARRY

3. PUSH 120 lb 2 ft Push access. item , to gain It'- X

Pull items to gain- 4. PULL 120 lb 2 ft access.

S. LOAD BEAR

6. WALK/MARCH - 7.SCENB 8 ft Climb/descend stacks

DESCEND a ft to observe markines. "

8. RUN/RUSH

9. SWIM/OIVE

10. DIG

I I

4 A-3

i . * -r- s .d d ~. j. 
I-t_____ _,_I__ _t I.

"F CTOA U M T IKORZ. VERTICAL WORK RATC/P R•fO•v •CE P t' 0. C0 TECJV I'M0 FREQr. •CTO4 LOAD DISTM EICE D |STA ,'C [ STNLUAI) W L It V11 4P 0

* 12. THROW

i ~ 13. WM•LE f _.

" 14. FIWAR

H AMMER/ "; ~POIJID

16. S.T

"17. RECLIN E

- " "8;. REACH 3 ft 3 ft RaIch ~~a m w to retrieve • ai t i to n i t e m s .

Stay& or feet and 1 9 . S T A N D c o ,1 nt s a m t la 1 .' .

20. STOOP

21. KNEEL - % I

22. CROI"H

VI. EXPLANATION/COMMENT - PHYSICAL DEMAND FACTO:.S

Climbs stacks of ammunition at storage lccations to see markings on

ammunition and containers. Reaches into storage bins to remove items.

Stands for prolonged periods of time up to 2 hours without sitting. Push/pull items to enable identification for inventory purposes. This

task is done as a group task. Calculations are based on 105nmm HE 2 per box, total weight of 120 lbs. '

4-=

4.'

VII. PHYSICAL DEMANDS RATINGS

(FOR USE BY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND)

SEDENTARY LIGHT ME IUM HEW'f VERY HEAVY

"1 2 3 4 5 617 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1A 1g 20 1 22

VII. PHYSICAL CAPACI Y MEASURES FOR MOS QUALIFICATION

(FOR USE BY US ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MCDICINE)

N4 A -

"4

-4 4.. .4: 

I ' : 1'
DP7R,1ENT OF THE APJ1Y

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Washington, DC 20310

Reply to

Attention of

DAPE-ZAW 25 t.a,'f 1982

SUB3JECT: MOS PhysIcal Deands Anclysis (10S 5S510, Am,.,uniticn

Specialist)

TO: Commander

US Amy Ordinance Center and School

"ATTN: ATSL-CD-OR (Mr. Schultz)

Aberdeen Proving Ground, taryland 21005

1. Reference updated TRADOC Pamphlet, "Assessing the Physical Demands

and Direct Combat Probability of US Amy Organizations, 11OS, and

Duty Positions."

2. Your physical demands analysis for IIOS 55B10 has been reviewed.

Based on this review, the physical requirements you identified

place this MOS in the category shown below for the reasons

indicated.

PHYSICAL PHYSICAL PEMANDS RATIONALE FOR

DEMANDS CLASSIFICATION PHYS ICAL DE. AN DS

CATEGORY CRITEPEIOrI CLASSI FI CATION

Very Heavy Lift over 100 pounds Soldier required tG lift

Lifting with frequent lifting up to 100 pounds with

Lkwerirg of 50 pounds frequent lifting or constant

Pushing lifting of weights up to

Pulling 72 pounds. The cumulative

Carrying and sustained nature of

Handling this work requires that

MOS be classified Very

Heavy.

A-5
* .4

.4,-*

e'.5'

-. '-. ,..APPENDIX B

"-'., ~Results of Review of WITAPRG Physical Demands..Anal ,si.s

,,.'.

*,,I

4.. ,,

S...,

%* ..i

,-.. •

" .1•

, .e,
L:-L

00-6

4) u cuu

.1*1

4J1

10 - -)

U- :, nto ~

u in

0 C

Lo M I S - % oL l cn U 4A 

- 0CJ

u~

cu u. .

> 'WI0SS U

>I~ J.a U-> -U -CJIA -B-M

......... 41~~ en to
'iii

100

en LA- a aa Iw o'i 0 .

C 9D

'a L6 Pa S a

to 0

La 0 Ifl M I

9-u a I p- I

ua .. an a a a a a

a)a ena LA., .n c I cm a- a a

c -ICD L6 -c 1 a a1 a% 0

S. 0 0 N NLot a a =1 U- - -,. -n -0 - D 9 a at

M coo

a I 1 aL A

C ~~~ - - - - - - - - - -
imC cl C i a a a

0 CD

, ; I C I S I I I - C

1 -e..

X .. u. : * * a

C a

C CD I I I•,

I

Cl -tr

0n0

"c" CD CD C) I I+

,- a a a :S 

a,) 0 a 8 a a a , a a

in

r%. cn CD d t ..-

•. • -- u.I. a a a a a a I a

"I a a a a a I• a

C - -c -O s r- O

* a a- - a

e' 0 0 CD--

r. - o_"-*- 

: a a a a aI 

a - - - - - - - - -,

-4 4 I I I I I -S'

I e- a a a a a a U" I

0 5, a .,a

S,,--" -4.. C ,,'

4J a.,.,-

I- a' '. C' 'U6

SI I '1 O! + - .L Ue'-:.

*nra a~ - ,.,-,G 4- 

_ (1 1 : • ,-. I,,

• . , , •-'C , 

&:*:

-": 

.,....**C ,. . *4 . ,,.:..C.'... ~ C C~* ,,. --.-..-... -.......-......--.....-.-.--.............. . * C *** * *-..C*C -...-.. C -C* ,.....-........ . . C C*~ C.-.-..-...-,:..... * ... . -- :
CY

21% CD

p 'Oc - Is

a *1 

'-S toa~ CD S I a

0 *1

CD 0 o % rV

0 . a a a a a * .I a - . - - - - - --

.5to *C CD am

_ a a a a a a aD

4- a a . N% 

OJ4-

0- CD C

0a cm O + D U

I I. I r- U- C

x~% a a A coIa _n at Zo G co u N

S. - - - - - - - - - - -

61.
----------------------------------------

qa CL 0

L6 B S B

3 a B I S S

4A_

2cS -

60 N

rb C4 ~ g S g

5. 10 B B

*B--
0% C a aLa

c

0

* ~I a a

I- p . . a a

A IN

ar W 

- *ft a.- - - g- -A

f 40 IAN p. a

I? -..i- C a a a a a&A.

,* *v-6

ItEu
//

Iw

ai• - -•- -

1 I- -

a S•0 I 0 5 S S o S ;.

"* I a . O a- I S I S - I -

CL

S0 a., S I I S S O , S S '.

41

• a. , , , 0 , , , , S" * if* .~ le'I'l• °- , ,, .

a, a---

'•. an S0 S S I S I O .

* ~41-

e Il . p .. , , * , O , ' "

I o ..

--- p. qp 5 a,, a O a a a P "

I.. IL aw a a I I 5 I

S , I a S S

43.

3 4l 1 a a S I 1 4 A -q

.p.p-I - - - O O - - w1*

411 - ca, ,I " Go ..

If.N

w co

a S.SB""

S. %*"

! \ * 5" " " S -
d "-- I- 1 I I I I I-~

* * 1 I a I I I

,.a a-- I-I

-- ". C I I I I I I S I

• oto

C -D

-1 ( 4 I I I I S I I

0 (NJ

(U .

ton I I I I I I I

--N a- I S I a-" I I I I

.-- I a I I I I I 0

! - - -I-- - - - - - - - - -

C:C

- a-• I I I I I I I I

L-,

C- 0 cn a &A Co-

"3 an-- I I I I I-- I I I

nC I a I I I I S

"." l/l. =-

- P. 

C-- I ,i I I I I I I S c 

40S

• 0.- I I I I I I I I

w -

- a,.* I I I a- I I I

a-3

0 0 *N I I I r- S I I

6n %a

B -

. 5 g gg ,• 

|0s • • a a- I"

I .- "- -,-. 4- - _- 

- a,

'%'0

. o . . 0 . . .0 . . - - . . I a-•I

• . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . -. -...... --- ,-"
- -

• ' 0 I I S I a al a II

* S S I S I a a S S

'"" S S I S S S - a a

ES.

- Ii" 0 I - I I S S I I

4 -: * -" I I I S I S

C.,i •, S I I a a a •

• - a• ,a , al i a

"a a a I S * * a

viI •- ,-

• ," "S - 5 S 9 I I a I I

a., L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- • - a a,. a , a. a a ai ' ',

S.0 • I

u'S 8J u a"a-

- =, 1 .-

" U, a I °'I

•4 ii

a - * a a,

'I _

' - a a - . , -
'SA

- - - - - - - - - - - -

#A% ~ S I ~

p.,

0 0 wr I I I I I I Ia

S. a

-- A- o

-~~ a a a 5 ~ :3 

cc f-- C 0

% -A - - -

I~i aa % CUa

US -

-~~~U a a aa C) 

a I I a aB-10a
Results of Analysis of Pull/Torque Tasks

In Very Heavy, Heavy, Moderately Heavy Category

Anount

'10S Job Torque ;'"

Category MOS (Ft/lbs)

H 64C 980

VH 67W 780

VH 67T 780

VH 63S 750

VH 54E 500

VH 63W 450

VH 19K 450

VH 19E 450

H 24W 435

VH 67U 375

VH 67X 375 -¶

VH 63T 350

VH 63J 350

VH 63H 350

H 63G 350

VH 458 350

VH 45T 350

MH 16C 350

V" 630 310

VH 12F 280

VN 62J 250

VH 16P 200

VH 55G 200

VH 62F 175

VH 46N 160.

VH 54C 15G

VH 628 150

VH 16D 150 "_

VH 67Y 135

NH 35H 120

MH 24Q 100

H 68H 100

VH 19D 10

VH 05C ' 

-,

VH 16E .-.

V'H 63E 26

/1, .

B-li*'*

--.-.. '.Qod
Zi PENI

Crtro Promne ak pciiain

Nk*

J,%J

.1~~.x
16 OVERVIEW OF SPACE AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

1. Wooden runway for Push Test.

2. A wooden sled for the Push Test.

3. 20 sandbags, each weighing 30 pounds.

4. The Carry Course should 25 yards X 25 yards.

5. Shelving standard for Lift Test.

6. Stationary bolts, fixed to the shelving standard, for the Torque Test.

7. Two sets of 18 specific pieces of Army Equipment (Appendix A) used -for

the Lift and Carry Tests.

*8. A flat indoor area that is at least 30 X 35 yards.

I.- - ---------------------- 30yards ----------------

[Extri Sanb s

PUSH TEST_

25Y[-Esxtra Sanbags

--------- ---------- ---------26ad

44

CA3RYATEST

Sn

.Cones

¶ I 5 4

TOQU TES

SHEVIN

STADAR

ADIITRTO ARE

LIF TES

EQUIMEN

S S1
LIFT TEST

Purpose

The purpose of this test is to determine the heaviest weight that the

soldier can lift and place on a shelf at chest height (i.e., armpit level).-

Materials and Personnel Requirements

1. Various pieces of equipment ranging in weight from 28 to 202 pounds were

selected to represent the full range of weights lifted. These pieces of

equipment represent the weights lifted and carried in the different demand

categories. The equipmen t list is located in Appendix A.

2. Each piece of Army Equiment must be clearly marked with its exact weight.

3. A graduated shelving standard, constructed according to the specifications

shown in Figure C-i provides shelf heights ranging from 40 to 70 inches, i-n

6 inch increments. Use 3/4 inch plywood to construct the shelving

standard.

4. Mark the height of each shelf clearly on the side used for the Lift Test.

5. Number of administrators required: 1 supervisor and 3 assistants.

Instructions to Administrators

* ~1. Determine the height of the shelf thie soldier will place the piece of

equipment on by:

a. Have the soldier stand at attention with his/her back against the

* chest height scale (see Figure C-2).

b. Determine the height of the soldier's armpit from the ground by

placing a ruler under the left arm and up against the armpit. Then

have the soldier raise the left arm above his/her head. The

* -~ administrator then reads off the height at the top edge of the ruler

-and records this number to the nearest inch on the score sheet in the

block marked "Armpit HeightTM.

c. Read from the scale the-ihelf height that is closest to the person's

* measured armpit level. Record the shelf height that will be used in

the Lift Test on the score sheet in the box marked "Shelf Height".

C-2
* C%j

CD Is

I I

* .5 I

- ---- ---- ---- ---- -20- ---- ---- ---- ----

(Th hlvi stnadms esrcurds httePhIa

wil hol u t 0Ionso qimn)

Fiur C-1 Shlin st da .

I I 3
- SHOULDER HEIGHT SCALE CHEST HEIGHT SCALE

70 70" 7"70

•70"

65" 65" 64"

Block I

60" 60"

55" J- 6Block II

5 5 " --5 5 " -

5o" Block 11 52"

,•,, •46" Blc IV

. .. 45" Block 4V 645

,, 40" Block V 40" 40

"35"

%! 30"

.4

Vs

/

%'

.For determination For determination

of shoulder of chest height

height and Block (armpit level)

Snumber in Push Test for Lift Test.

Figure C-2. Scales drawn on back of shelving standard.

WO

C-4

j

q : p V~* * *~ * **V V-

/ - , , -" " " :',
2. The equipment should be placed in a common area. The soldier assesses

his/her ability to lift a certain weight and selects a piece of equipment

that he/she thinks can be lifted to chest height.

3. An administrator places the piece of equipment next to shelf height that

* measured chest height (i.e., armpit level) for the soldier.

4. The soldier is instructed to lift the piece cf equipment onto the shelf.

If the equipment has handles, they may not be used.

For safety, an assistant must be on each side of the soldier during the

* lift attempt.

5. Following either a successful or an unsuccessful lift by the soldier, the

administrator:

a. Records the weight of the attempted lift, and whether it was

successful or unsuccessful.

b. Remcves the piece of equipment and places it in the comnron area.

6. If the original lift was successful the administrator places the next

heaviest piece of equipment in front of the proper shelf.

a. After a two minute rest the soldier attempts to lift the next heaviest

piece. The administrator repeats steps 5a and 5b (i.e., record the

weight of the attempted lift, whether th2 lift was successful or

unsuccessful, remove the piece of equipment, and place it in the

cormmon area) after the attempted lift.

b. If the soldier was unsuccessful on the second attempted lift, the lift

test is over. However, if the soldier successfully lifted the next

heaviest weight then repeat steps 6a (i.e, place next heaviest piece

next to shelf) and 5a and 5b (i.e., record information on score sheet

and return the piece of equipment to the commron area). Continue

repeating steps 5a and 5b until the soldier is unable to lift the next

heaviest piece of equipment onto the shelf.

7. If the original, lift attempt was unsuccessful the administrator places the

next lighter piece of eqiuipment in front of the proper shelf.

a . After a two minute rest the soldier attempts to lift the next lighter

piece of equipment. The administrator repeats steps 5a and 5b (i.e.,

record the weight of the attempt, whether it was successful or

C-5

V..l
unsuccessful, remove the piece of equipment, and place it in the

cormmon area), after the attempted lift.

b. If the soldier was successful on the second attempt lift, the lift

test is over. If the soldier was unsuccessful in the lift attempt,

then repeat steps 7a (i.e., place next lighter piece next to shelf),

and 5a and 5b (i.e., record information on score sheet and return the

piece of equipment to the commnon area) until the soldier is able to

lift the next lightest piece of equipment onto the shelf.

N Cautions

1. Mitke sure the soldier lifts each piece of equipment in a proper and safe

manner (i.e., bending at the knees and placing the arms around and/or

under the piece of equipment before starting the lifting motion).

2. Instruct the soldier not to throw, but to place the piece of equipment

onto the shelf.

3. As a safety precaution, have the assistants stand on both sides of the

soldier during the lift attempt.

4. Give a two minute rest between lift attempts.

S. The soldier who greatly over or underestimates his/her lifting ability

will have more lift attempts to find the maximum weight that can be lifted

than the soldier who estimated his/her ability accurately.

Scoring

*1. Record the following information on the score sheet from the chest height

7 *. scale.

a. The M.ight of the soldier's armpit.

b. The height of the shelf.

2. Record the following information on the score sheet for each attempted

lift.

* ~a. The weight of t~ie attempted lift.

- *$ b. Whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful.

.. ' 3. When the soldier has completed the test as outlined in item numbers 6b and

7b in the Instructions to the Administrator, the heaviest weight lifted

should be recorded in the box labelled "Heaviest Weight Lifted."

C-6

p....b
I CARRY TEST

* - Purpose

5 The purpose of this test is to determine the distance (up to 200 yards) a

soldier can carry the heaviest piece of equipment lifted to chest height

during the Lift Test.

Materials and PersonnOv Requirements

1. .The same pieces of equipment used for the lift task (described in Appendix

Jk A) are required for the carry task. Therefore in order to conduct the

'SLift and Carry Tests at the same time, two comiplete sets of the equipment

are needed.

%~

2. A clearly marked course, 25 yards on each of four sides, is used to

measure the distance the subject is able to carry a specific piece of

equipment. Cones should be placed at each corner and in the middle of

each side of the course. The course must be marked by placing the

starting line at one corner and a yard line every yard throughout the 100

Vyard course (see Figure C-3). The yard lines must be numbered from 1 to

* U 100.

3. Number of Administrators required: 1 supervisor and 3 assistants.

Instructions to Administrators

1. Determine the piece of equipment the soldier will carry for this test by -

Slooking at the score sheet for "Heaviest Weight Lifted" score in the Lift

Test.

a. Move the piece (i.e., the heaviest piece of equipment lifted to chest

height) the soldier is to carry to the starting line.

*2. The goal for this test is to walk around the 100-yard square twice (this

equals 200 yards). The soldier should walk close to the outside of the

marked course. .

* h ~3. The subject must carry the piece of equipment in a safe carrying position

in front of the body. Both arms should be around and/or under the

*95.9equipment to provide a firm grasp. If the equipment has handles, they may

* not be used.

C-7

I % .
4.

S

T

-'A A

R--------------- 25 Yards -----------------------

• .. .,,'

* T.1 

! !I! 

5 

! ! 

10 .

is202

' ' ' • S 

II

"S I I

EQUIPMENT AREA 30

.35

A..90

S• : 85 .-.. •40

:85

2 80 45

e.?• 75 70 65 60 55

• p. I I

--- --------------- 25 Yards -------------------------

SI "

.c 0 ones.

I ,

•/ ;'•'..Figure C-3. Carry'course.

• tI

.•.. C -8

S..p." %,_. "I " % " u w

, oI,

.. ... p

/ Fgue C3.Cary"ouse
4. The soldier is instructed to carry the piece of equipment as far as--

possible.

5. The soldier begins the test by first picking up the piece of equipment and

then carrying it twice around the outside of the marked course (i.e., 200

yards).

6. The outlined square course is marked every yard from the starting line.

When the soldier stops and places the piece of equipment on the ground,

the administrator determines and records the distance ccvered to the

nearest yard. For example, if the soldier went one full lap plus 23 yards

down the next side the score would be 100 yards for the first lap, plus 23

yards for the second lap. Therefore the total distance is 123 yards.

7. There is only one trial for this test.

Cautions

1. Make sure the soldier lifts and carries the piece of equipment in a safe

and proper fashion.

2. Make sure the equipment is the same as used in the Lift Test.

3. An assistant must walk with the soldier during the Carry Test to help the

soldier safely place the piece of equipment on the floor, when the Carry

Test is completed.

Scoring /

1. Record the following information on the score sheet for the Carry Test:

a. The weight carried.

b. The distance carried.

1.. The distance is measured from the front of the piece of equipment

-4 after the soldier has placed it on the ground.

*2. If the front of the equipment is half way or closer to the next .

yard marker the score is the next highest yard marker.

3. -If the front of the equipment is not half way to the next yard K

marker, the score is the lowE~r yard marker.

C-9

%
o1

N' PUSH TEST

. Purpose N,.

The purpose of this test is to determine how far a soldier can push a

specified weight in 30 seconds.

" --~ Materials and Personnel Pe uirements

1 . A wooden sled, constructed according to the spe:ifications in Figure C-4, is

used for the Push Test. Ilse 3/4 inch plyood to construct the wooden sled.

2. The bottom of the sled must be covered with Type 304/18 gauge (.048"

thick) stainless steel. The metal covering should be fabricated (i.e.,

"fold up uniformly) three inches up each side of the sled. The piece of

stainless steel should be 3.5' x 4.5'.

• *• Tenty sandbags weighing 30 pounds are needed. Also have available

"L .the " following:

Two 2 lb. bags; one 3 lb. bag, two 5 lb. bags; two 10 lb. bags;

S '• ten 20 lb. bags.

4. A wooden runway 80 feet long and 8 feet wide is needed for the Push

"Test (Figure C-5). The wooden runway must be constructed with 3/4 inch,

"AC Ferr plywood with the smooth side placed up. Th2 runway must be

"" mounted on a frame made from 2" x 4"s. This frame consists of 2" x 4's

-• that run the full length of both sides of the runway and cross supports

placed every four feet. When the cross support is at the junction of

*. two pieces of the runway, the cross support should joint these two

-. pieces. In order to keep the runway smooth use finishing nails and

countersink them.

" 5. Weigh the sled with the metal covering and record this weight clearly on

S•'both the front and back of the sled.

6. A 20 yard push lane marked every foot (i.e., one foot to 60 feet).

" " 7. One stopwatch to time the Push Test.

8 . Number of administrators required: 1 supervisor and 3 4 assistants to

. move sandbags and push sled.

C-l 0

- N-

- . .. . .
- -- - -3 \

I -

I.

p S.

' #. 5"5 '. 7,1

4 

- . 7- ;

'I, , . .,

• .". - - . ' , : . -., , .". .

- - - - - - - - --

to ho up .l., , .to 400. ,. ,lpou d wh l t i

II /

r - Push s

C-1

77-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _, #a. 

o I=

1 ii

I.. ... -.3 6" ".. .. . . ,I / ..

(The sled E.ust be constructed to holJ up to 430 pounds while it is".'

Figure C-4. Push sled. .- '

C-il .v..-

, . , .•• , • , -. 2,-,; . , . . ,S-.*-,-,,, ,'.,.',.,*.*.'* •. .. *..0.. . . ., . . .

.o.... **. . _ 

'

-/-,./ .S
2#A

Goa

Lnn

0 C

4aJ

CD C)a

a L-~

LOL

enn

4,0

co.

* CL

C--

MWa 05 4*0%
Instrictions'to Administrator

1. This test has two parts: Part I is a Pretest to determine the weight that

will be pushed during the actual Push lest. Part 11 is the actual Push

Test. Both parts. of the Push Test require the soldier to push the woodeni

sled with a specific am~ounit of weight on it.

2. The administrator first determines where the soldier should place his/her

hands on the back of the sled.

a. The soldier's shoulder height must be measured in the following

manner:.

1. Have the soldier stand with his/her back against the shoulder

height scale marked off on the back side of the shelf standard

which was used in the Lift Test (Figure C-2).

2. Determine the number corresponding to the top of the outside of

the right shoulder by placing a ruler on the top of the shoulder.

3. Record the number closest to the point at which the ruler touchesNC

the scale in the space provided on the score sheet.

4. The numbers on this scale correspond to the numbers on the back of *

the sled.

b. The placement of the hands is as follows:

1. The soldier places the palms of his/her hands on the same number

as was determined in the measurement of the shoulder height.

2. Both the hands must be placed in the block marked with the

shoulder height number. The hands must be placed on the line so

that the heels of both hands are Just above the bottom line of the

block (Figure C-6).

C. The soldier must keep his/her hands on the proper numbers throughout

the Pretest and actual Push Test. Additionally, the shoulders must

remain parallel to the sled thrcighout the test. However, the

distance the feet are placed from the sled at anytime during the test

is determined by each individual soldier.

C-1 3
.41

"7 . T Top of Sled

S., 

716

+

4" 

I V

5-

* . ., II.

* ,::.',

27"

'" Bottom of Sled

(The above marked Roman Numerals should be listed on both ends

of the sled).

,a'.

Figure C-6. Hand placement on back of sled.

S:;.,'::C-14

*. . . . ". - .•... ,e
3. Part 1 - Pretest

a. The Pretest will determine the weight the soldier will push for the

actual Push Test.

b. Complete the following steps to determine the weight used for the

Pretest.

1. Record the heaviest weight the soldier was able to lift to chest

height (Lift Test) in the space provided on the Push Test portion

of the score sheet.

2. Multiply this heaviest weight lifted by four and record this

number on the score sheet.

3. Place sandbags equal to this weight on the wooden sled. For

example, if the soldier lifted 70 pounds during the Lift Test then

280 pounds is placed on the sled (i.e., 70 X 4 *280). For

example, if the sled weighs 250 pounds, I sandbag weighing 30 pounds

must be placed by the administrator onto the sled.

This brings the total weight to 280 pounds.

c. Instructions for Pretest administrator.

1. Have the soldier place his/her hands at the designated pvsh mark

and push this weight two feet (Figures C-5 and C-6).

2. The push must be one continual motion. When the sled stops

moving, the Pretest trial is over.

3. If the soldier pushed the weight two feet, see item *d; if the

soldier was not able to push the weight two feet see item "Id"

below.

d. -If the soldier was-able to-push the original weight two feet -then_ add

30 pounds to the sled (i.e., one 30 pound sandbag). Follow the

steps below unti the soldier cannot push the sled two feet.

1. The soldier is given a two minute rest and then he/she will

attempt to push the heavier weight two feet.

2. If the soldier could not push this weight two feet, then the

previous weight (t02 soldier pushed two feet) is used for the

actual Push Test.

C-1 5

~v-*.*.*".............."7..7.
3. If the soldier was able to push the next heavier weight two feet,

then 30 pounds are again added to the sled.

4. The soldier rests two minutes and attempts to push this next

heavier weight two feet.

5. Once the heaviest weight is determined it must be recorded in the

space provided on the score sheet. The weight used in the actual

Push Test is the heaviest weight the soldier pushed two feet..

e. If the soldier was not able to push the original weight two feet, then

decrease the weight by removing 30 pounds from the sled (i.e., one 30

pound sandbag is taken off the sled). Follow the steps below until

the soldier can push the weight two feet.

1. After a two minute rest, the soldier will attempt to push the

lighter weight two feet.

2. If the soldier still cannot push the lighter weight two feet,

remove another 30 pounds from the sled.

3. The soldier rests two minutes and attempts to push this next

weight two feet.

4. When the soldier can push a new weight two feet, this weight is

used in the actual Push Test (i.e., the maximum weight the soldier

can push two feet).

f. The administrator records the weight used in each trial of the pretest. The maximum weight that the soldier could push two feet is

recorded on the score sheet in the box marked "

MActual Push Test:

Weight Pushed."

4. Part 11 - Actual Push Test.

a. After finishing the Pretest the soldier is given a ten minute rest. j

The weight for this test was determined and recorded on the score

sheet during the Pretest.

b. The administrator checks to see that the appropriate weight is placed

on the sled. The front of the sled is placed on the starting line and

the directions for the test are outlined for the soldier.

C-16
c. The soldier is given one trial to push the sled along the push lane as

far as possible in 30 seconds.

d. The soldier is instructed to place his/her hands at the proper

location as outlined previously.

e. The administrator records the distance covered in 30 seconds. When

the 30 second trial is over, measure from the front of the sled the

distance (to the nearest foot) that the sled was pushed along the push

lane.

Cautions

1. Be sure that the soldier keeps his/her hands in the proper place

throughout the push and that the soldier's shoulders are parallel to the

%i sled during the test(s).

2. Guide the sled, as the soldier pushes it along the lane, so that it moves

straight down the plywood.

Scoringj

1. Record the following information on the score sheet.

a. Shoulder Height (Block Number).

F]b. Heaviest weight lifted successfully.

c. (Heaviest Weight Lifted) x 4 ___

d. The weight pushed in each Pretest trial.

e. Whether the Pretest trial was successful or unsuccessful.

f. The maximum weight pushed two feet.

g. The distance (to nearest foot) the bled is pushed in 30 seconds.

t4

C-1 7
TORQUE TEST

* Purpose

The purpose of this test is to determine the maximum amount of torque,

Sthe soldier can generate, by pulling on a stationary bolt.

Materials and Personnel Requirements

1. A one inch drive dial torque wrench that reads up to 800 ft/lbs of force

is required for this test. The torque wrench has a dial clearly marked

every 20 ft/lbs, with at least a 800 ft/lbs capacity. The wrench should

have a lazy arm (i.e.. follow-up arm), for ease of reading and recording

the torque applied by the soldier. At least two torque wrenches must be

available at the testing site.

2. Torque is applied to a one inch stationary bolt located on five shelves

ranging in height from 40 to 64 inches. This requires:

a. The same shelf standard used for the Lift Task. The shelf standard

provides for the five graduated levels needed for the torque task.

b. One inch bolts should be welded to metal strips which are secured to

the five shelf levels. The bolt must be located 10 inches from both

outside edges (Figures C-7 and C-8). The weld must be able to withstand

up to 800 ft/lbs of firce. The m'etal strip and fixed bolt is placed

across from the side of the shelf used for the lift task. See Figure

C-7 for more detailed specifications.

3. Number of administrators required: 1 supervisor and 1 assistant.

Instructions to Administrators

1. Determine the h'eight of the bolt the soldier will use for the torque test.

-- a. From the score'sheet, note the shelf height used for the lift task.

b. Ask the soldier to move, from the shelf used for the lift task to the

next lowest shelf, in preparation for the torque test. Record the

shelf height used for the Torque Test on the score sheet.

2. Explain how to use the torque wreiich and state that this is a test of the

maximum force that he/she can generate with his/her arms, by pulling

steadily with the wrench on the fixed bolt, with both arms.

C-18
BOl t ot

Nut----

Figure C-7. Diagram of 1' bolt attached

to one side of shelving standard.

C-19

.... . S
a,' •

a.

'a.

a,,

"I'. FigreC-_DigrmfwerIbot _holde_ eledntte__ee_)

p "*

I. .

\ .
3. Place the torque wrench on the bolt with the handle placed at a 45 degree

angle to the edge of the shelf (see Figure C-8).

4. Tell the soldier that there will be three trials with a one minute rest

between each trial.

15. Tell the soldier to pull steadily on the bolt, until the dial reading does

not increase further. The soldier must press ,,is/her hip against the standard,

stand up straight, and pull only with his/her arms.

6. The soldier rests for one minute. The administrator records the force

generated in Trial One.

7. The soldier takes two more trials with a one minute rest between each of

the trials. The administrator records the force on the score sheet for

each of the trials.

Cautions

1. Be sure to watch that the soldier pulls with only his/her arms.

S2. Do not allow the soldier to increase his/her score by leaning away from

the shelf and thusý using his/her body weight to increase the score.

Scoring

p 1. Record the following information on the score sheet.

a. The shelf level used for the Torque Test.

b. The maximum torque generated for each of the three trials.

"• ~~C-21,-

A.

N.4•

SV
EXAMPLES OF EQUIPMENT FOR LIFT TEST

Weight

Jeep tire 28 ri

*l Antenna set 41

Five gallon water can 49

Oscillation sweep 60

; Amplifier Am-3347 71

[] Oscilloscope 81

. Cerent bag 90

Anvil 1.02

Cable assembly 110

[ ] Battery 121

'- 132

"141

150

"179

189

200

Listed above are the specific weights needed to administer the

Lift Test and examples of Army equipment that could be used. Any piece

of Army equipment may be used as long as it is smaller than 20" X 15" X 12"

r I and weighs within one pound of the specified weight.

For the heavier weights listed build a container 20" long X 12" wide

. X 15" deep and fill it with lead to meet the specific weight requirement.

I~i.1

o=* /

C-22

I..o

°4. *. * 4

- p

I•. - •.-
2

J

1

1' -4

I

9

1 7

.4

APPENDIX 0 ,-.

I Test Item Procedures for MEPSCAT

I

I

I .. -

'-a

\i.I'

4

* N

-. 9

>1

0 -

* 

. S

. %*%*****a ***

1 'b'Caja.* '''a"-

*'* .. *d !.t4.-*' '.a..%..a. -. * a

* a . * - *

- S
"MILITARY ENLISTMENT PtHYSICAL ,'FII7N(,It -

CAPACITY r STr 

TEST ITEM IRO(II1JRIES

Marilyn A. Te-ve-s, M.S.

James A. Vogel, i1h.I)

CPT Patricia 1. Fitz.gerald, I1h.D.

".9

''o

The five predictive tests described in this mranual were developed by the

Exercise Physiology Division of the U.S. Army Research Institute of

Environmental Medicinf, Kansas St., Natick, MA, under the dire'tion ot

* Dr. James A. Vogel. For information reguarding the procedures deribd:-

herein, contact Dr. Vogel, or Ms. Teves at theabove address, or call AV 2'56-

* t4800/4888.

%L

p%

, .-4

5' D-

.. 5l

:5.,. . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Prediction of Percent Body Fat- Sum of Four Skin Folds 1-11

2. Incremental D~ynamnic Lift Cepacity 12-14

3. Prediction of Maximal Oxygen Uptake- Bench Step Method 15-18

4. Isometric Hangrip Strength 19-22-

5. 38 cm Upright Pull 23-26

44

;%.

0-2 *X
MEPSCAT

SKINFOLD TESTING PROCEDURE*

Equipment - Lafayette Instrument Co. Skinfold Caliper Model 01127.

Skin Fold Sites and Landmarks for Both Males and Females

1. Biceps This skin fold should be picked up parallel to

the length of the arm at the mid-point of the

biceps muscle belly. The arm should hang

vertically at rest (see fig D-1).

2. Triceps This skin fold should be picked up parallel to

the length of the arm at the mid-point of the r.A

muscle belly, mid-way between the olecranon

and the tip of the acromion. The olecranon

(elbow prominence) is more easily identified

when the arm is bent at the elbow, but the

arm should hang vertically at rest when

actually measuring the skin fold (see fig D-2). WIN

3. Subscapular This skin fold should be picked up at an angle

of 45 degrees to the vertical just below the tip

of the inferior angle of the scapula (see fig D-3).

4. Suprailiac This skin fold is slightly oblique and should be

picked up just above the iliac crest at the midaxillary line along the natural diagonal line of

the skin fold (see fig D-4).

Technique:

I. Individuals should be measured during a state of stable hydration.

Prolonged and intense exercise immediately preceding the measurement could .

lead to significant water loss which could result in an inaccurate skin fold

detrrmiration.

2. Individuals should loosen all overgarrnents above the waist.

3. The right side of the body should be used when measuring skin folds.

4. Consistency in locating a skin fold at its proper anatomic site can be

improved by using a tape measure. A small mark should be made with a felt tip

pen so that the skin fold will be measured at the same location during each trial. ',i

t%:_

D-3

-...-_ - 2 • " 
A

D-4 7

" 771
'4J

A

P %

Fiur D-2 Triep sknfod

5DP %4

%I

%' % % -

1 % %
-a

Pt

I.

r

r -I -

p.

p. I, 

P.

I Ii /u.

- .

p

: frV t*: 

ma X

4

*

9

P.

g;. Figure 0-3 Subscapular -

S

C

-p..-

a.

Iii

S..

2 0-6

''4

-4

- .'rJ.tt tJw *** **.*

% t t 4 -'we * ............ . ,tSS -. 4- . 5'** C,. . .. *#*.* *r . .....- p*,y...:t..A

I --

/ - ,

A,-,
p.

°9 '°

" ° •

4%0

,*, -,$

U. "

* ,~

3--

:,5 i::'

4 n

9 . • •-. '

"I.- .; - _ ., • • ... ,. .. , . .. - _ \.

.- -.•.. Figure . 4 Su rai ia -- ski fol.. ' , o/ "-- "'..: 4 " -i , , • ' .I ,

.. , _ . -S1 ,.. -
"•'.:5. At each site the skin fold is picked up firmly with thle thumb and

!•t• forefinger of the left hand. A full fold should be pinched, lifted slightly away

.-. '.. from the underlying tissue, and shaken gently to assure that the muscle slips out .

':'- of the fold. To insure that muscle has not been entrapped in the skin fold (for

.'.'.biceps and triceps skin folds) the individual should be instructed to briefly tense

'"- his/her muscle. This will cause any entrapped muscle to slip out of the skin told.

with the body relaxed, S-n,•""Then the skin fold is held firmly between the fingers while"

7-'U the caliper is applied at a right angie to the fold approximately 1 centimeter f

,'.• below the thumb. Once the caliper is applied, the pressure of the fingers should

be released mon~entariiy so that the pressure at the time of measurement is

-".'•exerted by the caliper face-points and not by the fingers. The caliper should be

.. • held on the fold until the reading reaches a relatively stable value (about 2 secs).

-'" There may be an initial rapid movement of the caliper reading when first applied ...... .•due to compression of the tissue (particularly at the subscapular and suprailiac .

-" ~sites). The reading should be recorded after 2 seconds or when the in:dial._.

• "•.'.'change ceases. _

'" Procedure:

1 '-' 

• A single reading should SY be taken and recorded at each of the four skin fold

"•'q•.,-sites. This should be repeated two more times in succession. If one of the

i'>'•.•readings slows a large discrepancy from the other two readings at a particular

i.•,•site, discard the aberrant reading and take a fourth measurement. Readings

".should be taken to the nearest 0.5 millimeter. The gauge mark on the caliper ---

•.-. should be read looking at it straight on, not from an angle. The three readings at

•'•1each site would then be averaged and each average~ should be totaled to obtain

i•-•.the sum of four skin raids (see worksheet). This sum should be rounded down to

a'. the nearest whole millimeter. The Durnin-Worrnersley tables (pg. 8-9) are then

"'" ~used to obtain the percent body _fat of the individual based on the sum of four

• ".'.skin folds, sex, and age. If the measured sum of four skin folds falls between two

•. table values (displayed in 5 mm intervals) select the percent body fat shown for

the closest of the two values. For example, if the sum of four skin folds for a".

• ..- 23 year old female is 53 millimeters, to determine the percent body fat:

"I . lJ:;(• 'IAuio 1-)-? for fo:r:i1'i,£ :;

';•'2. In column 1, locate the tabled value closest to the obtained sum of

. ~foui" skinfolds

e.: obtained = 53

j.. closest tabled value =55 mm

p•3. Move across the row to the aportegecolumn to determine the

-.. ~percent body fat - •

".'-• ~~23 years old =Column l -

*The percent body fat =27.8%"

IP• *Theskinfold procedure used to determine percent body fat was previously

..- des~cribed in HQDA letter 40-83-7 dated 1 April 1983. The subject of the letter

•'; was Army Medical Department (AMEDI)) Support of the Army Weight control

•.', Program. The only difference in the procedures described herein is the use of

". ~the tabled value closest to the obtained sum of four skinfolds, rather than the

•# lower of two values when the sum falls between the 5 mm increments.

D-8

.................................................. . . '.

r -

€, : " \ ,
PERCENT BODY FAT DETERMINATION WORKSHEET

1. Record Subject's Sex __

Age

2. Measure Skinfolds

"" Measure Biceps Triceps Subscapular Suprailliac

2

* 1--------------- -----

3 -

3. Sum

• 4. Divide each Sum by 3 to Obtain Average .

5. Add 4 Skinfold Averages together to obtain Sum of Skinfolds J h 1

I 6. Based on the Sum of Skinfolds and the Age and Sex of the Subject,

determine the percent body fat from Table D-1 or I-2.

The average percent body fat for male army recruits is 16%, the average

for a female recruit is 2i5%. These figures are based on data collected during the

1982-83 Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test - Phase 1, on 980

male and 1004 female basic recruits at Fort Jackson, SC. The study was

conducted by the Exercise Physiology Division of the US Army Research

Institute of Environmental Medicine, under the direction of Dr. James A. Vogel.

.D-

,.I

Si"

.... .. .. ...... ..

• - .... , ,' , , t
Irl 0 ID C4 f , C

M Ij 

U~ :2

> I . / 

*l

LL ) 13

1 uJC <~~~~~~~' ~~ ~~ WN C3 t~r r4 nW - t V- 0I ,f 0 1C

uQO

CD 0

I--~

u D

L-. D

Z ('0 NO 0 4~ '.4' N f.i'.NO-.4. O' 0 4U.l(4 1 M -% ý

* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~L g.. L LI 0.I N U. N ' f' .,. N C ' 0 f. i' . U* ii

C IL - - - - -- N N4 r4 N- N4 N4 if-4 C4' if' if' if. i'.

uL UU '

~ I ~ '. IN N- N1 11 N ~ 0. - ' 0 N @ 4 Z'f. 0 '

N . I- % %' %
SI

+K... NN.N NNNO 400N 004 0

o.

"t '. 0 U U. 0 * CO N ' . O N it. 0

-.- cc u.,

-..0

LL. 0 0 ,D0 NO w.0 m w m ~ m 0 t.

- a 100 0% 0 0 0 -- N N f'. m' 4 A A ' . . 4

to LL. U.: 44 i i

W :r

U''

I -- o

C4 W

l'. I 4 . g ' '0 N C 00 i . . ..-..

CJL

< OU

co

I ,. •I ,I• .

"Z LU NpN O 4* C..

. ~ 1- . - l ( Z "

. z <. . 4 'O -N 0 'I . N4 ',

LL.- N .00% mA - N It. 4 ' 'ON ON c'.0% 0 u

0 4 C4 N N N4 N ml" fVI ell mI mI mI mI mI fn 0

Io ', I -' - i° M

w <::.C 

00. 00 -

U., - V V I VI V I I VI V II U .i' .I 

< a n U % o4,.... S, *- NN 0 

-a .I. .... N - . . . .. . . V .C.

2 0 0 0 mA 0 m- m 0 C fn 0m "o 000

. N % % .0%%0. . . .

I--

X. - -------- ...-.

' D-11-.,. ,

/ '/ '

•,'.'.'. •'.' - -- - ,.V . • . . . ., . . . . .. . . . . .
CL dA .. .~ . . . . .

(a 4) 4-

f~4E

.2 <

4 . E -IN

o~c~cu

<. E UN

-~~J F 4y

o o F 4 1 D . 01 4 1 r

o Z-0

* ~'a o C; Org 'N.O~~dO 4 C;~ c-44

CC

Z 0A 

W-0w 1uu C.0 Q 1 

c ~ ~ 4

0C

0.

I.- E.

mC 41 4

00->

C -a

N1 C u/ r
-0.

=1.

0 0

U '-

> > > >4 C

D-1
i.] MEPSCAT

"INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC LIFT TESTING PROCEDURES

Equipment: Dynamic Lift Machine.

This modified version of the Air Force X-Factor Machine (V.'. b--b) 1't.-.

teflon rollers to reduce carriage friction. These rollers require periodic

cleansing with a non-abrasive cleanser, followed by lubrication with an all

purpose aerosal silicone lubricant. See assembly instructions for details. To

facilitate testing procedures: Two marks should be made on the side rail - - one

mark 72 inches and one mark 60 inches above the platform. These marks allow

the tester to stand adjacent to the apparatus and easily monitor the form and

success of the subject's lifting attempt. -,

The 16 - 10 lb weights on the machine should be stencilled to indicate the

amount of weight being lifted by the subject. The carriage alone weighs 40 lbs,

therefore, the weight plates should be marked 50 through 200 lbs, or 22.7 through

90.7 kg beginning with the top weight plate.

Procedure:

I. Explanation to Subject. "This is a test of your lifting capacity. You will be

asked to lift the handles to the upper line on the support bar and lower it. The

weight will be increased and you will repeat the lift. When you reach a weight at

which you can no longer raise the carriage to the upper line, you will be asked to

try to lift a heavier weight to the lower line. Your score will be the amount of

weight you lift to 72" and 60". Keep your head up and your back straight and

bend your knees to grasp the handles in an overgrip. Lift the carriage up to

match the upper line in a smooth continuous motion."

2. Subject Position. Subject should be facing the machine with the feet

slightly apart. Instruct the subject to ber.d the knees and grasp the handle in an

overhand grip, while keeping the head up, the back straight and the feet flat on

the ground. Tell the subject to lift the handles to the upper mark. Check for a

straight back, and one smooth motion. The carriage should not stop at chest

height, and need not be held at the 72" or 60" mark.

3. All subjects begin with an unweighted carriage (40 lbs with pin out). For

males, 20 lbs (two weight plates) are added each lift, until they begin to have

difficulty lifting, the weight is then incremented by ten pounds each trial (1

weight plate). A ten pound (I weight plate) increment is used throughout the

testing of females. Ensure firm placement of the pin into the opening in the

center of the desired weight plate. No rest is allowed between trials, other than

the time needed to increase the load. If a subject is unable to lift a weight to

72", but lifts to 60", the weight should be incremented by 10 lbs, until the subject

can no longer lift to 60". The tester should be ready to assist the subject in an ,45

unsuccessful trial, by holding the handle to help lower the weight. "-"

D-14

• ~~~~~.. ....................................................... ,.•. -. -. ,.••. . -..... •'

. - . . . . . . . . .a. - _ . . . . : , - .. . . . . . .
I g~ 77.

PitI

'IV (7)

iz Z*,io

SInv

1!-
• . • , . . \ ,.

Final Score Determination:

Each subject will receive two scores:

1. The weight successfully lifted to 72".

2. The weight successfully lifted to 60";

When the subject is no longer able to lift to the designated height, record

the previous successfully completed lift as the final score.

If a subject stops the weight carriage at chest height, and makes more than

one attempt topress the weight to 72" or 60", this is considered a failed effort,

and Lhe last successful lift should be recorded as a final score.

Testing Tips:

1. Emphasize a smooth, one motion lifting movement.

2. To test a large number of subjects most efficiently, explain and

demonstrate the tes. to 6 - 10 subjects at one time.

3. The subject should not be told how much weight they are attempting.. A

to lift.

The average dynamic lift to 72" and 60" of a mnale army recruit is 57 + 10.5

and 60 + 10.7 kg (mean + standard deviation), respectively. For female recruits,

the average is 25.6 + 4.7 and 30 + 5.4 kg for the dynamic lift to 72" and 60",

respectively. These figures are based on data collected during the 1982-83 I

Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test - Phase I, on 980 male and

1004 female basic recruits at Fort Jackson, SC. This portion of the study was

conducted by the Exercise Physiology Division of the US Army Research

Institute of Environmental Medicine, under the direction of Dr. James A. Vogel.

D-1 6

V..

- - -- ,---,-
.'I

MEPSCAT

STEP TEST PROCEDURE*

Equipment and supplies needed:

I - Multi-level stepping bench

2 - Cardio-tach and lead wires *.,

3 - Disposable electrodes

4 - Alcohol swabs and 4X4 sponges

5 - Lab timer

6 - Metronome

Procedure:

1. Explanation to Subject. "This is a test of your stamina or heart-lung

fitness. The test will consist of you exercising by stepping up and down on a step

while we count your heart rate. Thus, we are not measuring how much you can

step, but only how fast your heart beats while you are exercising. Your heart -

beat will be counted on this meter using these stick-on pick-up leads."

2.Subject Preparaelon. Clean skin and attach an electrode on each

shoulder below the clavicle and one at approximately V5 position (left side of

chest 3' below nipple).

Attach lead wires (using GW 4600 series Cardio-Tach):k

Left shoulder - black

Right shoulder - white I

V -green

Check adequate functioning of Cardio-tach. Replace if necessary.

Explain to the subject that he/she will step for twolminutes at the first

step and three minutes at a higher step.

3. Testing. Turn on metronome to 100 BPM and dem nstrate. Let subject

practice briefly at a low step.

Set steps at 30 cm for males and 20 for females.

Start subject stepping and set clock for 5 minutes. Cadence is up-up downdown at a frequency of 25 complete cycles/min.

Be sure that the subject is stepping exactly in time with the metronome.

Be sure that the Cardio-tach is recording adequately. Keep a back-up Cardiotach handy to switch to, if necessary. If recording is not usable, subject must be

stopped and the electrodes re-applied.

If subject's heart rate is below 130 BPM after two minutes of stepping, - -

drop the next step and have subject continue at the higher step height for three "

more minutes. If the heart rate is above 130 BPM, continue at the same step

height for the final 3 minutes. At the end of three minutes, observe and record

the heart rate und stop the test. Remove lead wires and electrodes.

D-17

.- %

S'/ 7',• :"-"' - , '

S " "1 ' / ", ' 7 )i" : ' , ' .. "
4. Maintenance of Cardio-tachs. The Cardio-tachs should be re-charged

overnight by plugging in charging cords. Calibration should be checked at the

start of the test day using calibration standards of 80 and 160 BPM provided by

manufacturer. Electrode contac's on the lead wires should be kept clean.

Final Score Determination:

a. Record the following information:

Firal Heart Rate (FHR)

Final Step Height (FSH)

Sex

Age

b. Enter Table D-3 with sex, FHýR and SH for the subject to obtain the

predicted maximal oxygen uptake (pVO max). Rouna the final HR rate to the

nearest 5 BPM (126 BPM should enter Table at i25 RPM).

Example Data: FHR 152 .*,1

FSH 30 cm

Sex fertnale

Age 21

From Table D-1 you find: pVO max = 42.0 mI/kg min

C. The ppO max must be corrected for age. Using the age and sex of

the subject, enter Table D-4 to obtain the correction factor (CF) for age. Tn our

example, the CF for a 21 year old female CF = 1.023.

d. Multiply pVO max x CF = final score

42.00 X 1.023 ý- 42.97 ml/kg ! nin.

Always round up or down to nearest hundreth.

SThis abbreviated five minute, two step procedure was originally developed for - 7

the Fort Stewart MOS study in October 1979 as a modification of the original

four step, 12 minute procedure used at the Fort Jackson AFEES-study in Ja..uary

1978.

The average predicted maximal oxygen uptake of a male army recruit is •.r6

48.4 + 6.4 mI/kg! min (mean + standard deviation), respectively. For female

recruTits, the average is 35.0 + 5.6 ml/kg ! min. These figures-are based on data AS

collected during the 1982-83 Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity %

Test - Phase I, on 980 male and 1004 female basic recruits at Fort Jackson, SC. .-.

This portion of the study was conducted by the Exercise Physiology Division of

the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, under the direction

of Dr. 3ames A. Vogel.

0-18

N° %"

% 

.% 

Z.

• { •` • • : '`* `* •`'..- -. * ,• • .. .•,.• - -. . . 7,'' . . .
TABLE 0-3

PREDICTED V0 2 ma BASED ON FINAL HEART RATE, SEX, AND STEP HEIGHT 2 ma

MALE FEMALE

H R 30 cm 40 cm 20 cm 30 cm

120 59.05 72.68 57.75 68.25

125 54.43 67.00 52.30 61.81

130 50.49 .62.14 47.79 56.48

135 47.08 57.95 44.00 52.00

64140 44.10 54.28 40.76 48.18

145 41.48 51.05 37.97 44.88

150 39.15 48.18 35.54 42.00

155 37.06 45.62 33.40 39.47

160 35.19 43.31 31.50 37.23

165 33.50 41.23 29.81' 35.23

170 31.96 39.34 28.29 33.43

175 30.56 37.61 26.91 31.81

%I

*% %
TABLE D-4

STEP TEST

CORRECTION FACTOR FOR AGE

uMale Age Female

1.285 17 1.073

1.263 18 1.060

1.242 19 1.048

1.221 20 1.035

1.201 21 1.023

1.181 22 1.012

1.162 23 1.000

1.144 24 0.989

1.127 25 0.978

1.109 26 0.967

1.093 27 0.956

1.077 28 0.946it

1.061 29 0.936

1.046 30 0.926

1.031 31 0.916 >

1.017 32 0.907

D-20
":2 MEPSCAT

HANDGRIP TESTING PROCEDURES

Equipment: Handgrip Dynamometer K .. Ow Owl Model 3001/Lafayette Model 4205 .

Procedure:

I. Explanation to Subject. "This is a test of your isometric handgrip

strength. Although <he grip handle will not move, the pressure you produce will

be registered on this roeter. Your final score will be the average of 3 trials, it is

therefore important to give your best effort each time. Do not jerk the handle,

S." or move excessively. I will say 'Ready - 3 - 2 - I - Squeeze', and you build up to

your maximum grip strength over a period of 3-5 seconds."

" fgr2. Handgrip Dynamometer. Ttie second joint of the subject's middle

" finger should form an angle of 90 - I 10 when the grip is properly adjusted. The

subject should feel comfortable with the testing position. The Owl dynamometer

is adjusted by turning the grip adjustment screw located in the center of the

handle. The Lafayette model is adjusted by releasing the chrome lock on the

side of the handle, turning the inner stirrup, and locking it back in proper

position. Figures D-6 and D-7 illustrate the handgrip dynamometers.

3. Position Subject. Subject stands erect with feet shoulder width apart

and the arms hanging straight down. The handgrip dynamometer is held in the

right hand, with the meter facing outward (Figure D-8).

4. Testing. The tester sets the pointer to zero, and gives the command

"Ready - 3 - 2 - I - Squeeze". The tester should verbally encourage the subject

to achieve his maximum score. When the pointer stops rising (5 sec), instruct the

subject to relax, record the meter reading to the nearest kilogram, and reset the

pointer to zero. Repeat the test a total of 3 times for each subject, allowing 30-

45 seconds rest between trials.

IL

Final Score Determination: :

"The final score is the average of three trials. The three scores used in this

average must be within 10% of one another. If one score is out of range of the

c-•her two, perform additional trials until the subject has three scores within

10%, or has performed a maximum of six trials. If the subject does not have

three scores within 10% after six trials, the closest three should be used. '

Testing tips:

1. In order to test the maximum number of people in a minimum amount of

time, choose 2-3 subjects with approximately equal hand size to be tested

S~~dynamometer together. Subjects size each can time. take If turns this without is not possible, having test to readjust only one the subject handgrip at a "

time to avoid trial to trial variations due to handgrip dynamometer sizing.

Testing in groups of 2-3 allows one subject a rest period while another is being

tested, and utilizes equipment maximally.

N -21 -I.

• D-2°

* .. ..

'.-.. ---- / --.-~- ~.- -

. ., .. /... .N
U..Q 1.'\

\9GRAM

J.-

Figure D-6. Lafayette handgrip dynamometer.

2D-2
%A'

-D-2
v-*-

N"IS

- -- ---- ..

Figure~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ trnt\etn ~ ~ D-.Ioerchngi oiin

D-2

'Il

$%
2. When resetting the pointer to zero, be sure the subject is net exerting

pressure on the handle. Never lay the instrument face down.

The average isometric handgrip strength of a male army recruit is 47 + 7.4

kg (mean + standard deviation). For female recruits, the average is 30 + 5.3 kg.

These figures are based on data collected during the 1982-83 Military Enlistment

Physical Strength Capacity Test - Phase 1, on 980 male and 1004 female basic

recruits at Fort Jackson, SC. This portion of the sxudy was conducted by the

Exercise Physiology Division of the US Army Research Institute of

Environmental Medicine, under the direction of Dr. James A. Vogel.

------ -i ---

D-25
MEPSCAT

38 CM UPRIGHT PULL TESTING PROCEDURE

**Warning - Improper positioning of the subject in this test may result in lower

%7- back injury. This test is contraindicated for persons with previous back

injuries.**

Equipment: Owl Back and Leg Dynamometer #/3002 -~ Pulling handle and chain

* . Steel Platform

The dynamometer must be unscrewed from the original platform, and

attached in the same manner to the specially constructed platform provided (Fig. D9). The chain should be attached to the dynamometer hook so that the handle is

* 38cm above, the platform surface when the dynamometer is in a vertical position

(2nd link of chain). To avoid an'y damage to the equipment, cut the extra links

from the chain with a bolt cutter. To avoid platform movement, it should be

placed on a non-slip surface.

Procedure:

1. Explanation to Subject "This is a test of your back and leg strength

and will be used to predict your lifting capacity. In order to avoid any chance of

injury, it is very important that you remain in the proper position when you exert

force. People with prior neck and back injury should not participate in this test.

The handle will not move when you pull, but the force will register on the meter.

Your final score will be the average of 3 trials, so it is important that you give

your best effort each trial. The cadence will be "Ready -3 - 2- I -PULL".

Build up to your maximum pull within 3 seconds, but do not jerk upward."

2. Subject Position: The correct position for the 38 cm Upright Pull is

illustrated in Fi~g. D-10. The subject stands with feet wide apart and the balls of

the feet parallel to the back and leg dynamnometer. While maintaining a straight

back with the head up, the subject bends at the hip and knees to grasp the handle

in a mixed grip (palms facing each other).

3. Testing. With subject properly positioned, the command "ready - 3 - 2 - I -

PULL" is given. The tester should verbally encourage the subject to produce a

maximum pull over a 3 - 5 second period. The subject should build to maximum

effort without jerking on the handle. When the needle stops rising, the tester U instructs the subject to relax, and helps the subject lay the handle on the

platform behind the dynamometer. The chain and handle should not rest against

A7 the face of the dynamometer. Record the subject's score, and reset the needle

to zero. Each subject will repeat this test three times, with a minimum of 30-45

seconds rest between trials.

Final Score Determination.

0 ~The final score is the average of three trials. The three scores used -in, this

average must be within 10% of one another. If one score is out of range, have

the subject perform additional trials, until three scores within range are

obtained, or the subject has performed six trials. If the subject does not have

three scores within 10% after six trials, the closest three should be used.

D-26
*

.4

.4 

7

I

- -

* .* 4

/44 j -(N

- )

ii. V

a"' I

4- 4 r i<1 

a. * 1-.---.-------.. .'.. i a'. "V

I.

Figure 0-9. Owl back and leg dynamorrieter and rnodifiQd platform.

14

.4*

p

0-27

b

'a
I4.

I 06

1 'A bUR

1⁄24J

* 00

I 4L

D-28
Testing Tips.

1. If the subject's feet are improperly positioned they may be unable to

maintain a straight back while pulling.

2. In order to help the subject attain a straight back position, some of

the following instructions may be helpful:

a. Look at the ceiling

b. Push the --hest out, while pulling shoulders back

C. Pretend you are sitting on the edge of a straight back chair

d. Keep the elbows straight, not resting on the knees

3. Many subjects tend, to lean back, instead of pulling straight up. The

tes~ter should be positioned beside the subject to detect this. This error generally

occurs because the balls of the subject's feet are not *in line with the

dynamometer, or are too close together. If the subject leans back while pulling,

reposition the feet, and repeal. that trial.'

4. To prevent equipment damage and help the subject attain the initial

position more easily, the tester should handJ the subject the pulling handle, and

take it from the subject at the end of each trial.

5. As no equipment adjustment is necessary between subjects, it is most

efficient to test 2 -3 subjects at once. Subject I performs trial 1, then rests

while subjects 2 and 3 perform trial 1. Subject I then performs trial 2, etc. In

this manner, all subjects receive adequate rest, and the equipment is utilized to

its fullest capacity.

The average 38 cm upright. pull of a male army recruit is 125 + 21-2. kg

(mean + standard deviation). For female recruits, the average is 77 +. 13.5 kg.

These figures are based on data collected during the 1982-83 Military Enlistment

Physical Strength Capacity Test - Phase I, on 980 male and 1004 female basic

recruits, at Fort Jackson, SC. This portion of the study was conducted by the

Exercise Physiology Division of the US Army Research Institute of

Environmental Medicine, under the direction of Dr. James A. Vogel.

D-29-

/ j - -
*1 - -- 

V

APPENDIX E

CPT Score Sheet

n--si

p.

E

¶1

-,. .% -,. -% .9*. .. i. .;:S%:.:.:: v-. -. * .* * -* - --

7- *1 /

I.
S I a aJ a~ a a

-Is

C iSc I =-Db za

OU U 116

16 4

I 414

U,~j, * ElS 4A

do2

-fin

.u-, -6n

.ew . 44
In 00

IAI u41

I., A W C

U~C .. In 

E-
*16

44 I..

A=

bII

0. I-W U.

- -

16

- U

&"N W 14f "A

B 

6- &.. %, - W %.

t. *I~.'-

Ad V

r-4

fi 0 I- ,

U 4 4& W 16 40 k U

'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ so 0 * P- - s % s

-",I : . . " , ' , ' • , . . . s , . "

o 0 - _ 0

E-3-
1.4

3.--

M 3 4m4I 3' .

- 3.- CO 0n c

4n -n - 6ý 1;;L-A UAj .L 3 S

&A'

cc ol Lr.rAr e- ccL4 a

03 ~ ~ ~ C al~0 . ~ 0

I- 4.' 4 L4 

Sn I

Go 43 6 %

- E-4
%A4

APPENDIX F

Differences in MEPSCAT Scores Between

pre-Basic and post-AIT, pre-Basic arid post-,Bas-ic,

and post-Basic and post-AIT

%,o

,P....

/_

"*1

7, -

* - I
LL

• a . -oa CA

i to i°

% a aP4 - - - --

4o 4! 41 4l 4W

"n 'o- EW4- 

. . . *3."

30 me w4 na

" .3 . *- .•, * 3 .3 * 3 .". ..

a4 -

---

a2

, F-1

% %

C .,.- /
b d - f. S 

Co°

c flC !!- C --- C f

C 03 V. a... • 

.- -• +:. .. + ..* . .+.C C *I-::

- t , ,. C* W- C •~C " /

• 0 0J, "

, IF11 Ia 

on %a -. 3.W a c- "I * ,.- a n s -A a 6 n- %a te

.. f -, a- .a . IW -. IO .. r, r X

0 . . 0 Rm _,-p~~. m.,, • ...

o .. •

44"-

U 4.o

F-2

v " v ; : / . av 
c I

L L

Lm m m * .. m

UI #a I I C 4-C

p.gas

W~~~~~~d a a .. aa a SJ 

me.~~~~1 -tm - Ce m a

UF-3
.'

APPENDIX G

Differences in Scores on the MEPSCAT, CPTs, and Physical

Proficiency Tests Between the Subsample Tested

Durirg post-Basic and the Total Sample

G

-U--

* * ~ *•...-. * * 
Ii

. . - -i

4 -• . . :. -.. S .

*1 o

a W; F; *6 -~

-- ' T- ~ aa -. . '

- - -,-

u c06 CCa

Ino.-

4- 4 -bU

m 1

- C ' -Ui 'a " 'a - . Ca - .:

06-

'a a '

i .- ,S \

L". S. C c

tn a

'a I.-aa -a. a

L @1

* G-1

f,' - • • . . . . . • i • I U l I, l a l i • I• al• •• l ll ) . l'l ," ' Nle 
44

43

a.a)

*. 6-- .

CA

Io. - ..

9M 06- a a

E e~ 0

L *- *-- 31it

o tG-
".-

im ; .. g°.32

* °

ai -. "

a -,* - 4.) Eu

* * 4

tA;-3 2.

.'-: Eu - -° Eu -

•, . ',• , .• % .' '£ , _ , • -e , ' . _• . -• , .• t , , • , . .. ; . ' ., . .. • • .. " - " - - , _ '. ' . , .' . € • , • . - . . . . . . - -

; : :

00/
0 c

C

Z 2

6V 06

o M

C

44- .4 a

t. 0 ~ r"4 

- Pd 7TW-.

G-
APPENDIX H

Correlation Matrix including Anthropometric Data, ~

MUPSCAT, and CPT Variables

4.A

4

14
l; %.4

3!i 31= gas eta a" 323 ;4! :3

2 ax 882 =am32 32" 3! I2 . Sax33

a =:.e 1S Sa 2 o

"a a 23328 $c ax 223 23 v_- t un "2238 X23 :23 ut =a 3 31a * 2 -- 2=9 C98 . 2 . 22-... . .1

%g3 Ran t2231232 Pan ZZ2 ga-~

- -". =: ..: .- .s .• _:.

a2 213 2 ;a ag =as 232 as*

a~~ agoo as ag Se ga •2 ....

=5 3 242 2; as 323 2 l322' 

Il3 l " I 1 @IT .* -o "- ...

; - .;:, . -'.. .. I... .-

t =o= u tax sale ar 2=2 22

. .|__ _ _ _ _._

a. c u.., . ,., ,., -,3 2.3 ,-

3 23* 31 21, 2

its g... .... .. ;..2 It at.. _t

.. 3. , .......... •.....! 3 .....

9I! ;1 332 32 32 Z2: 3 432! 1!! .4 ..

P -!4 - -5 111 j•,1

4 It

..--- " - -.

33 33 ;, ; ; 3 , .3! 2 ' i_:Z Z ,C

a= af 222 age tan ";2 2 tan ;... .. ,..... ..-. . .. ._ ... --.- .3

33se Z22 ass 323 S23 333 on3

t So a a 2 o 18 M••"s& ass 321 a" '

S-... ......... . ...•;....... .... U- "'

&== to: .. ass :. 

. . ... : a ... 33 .. . .33 . .. +. ;:. . :- ,*.*,.. .. , , a:. .:.__:::. ++. ,+ ..

2 2: 22 33Sox--c.

* -I l il -- , • " 1t3 l"

-' 2 .2733

,~ .. *,, .... 3 .... ..... :3....;H-1

- .. III a a 

! %..
a q!; go= *! 04 q;; I; =Z11 Cgs

*~s 4i act o a;% =as : a Cat oaa

0*ý "23 RI oq= C. C~ a

* a Z rn: 22 tRa a s,3m as! tas# a-$

... . ; * 1 : . .

* gig gg ýgu211 gas 1: Z=A UZC

a ;.,3 ZZ: son turn ago32~ ~ e

..... 331 . as ... f~. g

ag S2 32 Ran rev ItS eta2 3113

a :-'au as: x a Alz Oita asa sa' i a- : 

C t age age egg sag age I;p assU

a: a go .aas2. o

a ate 191 C92 sea was ago 822 t$sam

:zg 2tv a =2 tw tasta as g =g z

$2 nil l. 23= ag n 224Is

.~* ; u * ;-~ ; 'C. - 1 ... r

Et et Its~

a -9--

H-2
S.., 4A4 a 44 I

* q~ g2 1q Fr sa' lie -

*~st ~ q:~34 2n Res

a2 as =44 MZ2 R44 4t; 244s 43!q________________

RR! I.9% 822 age. gas qsz ;43 gas 444 v

a ... ... ... ... ! 3 ~ 1 3

Sa 8!84 3!=- 322 5 2 3 gagj-~~

!'*m 4-.n etan S382 se 23

1!4 ;2 4" "2: a:s as: .s . 8

315an gas egg $23 $82 one 82 5!

a!:82 229 228 a=% 2S% 2:2 358 sat * ;I~~

Cal Ca a: egg san 232 SRI!3

a!3 35* gassS a== 351 322 egg

... ... .. . . .. ..

*~. .. Ru s.. . £ * S *

5.,n~f sa Sao gag33R.i.i~,:

aeRna *** ga 

-I - - - -

- M.-

H-3~

- -A\
428* 863 9m8 022 320 M32! 8 4828 !3 

* .' .2$ Za 0. 2 828 %=a 02= "I

Sz * :a 0. :8 *al, 3: %48 a:$ 928

32 ST A; 332 q2q a"0Ea~ 3! .

s as ... a !s * ..- 82 ae:. gas m~s an,: ,

. . . . . . . . ; .,. . . . . . .... .

.•0. ... . . .. .i . . ,

132 "a: 92 $t s

. . ~~ ~~.. ... .... -.-- , , .: . :-.• .

. ... .• . ",

p I

i.1 ,; "t on ass " , 

'-I 

316

, --- =

, .. . . .. . .

3. ." - a& a . 3:" ... .. . ....-

242

S- . T - . .

A r

H-4.

.................. "0: % .. 

4.1 1 1 . . R : -, ...

• ,,' " . m .. • ... .. • .. ... ,,, " ,"" ;".; . . 2; ............- " ." ................ "..-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a gat ~ga 062n sat

*= at not"33

qa Un all~

ago

INN

a a s

H-5
* *1

ii

'4

J.

Q

i.

APPENDIX :i

Correlations Between Different Combinations of

Criterion Measures

UI,

I,.

*1*,

I,

I.

*1

.14

il-I

*1

I I

II

*1

pI

............................................................................
/ °_.

Correlations Between Different Combinations of

Criterion Measures

Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3

Criterion 1

Total 1.00 .58 .92

Men 1.00 .06 .85

Womien 1.00 -.01 .66

Criterion 2

Total 1.00 .86

Men 1.00 .60

Women 1.00 .75

Criterion 3

Total 1.00

Men 1.00

Women 1.00

Note:

Criterion I- Criterion Performance Tasks (i.e., Lift Task, Push Task,

Carry Task and Torque Task).

Criterion 2 - Physical Proficiency Tests (i.e., Push-ups, Sit-ups, Two Mile Run).

Criterion 3 - Criterion Performance Tasks and Physical Proficiency Tests.

S.% . . .

S.~. .k

:..-:.

.....-....--..-..-.....

S 5*S:'- I-1. 5po . .

** *.•'.•'.• ,' • ." - V.,,,.-.,
APPENDIX J ;

Sepprate Regression Equations Using Criterion 1,

Criterion 2, and Criterion 3 for Men

77
S7.°

Criterion 1 = .09510 (LB14) + .02205 (Upright Pull) +

.04128 (Lift 60) - 8.71898

Criterion 2 = .04227 (Max VO2 ) ' .04286 (Lift 60) -

.05237 (LBM) + .38735

Criterion 3 = .07075 (Lift 60) + .02442 (Upright Pull) +

.06062 (LBM) - 6.71585

Ix

,I-
4.-

4.9

:4. I

'I

'.1*

APPENDIX K S '.4

Scatter Plot Criterion 1 by Lift 60 for Total. Hen, and Women -

.4

"0

*1*

4.

4.

4

ii

K

4.

4.

"'I

* -;v*%*.. **4.'. ... ... **......** .*****.*.-**.-.-.*-.. *. .4.4.
.0 * * m 0 0 * 0 *

0 0t ft0ofe MID

* 0 .0

0 owl w~q 0 0":on

0 00

104

* 0 D

0e 0 voW* 0

0 @O On 0

42 0 4 ~ mo4 0

4 0 0 0 o

00

-4 0- 4 0 o00ao04 44~0Ad w C id in me

o 0 0 0 0

040 0 3 0

0040 0K-1
a a: 

e a a ?32 m m m * .. m i. I 

I

-

-

-

m in* * in* in4 ininC * C -- -I I aNt a a

* * I: ma * me aa ma . S. me . . Ca

m C 0 0 I Sm C a C. * C a C a. * I S S & me * me m S em me a * C me a me a a -e - a a em * U C me * 6*mem Ct 0 em * S a C. m C * S a aN me a I % ma cc .0CC em m memem. cC * CC t C - ma a C C 40 C 0 a * me S em o 6 C S am * 0 * S e memem. ee 0 - C C C a. * * C Sm .me S

* "* ----- a nina..e a. me * 

* * e e S 0 5 me t C em

* S . C em a e 4 a Ce Cm. 0 em it a a * 4 .me a a Cm tam a a e * __

a S 

0

- C 0 .. m4inm.,m. *.4 C 

a ma a a C IA S am .0 a a C am ___ * a a 0* * e. Ce em * C a am mV C P em ma a S a

ma CC e 

e

S 

C

- a a. me m 

C ma a S em * C C am ___

* a a 0* * C a a. *.j

me C 0 S e 0 C.tmeme e em a a Cm Na a a a *

* a a a C 

C ininin a inininm..inin. -' ma a a a a . . * em mm. am a * a C e em a C. C C C em

- C C 

a aN *.a C em 

C

- Ca a a 

a

- .. C a 

C * *a C a o ma a e e a a a am 4 * C C am 0 0 a a *.

we * a a em 

--.

- a a a 4 me U a a £ - ma 

mm.. C t to C

a C -Emma a a 'a - a a C em

met 

* a.a 

* a a am C S C.---- IS

- -a a a am a a 

/ a I .. ma a a * ..C C C m -.a a a a - eta a C a 4 C a a em &bm C C -m a -. C am .O *C 0 -mm... -4 -. 0m -g

m : : a 0 a a 

a * m m * * * m - C -- S - - - 7 I --- a .a4 -

4 5mm

L S

.:

-

a14 

L

L 0

LI .1 B. LI C.

* ..9.

K-2

4

.-
.-.1

2 - - -o 2 , = z • . * . ., . . .. .- , . T- "

ft ft* o e

* 6•4 0 00-.-.

I - %"

0.6

60

* 0 O 64 -

0.6 17 1 

see of ft 0

0 . 0 g o , e mS*~

0 . , 0* 0-.-

46 755 4? 41 00

6 ,- 0 ....

o 0* 00. -° , ,

•* O9O6

0. 0 O

~ a n, 0 .,... -'4

6 06

* l ** **

6 dDIQ ,0 • *,' ~ 6tO a..66

* 0•, 0 00.

* 8 6

O0 * o 0 )"°'* "

.4 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.,.•. .

.. . 0 : • . .6 . . 04.-'..

0.au0 52284

" 6 0 6K6-' 05 28 ..

46 6 nl 6 o

46-0. 0 0

6 0 .~0.0.@~0.S 0.,6

0 6 6-00.

* o.6

* 0 6 "0.

- 6 6 * em

•"*:•.",,-;.. ."-. 0 ."0.."6"-"-" "". . . . -"". 6,--.0 "."-"-""•."-"• 4.•""b " ."-. 0." "* """""". . *""""""'"''"""""""""

4 0 0.6