# Reliability of Critical Fitness Tests for Police Officers
## 2 Materials and Methods
### Procedures and Instruments  
For data collection, the assessment protocol sequence was biosocial, anthropometric assessment, and fitness assessments. When evaluating biosocial characteristics, the following variables were considered: (i) sex (female; male) and (ii) age. The anthropometric assessment consists of two anthropometric measurements, i.e., (i) height (m) and (ii) body mass (kg). A measuring tape wall was used to measure the height (Holtain Ltd., Crymych, UK) with a minor scale of 0.1 cm, and body mass was obtained using a digital scale (TANITA, Dual Frequency Body Composition Monitor, RD-953-bk, Tanita Ltd., Amsterdam, the Netherlands). In both measurements, participants were barefoot and dressed only in shorts and a t-shirt. The fitness assessment protocol comprises the following fitness tests, in the respective order of execution: (i) horizontal jump (HJ); (ii) handgrip strength (HG); (iii) 60 s of sit-ups; and (iv) 20 m shuttle run test (Figure 2). This made it possible to study (i) the muscular power of the lower limbs (HJ), (ii) upper limb muscle strength (HG), (iii) abdominal muscular endurance (60 s of sit-ups), and (iv) aerobic capacity (20 m shuttle run test). All participants completed a familiarization session, and the order of the fitness tests (Figure 2) assumed a progressive increase in fatigue [13], with a ten-minute interval between tests. The cadets were evaluated during the physical education and sports session (90 min) of the class (each class has \(\sim\)20 participants), with the evaluation protocol being followed (i.e., everyone performed HJ, HG, 60 s of sit-ups, and 20 m shuttle run test). Before \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **All** & **Female** & **Male** \\  & **(n = 122)** & **(n = 30)** & **(n = 92)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 24.91 \(\pm\) 5.97 (18–38) & 26.20 \(\pm\) 5.28 (18–37) & 24.49 \(\pm\) 6.14 (18–38) \\ Height (m) & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.07 (1.55–192) & 1.66 \(\pm\) 0.05 (1.55–1.77) & 1.77 \(\pm\) 0.06 (1.64–1.92) \\ Body mass (kg) & 72.52 \(\pm\) 9.44 (53.60–98.90) & 63.56 \(\pm\) 6.40 (53.60–81.80) & 75.44 \(\pm\) 8.38 (56.90–98.90) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Characterization of the participants [mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (minimum–maximum)]. Figure 2: Fitness assessment protocol scheme. carrying out the fitness tests, participants completed a warm-up period lasting an average of ten minutes to increase body temperature and prevent injuries (continuous running and joint mobilization), and at the end, a phase to return to calm (walking and static stretching). To determine the validity and reliability of the fitness assessment protocol, all participants were evaluated in two moments (test and retest) separated by a week's interval (seven days) [10; 11; 12]. The protocol was applied on the same daytime and in the exact location (Police Academy sports hall), with similar weather conditions, and the variables under analysis were (i) HG left (kg); (ii) HG right (kg); (iii) HG sum (kg); (iv) HJ (m); (v) 60 s of sit-ups (repetitions); (vi) 20 m shuttle run test (shuttles); and (vii) VO\({}_{2}\)max (mL/kg/min). Complementarily, the results of the first assessment were used to study the effect of sex on fitness performance. Horizontal jump (HJ). A measuring tape was placed along the floor to evaluate HJ. A starting position (a line) was defined, where the performers had to put their feet behind a mark, with their feet parallel and approximately shoulder-width apart. They were then asked to perform an HJ by swinging their body without stepping on the line or performing a double jump. The test result was obtained through the distance between the initial position and the mark reached by the support closest to the initial position. The HJ was performed twice, with the best mark in meters (m) recorded. Handgrip strength (HG). A digital grip strength dynamometer (model T.K.K.5401, Takei, Tokyo, Japan) was used to carry out this test.