4.6 Article

Criterion-related validity of the 20-m shuttle run test in youths aged 13-19 years

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 899-906

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640410902902835

Keywords

Cardiorespiratory fitness; maximal test; Bland-Altman; youth

Categories

Funding

  1. MCTES/FCT [PTDC-DES-72424-2006]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education [EX-2007-1124]
  3. European Union [2006120]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed the agreement between maximal oxygen consumption ([Vdot]O2max) measured directly when performing the 20-m shuttle run test and estimated [Vdot]O2max from five different equations (i.e. Barnett, equations a and b; Leger; Matsuzaka; and Ruiz) in youths. The 20-m shuttle run test was performed by 26 girls (mean age 14.6 years, s=1.5; body mass 57.2kg, s=8.9; height 1.60m, s=0.06) and 22 boys (age 15.0 years, s=1.6; body mass 63.5kg, s=11.5; height 1.70m, s=0.01). The participants wore a portable gas analyser (K4b2, Cosmed) to measure [Vdot]O2 during the test. All the equations significantly underestimated directly measured [Vdot]O2max, except Barnett's (b) equation. The mean difference ranged from 1.3ml center dot kg-1 center dot min-1 (Barnett (b)) to 5.5ml center dot kg-1 center dot min-1 (Leger). The standard error of the estimate ranged from 5.3ml center dot kg-1 center dot min-1 (Ruiz) to 6.5ml center dot kg-1 center dot min-1 (Leger), and the percentage error ranged from 21.2% (Ruiz) to 38.3% (Leger). The accuracy of the equations available to estimate [Vdot]O2max from the 20-m shuttle run test is questionable at the individual level. Furthermore, special attention should be paid when comparisons are made between studies (e.g. population-based studies) using different equations. The results of the present study suggest that Barnett's (b) equation provides the closest agreement with directly measured [Vdot]O2max (cardiorespiratory fitness) in youth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available