Student health-related fitness testing in school-based physical education: Strategies for student self-testing using technology

Abstract

If used appropriately in schools, youth fitness testing can play a significant role in promoting a physically active lifestyle among school-age children. Unfortunately, many issues exist when testing students’ health-related fitness (HRF) components, such as privacy concerns, misuse of testing results, and time-consuming test procedures. This paper provides an alternative approach to implementing youth fitness testing, attempting to solve some of these long-standing problems. Contextual information concerning global youth fitness testing practices is first introduced, followed by strategies for fitness self-testing using emerging technologies instead of more traditional testing methods conducted in a physical education (PE) setting. We also address how a self-testing approach could be used as part of a fitness education programme where students learn about HRF components, develop competence, and learn how to improve their HRF over time, absent of an expert evaluator to monitor their own HRF. The potential role of modern technology in solving some of the seemingly unsolvable problems with youth fitness testing in schools worldwide and facilitating the implementation of self-testing HRF in school-based PE programmes is also presented. More effort should be given to the development of technology-based HRF self-testing and empirical research.

Keywords

Introduction

Youth fitness testing in school-based physical education (PE) programmes, also known as field-based youth fitness testing (Artero et al., 2011; Freedson et al., 2000), has existed in countries such as Australia, Canada, China, Russia, UK, Spain, and the US for more than six decades (Alfrey and Gard, 2019; Cale et al., 2014; Castro-Piñero et al., 2010; Garrett and Wrench, 2008; Keating et al., 2018; Kemper and van Mechelen, 1996; Liu et al., 2017; Morrow et al., 2009). Although there are variations related to how fitness tests are implemented (e.g. fitness testing requirements, test administration practices, and the use of fitness test results) (Cale et al., 2014; Castro-Piñero et al., 2010; Keating et al., 2019; Welk et al., 2010), the test components and test items are similar with one common trend: assessment of the five health-related fitness (HRF) components. These components are identified as body composition, cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility (Castro-Piñero et al., 2010; Keating et al., 2018). Noticeably, both China and Russia have required HRF component fitness testing for each year from K-16 (Keating et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017), while most Western countries such as the US, UK, Canada, and Australia test only K-12 students, and allow teachers the option to choose how and when throughout the student’s academic career to test (Cale et al., 2014; Garrett and Wrench, 2008; Keating, 2003; Phillips et al., 2017; Silverman et al., 2008). It is important to note that some states in the US, such as California and Texas, mandate yearly youth fitness testing (Dauenhauer et al., 2019; Morrow et al., 2009). One important aspect found was that most countries were seen to periodically revise and maintain their testing batteries in order to improve the fitness tests’ effectiveness and utilize current testing knowledge on youth fitness testing in schools (Keating et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2017; Pate et al., 2013). Of greater importance, there is an obvious driving force to promote youth fitness testing on a regular basis in school-based PE programmes for promoting lifelong physically active lifestyles among students (Alfrey and Gard, 2014, 2019; Cale et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 2015; Corbin et al., 2014; Eastham, 2018; Mercier et al., 2016; SHAPE America, 2012; Silverman et al., 2008).

A thorough examination of research on the topic indicates the reasons for implementing fitness tests in school-based PE programmes. These have been identified as the following:

Fitness and health are directly connected in youth and there is a steep decline in youth fitness in recent years (Cohen et al., 2015; Phillips et al., 2017);

Fitness testing has the potential to motivate students to participate in more HRF activities (Miller et al., 2016; Wiersma and Sherman, 2008);

Students at risk for poor health can be identified through fitness testing (Freedson et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2016); and

Remedial PE programmes can be developed to improve student HRF (Silverman et al., 2008).

Importantly, integrating appropriate HRF assessment in the PE curriculum has been suggested to be an essential element in fitness education (Cohen et al., 2015; Pate et al., 2013; SHAPE America, 2012; Silverman et al., 2008; Vazou et al., 2019), thus requiring a great deal of attention and involvement from both teachers and administrators (Mauch et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2017). Through HRF testing and fitness education, students can learn the necessary knowledge and skills to accurately test their own fitness (Ortega et al., 2008; Silverman et al., 2008), in hopes of differentiating skill abilities and performance levels with fitness testing components for all children. Researchers discovered that when teachers offered feedback on testing results, students were able to better comprehend their fitness levels, making more effort on maintaining or improving their own fitness by involving regular physical activity in their daily life (SHAPE America, 2012; Silverman et al., 2008). As such, more students were found to reach the “health zone” in the HRF tests, ultimately accruing the benefits from fitness testing (Silverman et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2018). In addition, it has been found that secondary PE teachers enjoyed facilitating and teaching their students how to conduct fitness self-testing rather than simply implementing fitness tests (Mercier et al., 2016).

While it is well documented that youth fitness testing may provide benefits as part of a fitness education programme (Cale et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 2015; Corbin et al., 2014; Garrett and Wrench, 2008; Keating, 2003; SHAPE America, 2012; Silverman et al., 2008), there is a lack of empirical data on fitness engagement implications due to the implementation of fitness testing (Cale and Harris, 2009; Rowland, 1995). In fact, only one empirical study on the topic was found (Whitehead and Corbin, 1991), offering minimal evidence and practical approaches to assist those who are at risk of poor health (Cale et al., 2014; Keating and Silverman, 2009). Pate (1991: 233), over 30 years ago, expressed this concern and called for more research on the topic:

It would be desirable to know how children respond to participation in these tests. Do fitness tests enhance or decrease youngsters’ motivation to exercise? Are tests viewed as fun? Do tests have differential effects on different types of children? Though relevant from a strict measurement perspective, these issues may determine appropriateness of fitness testing in the school setting.

To this end, it is important to address lasting problems concerning youth HRF testing (Cale et al., 2014; Freedson et al., 2000; Keating, 2003; Lloyd et al., 2003; Morrow and Ede, 2009; Morrow et al., 2009; Rowland, 1995). As a result, a number of researchers have suggested abandoning youth fitness testing (Cale et al., 2007; Corbin et al., 1995; Harris and Cale, 2006; Lloyd et al., 2003; Rowland, 1995). Nevertheless, empirical data have suggested that youth HRF testing continues in school-based PE programmes worldwide (Alfrey and Gard, 2019; Castro-Piñero et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 2015; Dauenhauer et al., 2019; Keating et al., 2018; Morrow et al., 2009). Thus, there is a need for more research on the topic, considering that previous studies have suggested that fitness testing can be either beneficial or harmful, depending on how it is used (Cale et al., 2014; Ernst et al., 2006; Mauch et al., 2017; Silverman et al., 2008).

Researchers over the past six decades have identified a number of problematic issues regarding the use of HRF testing in school settings. These were found to be the following:

Fitness testing and fitness education are not connected (Keating and Silverman, 2009; Silverman et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2018), resulting in limited, if any, use of fitness test results in PE programmes (SHAPE America, 2012);

Publicly administered fitness testing could result in non-confidential scores among students (Keating, 2003; Martin et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2008), which might further negatively impact students’ attitudes toward fitness testing (Mercier and Silverman, 2014; Zhu et al., 2011) and is particularly detrimental to students who perform poorly on the test (Zhu et al., 2018);

Fitness testing is taken in PE classes with a large number of students being tested simultaneously and it is difficult for a PE teacher to complete the test battery in a timely manner (Corbin, 2004; Liguori and Mozumdar, 2009; Silverman et al., 2008);

Students found fitness testing competitive or boring due to constant use of the same test items (e.g. one-mile run/PACER, push-ups, curl-ups, and sit-ups) over decades (Keating, 2003; Silverman et al., 2008);

Both students and teachers are not held accountable for fitness testing results leading to minimal effort (Zhu et al., 2018), producing limited, if any, motivational effects;

Students must take the tests on a specific day or week when students may be physically sick or the weather is too cold or hot for outdoor testing (Martin et al., 2010); and

The validity and reliability of some testing items such as sit-ups and push-ups are questionable (Bianco et al., 2015; Rowland, 1995), as many students cannot perform them correctly (Zhu et al., 2018).

More importantly, research has found that even the purpose of fitness testing in PE was not fully understood by teachers (Alfrey and Gard, 2014; Keating and Silverman, 2009; Mercier et al., 2016) and some students (Hopple and Graham, 1995). In fact, researchers documented that many students had negative attitudes toward fitness testing (Mercier and Silverman, 2014) and were not motivated to take the tests at all (Jaakkola et al., 2013; Tsigilis, 2005; Wiersma and Sherman, 2008). While Morrow and Ede (2009) have specified their recommendations (e.g. the purpose of testing, proper planning, training of both students and teachers, lower cost, etc.) in terms of conducting large-scale youth fitness testing, unfortunately, limited research on solving the above problems remains (Graser et al., 2011). This is a major concern since youth fitness testing has existed in many countries since the 1950s (Castro-Piñero et al., 2010; Keating et al., 2018). Consequently, researchers have called for more research on discovering effective approaches for HRF testing in school-based PE programmes (Keating et al., 2018).

In the past few years, a variety of new approaches to HRF testing in schools has been developed (Lester, 2015; Youm et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2018). After review, it seems that technology assisted self-testing measures are the most promising, mostly due to their flexibility, efficiency, and practicality. Issues revolving around time constraints and required space for implementing HRF tests are solved with varying degrees of technology usage. Therefore, by addressing the critical aspects of self-testing, as well as the common practices of self-testing using technologies, this article focuses on new strategies for HRF testing associated with school-based PE programmes. We argue that HRF self-testing, with the assistance of modern educational technology, might be an effective way to help solve some of the aforementioned problems. We hope that this paper will provide a new direction for using modern technology and stimulate further examination on new approaches for youth fitness testing in school-based PE programmes globally.

Self-testing

Due to the limited number of published studies on the topic in PE, we believe it is necessary to address self-testing in a broader educational setting. As a result, the following subsections will address the rationale for self-testing, the practices of self-testing in other subjects, using technology in self-testing, and critical elements concerning self-testing.

Rationale for self-testing

Self-testing, fundamental to self-regulation, has been defined as an internal process where students evaluate their own abilities and learning outcomes (Panadero et al., 2017). In this process, students’ own goals, ideas, values and emotions become critical toward assessment (Yan and Brown, 2017). According to Webber (2012), self-testing is an alternative form of assessment that emphasizes a learner-centered approach. Instead of relying solely on a teacher as the only one implementing assessment, a student-centered assessment approach aids students in engaging in a critical thinking process about the quality of their own learning (Andrade and Valtcheva, 2009). It is important to note that self-testing and self-assessment has been used interchangeably throughout the literature; however, this paper for simplicity reasons will use self-testing.

Self-testing, known as retrieval practice (Stewart et al., 2014), also targets students’ self-regulation capacity, aiming to promote students’ individual formative assessment, and improve students’ knowledge and skills through student-centered tests. Besides students’ main role in the thinking process (i.e. self-reflection), self-testing allows students to focus on their performance in comparison to provided testing items (Yan, 2016). This process reinforces students’ learning via the integration of both thinking (i.e. internal process) and real practices (i.e. external process). Therefore, Panus et al. (2014) indicated that self-testing may serve as a strategy to promote both teaching and learning, and that this method may enable students to achieve the transition from dependent learners to more active, self-directed, lifelong learners. Other researchers found teachers to benefit from self-testing as well, as they become more conscious of the learning process, possibly improving their effectiveness as educators (Micán and Medina, 2017).

Self-testing practices in other subjects

Although self-testing is not widely employed in PE programmes, its effectiveness has been well-identified in other subjects (Butler and Lee, 2010; Micán and Medina, 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2018; Stewart et al., 2014; Yan, 2016). Butler and Lee (2010) suggested that self-testing can improve learners’ performance and their confidence in language learning within the elementary context. In addition, self-testing can help learners to identify their strengths and weaknesses in learning, and learners can make adjustments regarding the learning progress during self-testing practices (Micán and Medina, 2017). Given the important role of learner-centered assessment, some researchers have put self-testing into action. Most of the self-testing has been conducted in reference to solving practice problems and assessing the accuracy of the processed information (Rodriguez et al., 2018; Yan, 2016). Specifically, students can test themselves with questions or practice problems outside of class (Rodriguez et al., 2018). Stewart et al. (2014) also emphasized the importance of frequent self-testing in developing pharmacy students to be lifelong learners with good metacognitive skills. Within the same study, students were given unlimited opportunities to access online self-testing in terms of quizzes (e.g. formative and self-directed assessments) outside of class. The results stated that there was a positive correlation between self-testing practices and student learning. By the same token, fitness self-testing could also allow students to assess their fitness multiple times within one academic year and the best results could be used to represent students’ fitness test results each year.

Technology use for self-assessment

Integrating technology in self-testing has been popular among students and seen as an effective strategy in improving testing results. Besides audio-recordings (Micán and Medina, 2017) and video-recordings (Brevig, 2006) that have been applied in students’ language learning, Wraae et al. (2018) introduced a self-testing practice that takes students through a reflective task by using video-clips to evaluate students’ entrepreneurial learning in entrepreneurship education. Researchers found using video-clips to be a powerful self-testing tool as personal reflections triggered specific skills in students’ learning. Tulgar (2017) also presented a self-testing method, utilizing a modern form of technology communication. The author noted that selfie@assessment, an alternative assessment using mobile phone technologies and the available internet facilities, was conducted outside the classroom environment and provided a new perspective for students assessing themselves on their learning performances. In essence, emerging video and audio technologies have the potential to re-shape the landscape of educational assessment. As such, video-clips also have the potential to be used in fitness self-testing to help students learn how to correctly perform a sit and reach test, sit-ups and push-ups, one problem identified in research. Another intriguing aspect that is highly relatable to the current generation of learners is mobile phone usage, and with the possibility of sharing fitness testing results with educational administrators, teachers, and parents, as well as eliminating uncomfortable testing environments.

Important elements of self-testing

The majority of students view tests as assessments used by teachers rather than learning tools for themselves (Wasserberg and Rottman, 2016). When self-assessment is employed, students tend to test themselves if the content is well known (Kornell and Son, 2009). Therefore, students have to be well educated regarding the testing content in order to be motivated to test themselves in specific subjects. Thus, the age of students plays a critical role in the accuracy of self-testing as young students may not be able to understand the testing procedures. To the best of our knowledge, unfortunately, no previous research is available to suggest the appropriate age for self-testing. However, Huotari et al. (2009) found children between 11-12 years old were able to self-estimate their own HRF with acceptable accuracy.

Other considerations have been noted and should be contemplated when attempting self-testing protocols. For example, Panus et al. (2014) examined the relationship between the frequency of self-testing and the subsequent examination scores, reporting that the more self-testing attempts, the higher the examination scores. Other researchers indicated that the timing of when a test is given is more important than the number of tests employed to achieve accurate results (Kornell and Son, 2009). For example, completing an aerobic fitness test in cold weather or sick could negatively impact physical performance. In addition, since students are experiencing the transition from being dependent to independent, support such as feedback should be provided in the process of self-testing (Poehner, 2012). In fact, feedback plays an important role in maintaining students’ interests in testing as well as maximizing the benefits of testing (Kornell and Son, 2009). Overall, to ensure the effectiveness of self-testing, the following aspects should be considered:

Students have to be familiar with the testing content first so that they can have more confidence in self-implementing the testing (Corbin et al., 2014; Graser et al., 2011; Phillips et al., 2017);

Testing should be conducted multiple times (besides the appropriate testing frequency, when to test is also critical) (Kornell and Son, 2009); and

Feedback should be provided during students’ self-testing process (Poehner, 2012).

Self-testing of HRF

Existing research on HRF self-testing

As noted earlier, only a handful of studies on HRF self-testing were found in the literature. Thus, all previous research on the topic was examined to help us understand what has been investigated. However, the first article regarding fitness self-testing was published about 25 years ago (Knapik et al., 1992). Moving forward, research was nonexistent for 12 years (Corbin, 2004; Mikkelsson et al., 2005; Morgan et al., 2004), then, increased more recently (Graser et al., 2011; Huotari et al., 2009; Rubín et al., 2017). These studies concluded that: (a) HRF self-testing skills were important to students (Corbin, 2004) and could make students feel successful (Morgan et al., 2004); (b) students had positive perceptions of HRF testing, they understood the testing purpose of HRF testing, and made connections between the test results and their personal health (Graser et al., 2011); and (c) the sixth graders in Finland were able to accurately self-test their HRF (Huotari et al., 2009) while Rubín et al. (2017) reported that 11–19 year old students in the Czech Republic could estimate their fitness well via self-testing.

Overall, self-testing is viewed as a testing approach that is student-centered, personalized, and learning oriented in which teachers serve as moderators in PE programmes (Corbin et al., 1995; Mercier et al., 2016; Morgan et al., 2004). Instead of testing students by teachers, researchers have indicated that formative self-assessment could be applied in HRF testing, and students should be allowed to choose preferred test items to assess their HRF outside of class (Jaakkola et al., 2013; Tsigilis, 2005). This self-testing approach aligns with the primary purpose of youth HRF testing in that it helps students become self-sufficient regarding testing and understanding their personal fitness (Corbin, 2004; SHAPE America, 2013; Welk and Meredith, 2014). Specifically, HRF self-testing means that students would test their HRF when they believed they were ready, with multiple trials within a semester or an academic year. The highest scores could be chosen as the final scores. This also means that self-testing could be implemented in- and/or outside class during a time chosen by students, with incentives for students to self-test as many times as needed. As such, self-testing could become a critical component of learning in PE (Corbin, 2004; Mercier et al., 2016). More importantly, the testing process and results are private and instructional time can be saved for teaching instead of testing in PE classes.

With the development of students’ self-testing skills, students may better understand HRF and this will likely have an effect on students’ negative attitudes toward fitness testing (Corbin, 2004; Graser et al., 2011; Rubín et al., 2017). Graser et al. (2011) conducted a qualitative study using a written questionnaire, interviews, and field notes to examine fifth and sixth grade students’ perceptions of their experience participating in the Fitnessgram test organized in a self-testing format. The authors found that children enjoyed the fitness self-testing, and understood the purpose of fitness self-testing. Moreover, Morgan et al. (2004) explained that when students self-test their HRF it could enable all students to benefit from the educational process of fitness testing, as there is potential for them to feel successful and acquire knowledge and skills in order to “make important decisions about physical activity and health in the future” (Morgan et al., 2004: 22). Therefore, the use of fitness self-testing provides students an alternative way of fitness testing that can aid them in learning fitness testing knowledge and skills, and understand the purposes of each testing component (Knapik et al., 1992; Morgan et al., 2004; Rubín et al., 2017). Lastly, Graser et al. (2011) explained that with the improvement on fitness testing attitudes, students' fitness testing performance may likely improve as well.

Due to the nature of self-testing, and completion of fitness testing absent of a teacher’s supervision, it is logical to question the validity and reliability of self-testing fitness practices. Inaccuracy in measurements and possible dishonesty in reporting test results may occur. However, using the fitness test battery included in the International Database for Research and Educational Support, has yielded normal results, except for push-ups in adolescents (i.e. 11–19 years old). In addition, using the YMCA three-minute step test for aerobic fitness measured by recovery heart rate in 18–22 year old college students, Liguori and Mozumdar (2009) found no significant differences in aerobic fitness results between self-tested and a directly instructor-supervised testing method.

Current common fitness self-testing practices in PE programmes

While self-testing can be implemented in various populations such as children, adolescents, and adults (Knapik et al., 2007; Mikkelsson et al., 2005; Rubín et al., 2017), based on the purpose of the current project, previous research that focused on K-16 students was examined. As a result, only a few studies were seen, with research used only in class settings through the use of stations (Graser et al., 2011; Morgan et al., 2004; Rubín et al., 2017). For example, Morgan et al. (2004) presented a personalized fitness self-testing programme that was employed in a large urban school district in the southwestern US. Here fitness self-testing was a unit integrated in the PE curriculum lasting one week (two PE classes). Fitnessgram test items such as the PACER, push-up, curl-up, sit and reach, shoulder flexibility, and body composition were used, and each test item was organized as a station. Demonstration and instruction of each testing item were completed at least two weeks prior to the self-testing, so that students could understand how to assess their HRF and avoid testing errors. Students were partnered with other students and tested their own fitness from one station to another while recording their results on a record sheet. Instructional signs were also provided to assist students, including standards for the “Healthy Fitness Zone,” and specific instructions for the administration of each testing item. PE teachers became facilitators during the tests. Rubín et al. (2017) followed the same implementation procedure (i.e. using stations in PE settings) suggested by Morgan et al. (2004). Graser et al. (2011) also applied the same format of fitness self-testing as the format presented in Morgan et al. (2004)’s and Rubín et al. (2017)’s articles when exploring fifth and sixth grade students’ perceptions toward fitness testing. However, the implementation of self-testing fitness in college students was different from that used in K-12 programmes, as college students were asked to test their own aerobic fitness using the YMCA three-minute step test outside class (Liguori and Mozumdar, 2009). This format change may be caused by age, given that college students are adults. The relationship between age and self-testing accuracy warrants more attention in future research on the topic.

Potential problems concerning self-testing fitness

It is important to note that self-testing still has the following previously identified educational concerns, if it is implemented in PE through the use of stations. The first concern is that students’ testing results may not be confidential if students are working in groups. The second issue is using PE class time for students to self-test (Ernst et al., 2006; Keating, 2003). Researchers argue class time could be better utilized by briefly teaching how to self-test and requesting this to be completed later at home (Cale and Harris, 2009). In addition, some schools may have limited equipment if students try to self-test in class all at once (Martin et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2008). The third problem is that the same testing items are still repeatedly used for all students in self-testing each year, regardless of their educational levels (Keating, 2003). The last concern is that testing results may not be accurate as students may not fully understand the administration of each testing item, which may still occur even if instructional signs are provided. The essential problems of youth fitness testing in schools still exist if self-testing is executed in a PE setting. Hence, more advanced testing methods using technology still need to be developed.

Technology-assisted HRF self-testing in schools

Online learning platforms, mobile phones, and audio/video recordings have not been fully integrated in self-testing HRF in school-based PE programmes. Among various technologies, digital video has been found to be an enjoyable and motivational way to improve students’ skill performance and enhance students’ self-regulation out of school if used appropriately (O’Loughlin et al., 2013). Schwartz and Hartmann (2007) presented a teaching and learning model with digital video that was found to be effective. The model included the following components: (a) engaging (video can develop learners’ interest in given subjects); (b) doing (video enables students to learn from others’ behaviors and shape learners’ attitudes); (c) seeing (video can help learners to see things they could not see before); and (d) saying (video provides verbal knowledge for learners). More importantly, video feedback integrated in the model was shown to be effective in performing different skills, and the use of digital video provided a self-regulating environment for students during the self-assessment process, thus facilitating students’ knowledge and skill learning in fitness testing.

Given the effective role of technology in PE, Liu et al. (2017) emphasized the need to apply technology in youth fitness testing in order to improve the accuracy of testing results, and solve the privacy problems due to space and time limitations. Integrating technology into skill assessment, as an alternative method, has been found to be a reliable and valid method to overcome certain issues, such as, human errors caused by subjective observation (Lester, 2015; Mears, 2010; Youm et al., 2015). Yet, research on using technology in youth HRF testing is scarce, considering a limited number of studies on the topic are available in the literature. Therefore, the reliability and validity of using technology in self-testing fitness remains unclear given that few studies on the topic have been reported. This is a cause for concern, as all youth fitness tests must produce results with objectivity to ease administration (Plowman et al., 2006). Therefore, research is needed to verify if technology-based field fitness tests can generate testing results with acceptable reliability and validity before they are used in schools.

Nevertheless, the potentials of using technology to improve fitness self-testing practices far outweigh the uncertainties. For instance, Youm et al. (2015) applied Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology, a technology using radio frequency-transmission with a special kind of sensor network to be used to track or trace a person or an objective. It has been specifically used in the aerobic capacity testing, due to the challenges related to time, human errors, and data management of aerobic capacity testing (Youm et al., 2015). A RFID-based autoscoring system was developed for assessing aerobic capacity (e.g. PACER test, one-mile run, and step tests) due to its ease and accuracy in tracking and scoring (Youm et al., 2015). However, it is still too expensive to be widely applied in youth fitness testing, especially for self-testing. As an alternative, instead of using long distance running, swimming, or skiing for assessing aerobic fitness, it has been noted that Vo_2max (the maximum rate of oxygen consumption measured during incremental exercise) is measured by a machine (i.e. KB-201 electronic vital capacity tester) in China. This method allows students to test their own aerobic fitness in a private setting by using multiple sets of a KB-201 electronic vital capacity tester (Keating et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017). Again, the cost of a KB-201 electronic vital capacity tester may be a barrier for fitness self-testing using technology.

Examples of fitness self-testing using technology

There are some app-based technologies and devices that have been developed for fitness training and testing. The design and functions of such apps and devices have the potential to support school-based fitness testing in a self-testing manner. With the use of technology assisted self-testing, it is possible to solve some of the identified testing problems with youth fitness testing.

Push-ups counter and trainer app

This app (free access) is designed to help students master the HRF component, muscular strength, as it focuses on the push-up exercise. The trainer app can be used on most handheld devices (e.g. iPhone and iPad), essentially turning the device into a personal trainer, allowing students to strengthen their upper body muscles anytime and anywhere they feel comfortable. By providing a clear instruction on how to use the app in assessing push-ups, it is very easy for students to test their push-ups. Students have to place the device on the floor, bring the body or face close enough to the display, or touch the display with their noses, while doing a push-up so that the repetitions of push-ups can be counted. The following features enable the push-up to be self-tested by students:

The repetitions can be accurately counted by using the proximity sensor or by nose touching the screen;

Constant feedback can be obtained by voicing coach;

A standard push-up is presented visually in the app to model students’ understanding of how to do a push-up correctly; and

The automatic countdown timer helps students to modify and adjust the rest and performance time between exercise sets.

Sit-ups counter and trainer app

Another app (free access) has been designed to test sit-ups to enhance abdominal muscular strength and endurance. Similar to the above push-up app, this app is also very flexible for students to test their sit-ups, in that there are no time or space limitations. The main feature of this app is using an accelerometer (small wearable device) to count complete sit-up repetitions. When testing the sit-ups with this app, students have to place the device flat against their chest in landscape mode and hold it there with their hands. By doing sit-ups up and down, the repetitions can be accurately counted by this app.

Skill Lab app

This app differs from the two previous apps in that it utilizes an avatar and augmented reality. The app itself is free of charge, and the user has the ability to purchase monthly or annual memberships for one or multiple devices. The Skill Lab app has multiple features (titled “skill packs”), but for the purpose of this study the health skill pack (fitness testing) is explained. The health skill pack includes four components of the Fitnessgram – the curl-up, push-up, sit and reach, and trunk lift. The progression marketed for the app is: watch; compare; share; and store. Students set up their device (e.g. iPad or cell phone), and the student takes a video of themselves executing a particular skill (called the review), and then compares their performance on a side by side display with an avatar (referred to as the analyzing function). One display has the student on it, and the other display has the avatar. While watching the avatar as an example of the proper way to perform the push-up, the student can then self-assess whether or not he or she is completing it correctly. There is a function where a checklist is shown and the student self-assesses each aspect of the movement present on the checklist. The PE teacher can then view the students’ responses and save them as documentation and evidence for evaluative purposes if desired. The information can also be transformed into a report for grading, communication with parents, data collection, or other purposes (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Skill Lab app.

KB-201 electronic vital capacity tester

The tester is used to measure students’ Vo_2max with the features of ensured accuracy, ease of use, and a cost of approximately $40 for each device. This has been widely used in school-based youth fitness testing in China. Essentially, the tester controls an air tube and a screen. When testing VO_2max, students have to take a deep breath several times to get ready. Then they do a constant expiration as long as possible by using the air tube. The sensor will notice the air input and the testing result will be shown on the screen immediately. The tester can be reset and ready for the next student right away. By using this tester, students’ aerobic fitness can be quickly tested. Unlike the one-mile run or PACER test, which examine students’ aerobic fitness in a public setting (Keating, 2003), this vital capacity tester ensures the privacy of each student’s testing result. Moreover, we believe that with this approach a lot of wasted instructional time could be saved (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

KB-201 electronic vital capacity tester.

AssessLinkPE app

This app is designed for assisting skill testing in PE. The specialization of this app is utilizing a 3D Motion Capture Sensor, which could capture the motion of a skill and compare the movement with proper biomechanics instantly. This app currently has only one Fitnessgram fitness test (i.e. 90-degree push-up) available for teachers to assess students. The advantages of using the AssessLinkPE app in assessing push-ups are: (a) automatically counting the valid numbers of push-ups by comparing to the proper biomechanical movement and, therefore, avoiding human errors in counting and providing more accurate testing results; (b) letting students self-test their push-ups on their own and giving them space to self-assess their own upper body fitness without the embarrassment and anxiety caused by teachers and peers; and (c) saving time for teachers (no need to count by teachers). Even though only the push-up test is currently available, we believe that this app will include more testing items related to fitness testing in the future, which will be a further step towards the implementation of fitness self-testing assisted by technology. The current cost of the app is $99/year.

Bioelectrical impedance analysers (BIA) for measuring body composition

It has been documented that measuring body composition using skinfold calipers in a public setting, such as the gymnasium, can be very embarrassing for students with weight problems in particular (Keating, 2003). The same problem exists for using body mass index, as students’ weight and height need to be measured in class. However, BIA devices have been found to be reliable and valid for measuring body composition in field-based youth fitness testing (Vasold et al., 2019; von Hurst et al., 2016). The commercially available BIA devices could not only shorten the time for measuring body composition, but also give students the privacy needed. The currently developed portable “foot-to-foot” or “hand-to-hand” BIA devices cost about $100 per device. Weight scales, which can be purchased in common general stores (e.g. Walmart, Kohls, Target, etc.) for as low as $40, might be another option for students to use for measuring body composition at home.

In essence, the use of technologies (e.g. RFIT, push-up/sit-up/Skill Lab/AssessLinkPE apps, BIAs) has the potential to promote the self-testing format for school-based HRF testing with the following potential advantages: (a) accurate testing results with less human errors; (b) flexible self-testing without time, space, or equipment constraints; (c) automatic and in-time feedback ensuring the adjustment of the testing process; (d) private testing space and confidential testing results; and (e) increased knowledge about self-testing fitness. Students’ motivation in fitness testing might also be improved when assisted by technology as students can keep trying until they are satisfied with their scores (Erbas and Demirer, 2019). Of greater importance, PE teachers do not need to supervise students while self-testing and instructional time can be used for other content such as skills and sports knowledge.

Discussion

A great deal of attention has been, and continues to be, placed on research related to students’ experiences of fitness testing during PE classes (Keating et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017). It has been well documented that inappropriate use of youth fitness tests could result in negative attitudes toward fitness education and drive students away from HRF related activities (Ernst et al., 2006; Keating, 2003; Mercier and Silverman, 2014; Silverman et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2018). The knowledge gap we have currently is how to help PE teachers to provide students with positive fitness testing experiences, so that students’ HRF can be significantly improved through school-based fitness testing on a regular basis. Although it is still premature to suggest that technology-based HRF self-fitness testing would definitely give students positive fitness testing experiences, there is a need to change how youth fitness tests have been implemented in schools. The current study strives to address critical youth fitness testing practices that many students experience in a negative way by synthesizing findings that previous researchers have identified as potentially beneficial to students. This strand of research warrants more attention in our field considering its long, wide, and profound influence on students' HRF and healthy behaviors.

There are a number of critical issues that need to be addressed before self-testing fitness with the aid of modern technology could be successfully implemented in schools. First, teachers must teach students how to conduct self-testing through fitness education with plenty of opportunities to practice on self-testing fitness (Phillips et al., 2017). As previously mentioned, the students’ age should be considered when attempting to implement HRF self-testing, even though it has been found that sixth graders were able to self-test fitness accurately (Rubín et al., 2017). Moreover, self-testing must be integrated into fitness education and the use of fitness testing results need to be educational, as suggested by Silverman et al. (2008).

Second, modern technology is emerging and its potential to change fitness testing is still unknown. There is a need for more empirical evidence of reliability and validity of the commercially available apps and fitness testing devices. Cautions need to be exercised when using new technologies to facilitate youth fitness testing. Fitness and PE communities should join forces to develop more reliable and valid devices and apps to meet the needs for producing more accurate fitness testing results in PE settings. In addition, self-testing with technology may increase the cost for field-based fitness testing, changing the underpinning philosophy of using fitness testing items with minimum costs to fit in school budgets (Keating, 2003). More experimental studies are needed before enacting policies of self-testing fitness in schools.

Third, current students seem to really like technology (Linnes and Metcalf, 2017; Philip and Garcia, 2013) and using these apps in or out of school will likely be more enjoyable than current experiences (Rosen, 2011). Because self-testing does not require the supervision of teachers, it can be implemented in- and/or outside school at any time when students are available. A major benefit of outside of school self-testing could be that teachers are preparing students for lifetime fitness after school because teachers are not going to be around when students graduate to monitor their fitness testing. Beyond school, students are going to use technology to supplement their workouts and maybe to assess their fitness. As a result, self-testing using technology could have benefit in helping our profession reach the goals of PE (i.e. lifelong participation in physical activity) (SHAPE America, 2012). However, attention also should be given to the socio-economic limitations of fitness testing outside of the gymnasium in terms of access and inclusion for all students. Therefore, self-testing can be used inside the gymnasium before or after school or during recess for those students who cannot afford the technology for self-testing outside school. Communities such as churches or local libraries may also build self-testing rooms/stations for underserved students who cannot afford to purchase their own testing equipment. There are also potential benefits of allowing more time within the lesson for PE teachers to emphasize standards and goals set forth for the profession and within each local context (e.g. physical activity promotion, physical literacy, psychomotor/cognitive/affective curriculum, etc.).

Limitations of self-testing HRF in school-based PE settings

It is important to note that there are a few theoretical and practical limitations of effective HRF self-testing in schools. First, HRF self-testing may not be suitable for younger students, as it remains unclear in the literature when self-testing should first be executed. This pertains to the level of understanding and abilities required to self-test and attain reliable and valid testing data. Second, HRF self-testing must be integrated in high quality fitness education programmes that offer contextual learning and instruction on how to disseminate the results, thus requiring a significant level of professional development by experts to assist in-service teachers successfully implement such a testing method. Lastly, purchasing HRF self-testing technology equipment may be challenging and burden the limited budgets allocated for PE.

New effort needed

Fitness self-testing could be a seamless, cost-effective, and flexible practice. While the use of technology, as previously explained, could assist with HRF self-testing, extensive effort regarding the future implementation of technology-assisted HRF self-testing is needed. Emphasis must be coordinated towards providing students with both educational and health-related benefits from HRF self-testing, and to ensure that fitness testing aligns with state and national PE standards (Keating, 2003; Silverman et al., 2008).

Though the use of technology-assisted self-testing might address the aforementioned problematic issues in current fitness testing practice, some critical concerns associated with the use of technology in fitness self-testing have to be addressed. Accountability is the key in fitness self-testing (Morgan et al., 2004), which should be presented through the testing process instead of the simple use of fitness test scores routinely seen in schools (Silverman et al., 2008). Even if we apply technology into fitness self-testing, “it is hard to expect fitness testing to play a meaningful role in changing youths’ behaviors if accountability is not ensured” (Keating, 2003: 147). For example, when using the push-up app, it is hard to identify students, thus relying on students’ academic honesty. Additionally, the sensor on the app is not perfectly designed, allowing repetitions to be tallied with just a touch of the nose. Therefore, techniques to perform a standard push-up could be manipulated, rising validity concerns of the testing result. Another concern of current technology for fitness self-testing is that there is a lack of commercial apps and/or devices (e.g. fitness self-testing app) that includes every fitness testing item for teachers and students. The Skill Lab app has four components of the Fitnessgram testing battery, but it is not all encompassing, nor a representation of all fitness testing batteries used in schools. Therefore, more effort in developing the fitness self-testing app is urgently needed. Further research addressing the accountability of fitness self-testing warrants more attention from professionals in the field.

Utilizing the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003), self-testing can be viewed as an innovation with regard to fitness testing instructional strategies. From this standpoint, it then becomes imperative that modes of spreading this information to PE teachers are executed in order for the teachers to gain knowledge about these fitness testing apps and devices and adopt them in their teaching practices. This can either occur in an informal and unplanned fashion – diffusion, or in a planned and formal fashion – dissemination (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). For in-service teachers, methods to inform individuals about these innovative technologies may include professional development, communities of practice, partnerships with universities, attending conventions/conferences, social media sites, or reading current research articles. Another mode could be preservice teachers sharing their knowledge with cooperating teachers out in the field or bringing this knowledge with them when they join the profession permanently following teacher preparation.

Conclusions

This article aimed to propose strategies for fitness self-testing using technologies for student HRF in school-based PE. It has been well documented that problems with the existing youth fitness testing in schools have lasted for more than sixty years. There is a need to have more research on the topic to improve the effectiveness of youth fitness testing practices worldwide.

With the emergence of modern technology, HRF self-testing has the potential to help solve some of the previously identified youth fitness testing problems in school-based PE programmes. It may also motivate students to be more physically fit if used appropriately. Surprisingly, to date, research on the topic has been neglected and from our understanding on the use of technology in self-testing HRF is still very limited. We hope that physical educators will feel more comfortable with using fitness self-testing assisted by technology when evaluating student fitness, and therefore incorporate it more frequently within their instructional strategies. More experimental studies are needed on comparing the effects of HRF self-testing with the traditional way that has been implemented over decades, so that the existing problems with youth fitness testing can be solved in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude for the time and valuable feedback provided by the European Physical Education Review reviewers and editor.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alfrey

Gard

(2019) Figuring out the prevalence of fitness testing in physical education: A figurational analysis. European Physical Education Review 25(1): 187–202.

Andrade

Valtcheva

(2009) Promoting learning and achievement through self- assessment. Theory into Practice 48(1): 12–19.

Artero

Espana-Romero

Castro-Piñero

, et al. (2011) Reliability of field-based fitness tests in youth. International Journal of Sports Medicine 32(3): 159–169.

Bianco

Lupo

Alesi

, et al. (2015) The sit up test to exhaustion as a test for muscular endurance evaluation. SpringerPlus 4: 309–316.

Brevig

(2006) Engaging in retrospective reflection. The Reading Teacher 59(6): 522–530.

Butler

Lee

(2010) The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing 27(1): 5–31.

Cale

Harris

(2009) Fitness testing in physical education – A misdirected effort in promoting healthy lifestyles and physical activity? Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 14(1): 89–108.

Cale

Harris

Chen

(2007) More than 10 years after “the horse is dead…”: Surely it must be time to “dismount”?! Pediatric Exercise Science 19(2): 115–131.

Cale

Harris

Chen

(2014) Monitoring health, activity and fitness in physical education: Its current and future state of health. Sport, Education and Society 19(4): 376–397.

10.

Castro-Piñero

Artero

España-Romero

, et al. (2010) Criterion-related validity of field- based fitness tests in youth: A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine 44(13): 934–943.

11.

Cohen

Voss

Sandercock

GRH

(2015) Fitness testing for children: Let’s mount the Zebra! Journal of Physical Activity and Health 12(5): 597–603.

12.

Corbin

(2004) What every physical educator should know about teaching physical activity and fitness. Teaching Elementary Physical Education 15(1): 7–9.

13.

Corbin

Pangrazi

Welk

(1995) A response to “the horse is dead; let’s dismount”. Pediatric Exercise Science 7(4): 347–351.

14.

Corbin

Welk

Richardson

, et al. (2014) Youth physical fitness: Ten key concepts. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 85(5): 24–31.

15.

Dauenhauer

Keating

Stoepker

, et al. (2019) State physical education policy changes from 2001 to 2016. Journal of School Health 89(6): 485–493.

16.

Eastham

(2018) Physical fitness test administration practices and students’ cognitive understanding of physical fitness. Physical Educator 75(3): 374–393.

17.

Erbas

Demirer

(2019) The effects of augmented reality on students’ academic achievement and motivation in a biology course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 35(3): 450–458.

18.

Ernst

Corbin

Beighle

, et al. (2006) Appropriate and inappropriate uses of FITNESSGRAM®: A commentary. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3(Supplement 2): S90–S100.

19.

Freedson

Cureton

Heath

(2000) Status of field-based fitness testing in children and youth. Preventive Medicine 31(2): S77–S85.

20.

Garrett

Wrench

(2008) Fitness testing: The pleasure and pain of it. ACHPER Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal 55(4): 17–22.

21.

Graser

Sampson

Pennington

, et al. (2011) Children’s perceptions of fitness self- testing, the purpose of fitness testing, and personal health. Physical Educator 68(4): 175–187.

22.

Greenhalgh

Robert

MacFarlane

, et al. (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systemic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly 82(4): 581–629.

23.

Harris

Cale

(2006) A review of children’s fitness testing. European Physical Education Review 12(2): 201–225.

24.

Hopple

Graham

(1995) What children think, feel, and know about physical fitness testing. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 14(4): 408–417.

25.

Huotari

Sääkslahti

Watt

(2009) Associations between the self-estimated and actual physical fitness scores of Finnish grade 6 students. Facta Universitatis: Series Physical Education & Sport 7(1): 27–36.

26.

Jaakkola

Sääkslahti

Yli-Piipari

, et al. (2013) Student motivation associated with fitness testing in the physical education context. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 32(3): 270–286.

27.

Keating

(2003) The current often implemented fitness tests in physical education programs: Problems and future directions. Quest 55(2): 141–160.

28.

Keating

Silverman

(2009) Determinants of teacher implementation of youth fitness tests in school-based physical education programs. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(2): 209–225.

29.

Keating

Smolianov

Liu

, et al. (2018) Youth fitness testing practices: Global trends and new development. The Sport Journal. Available at: http://thesportjournal.org/article/youth-fitness-testing-practices-global-trends-and-new-development/ (accessed 5 February 2019).

30.

Keating

Stephenson

Liu

, et al. (2019) Cross-cultural comparison of youth fitness testing in China and the US: An ecological systems model approach. ICHPER. SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance 10(2): 20–27.

31.

Kemper

HCG

van Mechelen

(1996) Physical fitness testing of children: A European perspective. Pediatric Exercise Science 8(3): 201–214.

32.

Knapik

Jones

Reynolds

, et al. (1992) Validity of self-assessed physical fitness. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 8(6): 367–372.

33.

Kornell

Son

(2009) Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory 17(5): 493–501.

34.

Lester

(2015) Using technology for alternative assessment in health education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 86(9): 50–52.

35.

Liguori

Mozumdar

(2009) Reliability of self-assessments for a cardiovascular fitness assessment. International Journal of Fitness 5(1): 33–40.

36.

Linnes

Metcalf

(2017) iGeneration and their acceptance of technology. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (Online) 21(2): 11–26.

37.

Liu

Keating

Shangguan

(2017) Historical analyses of fitness testing of college students in China. ICHPER-SD Journal of Research 9(1): 24–32.

38.

Lloyd

Bishop

Walker

, et al. (2003) The influence of body size and composition on FITNESSGRAM® test performance and the adjustment of FITNESSGRAM® test scores for skinfold thickness in youth. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science 7(4): 205–226.

39.

Martin

Ede

Morrow

JRM

Jr , et al. (2010) Statewide physical fitness testing: Perspectives from the gym. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(Supplement 3): s31–s41.

40.

Mauch

Eklaund

Greenberg

, et al. (2017) Appropriate and inappropriate practices related to fitness testing. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 88(6): 3–9.

41.

Mears

(2010) Physical activity monitoring: Gadgets and uses. Strategies 23(3): 28–31.

42.

Mercier

Silverman

(2014) High school students’ attitudes toward fitness testing. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33(2): 269–281.

43.

Mercier

Phillips

Silverman

(2016) High school physical education teachers’ attitudes and use of fitness tests. The High School Journal 99(2): 179–190.

44.

Micán

Medina

(2017) Boosting vocabulary learning through self-assessment in an English language teaching context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(3): 398–414.

45.

Mikkelsson

Kaprio

Kautiainen

, et al. (2005) Associations between self-estimated and measured physical fitness among 40-year-old men and women. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 15(5): 329–335.

46.

Miller

Lily

Elliot

, et al. (2016) Teacher perceptions of FITNESSGRAM® and application of results. International Journal of Exercise Science 9(2): 187–204.

47.

Morgan

Beighle

Pangrazi

, et al. (2004) Using self-assessment for personal fitness evaluation. Teaching Elementary Physical Education 15(1): 19–22.

48.

Morrow

Ede

(2009) Statewide physical fitness testing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(4): 696–701.

49.

Morrow

Zhu

Franks

, et al. (2009) 1958–2008: 50 years of youth fitness tests in the United States. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(1): 1–11.

50.

O’Loughlin

Chróinín

O’Grady

(2013) Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review 19(2): 165–182.

51.

Ortega

Ruiz

Castillo

, et al. (2008) Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: A powerful marker of health. International Journal of Obesity 32(1): 1–11.

52.

Panadero

Jonsson

Botella

(2017) Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review 22: 74–98.

53.

Panus

Stewart

Hagemeier

, et al. (2014) A subgroup analysis of the impact of self-testing frequency on examination scores in a pathophysiology course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 78(9): 165–172.

54.

Pate

(1991) Health-related measures of children's physical fitness. Journal of School Health 61(5): 231–233.

55.

Pate

Welk

McIver

(2013) Large-scale youth physical fitness testing in the United States: A 25-year retrospective review. Pediatric Exercise Science 25(4): 515–523.

56.

Philip

Garcia

(2013) The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 83(2): 300–319

57.

Phillips

Marttinen

Mercier

(2017) Fitness assessment: Recommendations for an enjoyable student experience. Strategies 30(5): 19–24.

58.

Poehner

(2012) The zone of proximal development and the genesis of self-assessment. The Modern Language Journal 96(4): 610–622.

59.

Rodriguez

Kataoka

Janet Rivas

, et al. (2018) Do spacing and self-testing predict learning outcomes? Active Learning in Higher Education 1–15. Epub ahead of print 14 may 2018. DOI:10.1177/1469787418774185.

60.

Rogers

(2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press.

61.

Rosen

(2011) Teaching the iGeneration. Educational Leadership 68(5): 10–15.

62.

Rowland

(1995) “The horse is dead; Let’s dismount”. Pediatric Exercise Science 7(2): 117–120.

63.

Rubín

Suchomel

Cuberek

, et al. (2017) Self-assessment of physical fitness in adolescents. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise 12(1): 219–235.

64.

Schwartz

Hartman

(2007) It is not television anymore: Designing digital video for learning and assessment. In: Goldman

Pea

Barron

(eds) Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 335–348.

65.

SHAPE America-Society of Health and Physical Educators (2012) Instructional framework for fitness education in physical education. Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org/upload/Instructional-Framework-for-Fitness-Education-in-Physical-Education.pdf (accessed 28 April 2019).

66.

SHAPE America-Society of Health and Physical Educators (2013) National standards for K-12 physical education. Available at: http://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/index.cfm (accessed 5 February 2019).

67.

Silverman

Keating

Phillips

(2008) A lasting impression: A pedagogical perspective on youth fitness testing. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 12(3): 146–166.

68.

Stewart

Panus

Hagemeier

, et al. (2014) Pharmacy student self-testing as a predictor of examination performance. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 78(2): 1–6.

69.

Tsigilis

(2005) The influence of intrinsic motivation on an endurance field test. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 45(2): 213–216.

70.

Tulgar

(2017) Selfie@ssessment as an alternative form of self-assessment at undergraduate level in higher education. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13(1): 321–335.

71.

Vasold

Parks

Phelan

DML

, et al. (2019) Reliability and validity of commercially available low-cost bioelectrical impedance analysis. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism 29(4): 406–410.

72.

Vazou

Mischo

Ladwig

, et al. (2019) Psychologically informed physical fitness practice in schools: A field experiment. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 40: 143–151.

73.

von Hurst

Walsh

DCI

Conlon

, et al. (2016) Validity and reliability of bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate body fat percentage against air displacement plethysmography and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Nutrition & Dietetics 73(2): 197–204.

74.

Wasserberg

Rottman

(2016) Urban high school students’ perspectives on test-centered curriculum. American Secondary Education 44(3): 56–71.

75.

Webber

(2012) The use of learner-centered assessment in US colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education 53(2): 201–228.

76.

Welk

Meredith

(eds) (2014) FITNESSGRAM®/ACTIVITYGRAM® Test Administration Manual. 4th edition. Dallas, TX: The Cooper Institute.

77.

Welk

Meredith

Ihmels

, et al. (2010) Distribution of health-related physical fitness in Texas youth. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(Supplement 3): S6–S15.

78.

Whitehead

Corbin

(1991) Youth fitness testing: The effect of percentile-based evaluative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(2): 225–231.

79.

Wiersma

Sherman

(2008) The responsible use of youth fitness testing to enhance student motivation, enjoyment, and performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 12(3): 167–183.

80.

Wraae

Tigerstedt

Kratzer

(2018) Introducing student self-assessment as a new assessment tool in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 18(3): 86–101.

81.

Yan

(2016) The self-assessment practices of Hong Kong secondary students: Findings with a new instrument. Journal of Applied Measurement 17(3): 335–353.

82.

Yan

Brown

GTL

(2017) A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(8): 1247–1262.

83.

Youm

Jeon

Park

, et al. (2015) RFID-based automatic scoring system for physical fitness testing. IEEE Systems Journal 9(2): 326–334.

84.

Zhu

Mahar

Welk

, et al. (2011) Approaches for development of criterion-referenced standards in health-related youth fitness tests. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 41(4, Supplement 2): S68–S76.

85.

Zhu

Davis

Kirk

, et al. (2018) Inappropriate practices in fitness testing and reporting: Alternative strategies. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 89(3): 46–51.