A profile of two different applicant test batteries with regards to sex and age in successful law enforcement applicants

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Law enforcement (LE) applicant assessments and initial academy training vary greatly across the United States of America (USA), with 820+ academies operating across 50 different states. Rising obesity and declining physical fitness underscore the need for benchmarks of applicant physical performance.

OBJECTIVE:

Create a “point-in-time” descriptive profile of the performance of LE applicants and determine any differences between males, females, and age using two applicant test batteries (ATBs).

METHODS:

Archival data from one large USA LE academy were analysed. Applicants completed one of two ATBs; ATB1 (n = 1674): 68.8-meter agility run (AR), 60-s push-ups, 60-s sit-ups, 60-s arm ergometer revolutions, and 2.4 km run; ATB2 (n = 355): AR, 60-s push-ups, 60-s sit-ups, and a multistage fitness test. Data were coded for sex and age. Independent samples t-tests compared the sexes. A one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc analysis compared age groups (18– 24, 25– 29, 30– 34, 35– 39, 40 + years).

RESULTS:

Males outperformed females in all fitness assessments across both ATBs (p≤0.02). The 18– 24 age group demonstrated faster run times in the AR and 2.4 km for ATB1 compared to all groups. (p≤0.03). In ATB2, the 18– 24 age group was faster in the AR compared to all other groups except the 25– 29 age group (p≤0.026).

CONCLUSIONS:

Regardless of ATB used, females and older applicants generally would benefit from specific fitness training to better prepare for academy. Older applicants may experience greater challenges in running tasks, especially those involving sprinting, which could also be impacted by qualities important for running/sprinting (i.e., maximal strength and power).

Keywords

Police academy initial training muscular endurance strength tactical

1 Introduction

Initial, or academy, training for law enforcement occupations in the United States of America (USA) is extremely diverse. The USA is a Federalist system [1] that contains 50 states, 3,141 counties, boroughs, and parishes [2], and 19,495 cities [3] that delegates authority and oversight to state, regional, and municipal law enforcement for anything other than enforcement of federal laws. As a result, over 822 state, regional and local initial training academies operate to train law enforcement officers (LEO’s) under various standards which can include physical fitness assessment and training [4]. Further, some academies do not set physical ability hiring standards, with those decisions made by the over 18,000 local hiring entities (usually states, counties, cities, and towns).

Shifting demographics in the USA have resulted in lower birth rates since the late 1980’s [5], resulting in fewer 18– 40 year olds for all professions and an increased median age of LEOs [6]. Further increased voluntary resignation and retirements have resulted in LEO staffing shortages across the US [7]. Among the law enforcement applicant population of 18 to 40 years olds in the USA, declining and lower chronic physical fitness across those of prime law enforcement recruit age (18– 35 years old) [8, 9] and increasing obesity rates [10 –12] have been observed. At the same time, decreased rates of physical activity [13, 14], and increases in those with functional physical limitations [15] have further impacted the applicant pool and, henceforth, recruit/cadet populations. The COVID-19 pandemic also impacted physical activities and access to training resources for many populations [16, 17].

The aforementioned factors have impacted the physical competencies of those preparing to be trained to complete physical tasks required of US LEOs. Policing requires a wide variety of physical abilities and competencies. Police officers experience various physical demands within their occupation and those entering training need to demonstrate basic physical ability to be trained and refine those abilities [18 –21]. Physically challenging tasks that are required of officers can include driving vehicles at various speeds including high speed pursuits [22, 23], pursuing suspects on foot [18– 20 , 25], vaulting and clearing obstacles [18– 20 , 24– 26], using firearms, and exerting physical force, arrest and control, and defensive tactics to apprehend offenders [27]. As such, an officer’s level of physical fitness could influence their capacity to effectively perform these physically challenging job tasks [19 , 28– 30].

Indeed, higher levels of fitness have been demonstrated to positively impact LEO performance on physically challenging job tasks. Dawes et al. [26] analyzed relationships between different measures of fitness with a physical ability test that included tasks such as a foot pursuit, lifting, carrying, pushing, crawling, dragging, obstacle clearance, and walking on irregular terrain, in state police agency officers. The authors observed large-to-very large associations between the physical ability test time (p < 0.001, r = – 0.52 to – 0.70) with the 20-m multistage fitness test (20MSFT), 60-second (s) push-ups and sit-ups, and the vertical jump. Dawes et al. [26] also found significant, albeit smaller, correlations (p < 0.05, r = – 0.10 to – 0.14) with leg/back chain Dynamometer, grip strength, and physical ability test scores. Lockie et al. [24, 25] also observed that initial physical fitness, as measured by push-ups, sit-ups, agility run, a vertical jump, a 2 kg medicine ball throw, and 20MSFT shuttle run performance, positively correlated with performance on a validated state-mandated set of work sample LEO tasks for one of the most populous US states. Noting the importance of physical fitness in LEO and changing factors (i.e., decreased fitness, increased obesity, etc.) that are influencing future candidate fitness, it is important to establish a point-in-time baseline of physical fitness displayed by law enforcement applicants who are later successful in graduating from initial/academy training.

This study employed a retrospective analysis of archival data that were collected by a large law enforcement department as part of application for acceptance to their academy physical fitness program. The department provided de-identified data from initial/academy recruit LEOs who participated in one of two physical fitness applicant test battery (ATB) assessments at the beginning of the application process to attend academy training. Two different ATBs were included in this study as the academy made an internal policy decision during the time frame of this study period to change ATBs as it was hypothesized that different ATBs might produce differing results for potential graduation factor analysis and physical fitness programming options. In this study it was hypothesized that there would be significant differences between the two ATBs, those identifying as either male or female sex at the time of data collection, as well as differences between age cohorts. The potential benefits of this analysis is to inform additional assessment efforts, academy physical fitness programming, and assist in assessing the general physical fitness of entry LEO cohorts at this point-in-time.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of LEO recruit applicant physical fitness data over a three-year period (2017– 2019) and belonging to one large US law enforcement academy was conducted. This sample was comprised of two ATBs labelled ATB1 (n = 1,674) and ATB2 (n = 355). The data collection period spanned 2017– 2019. Participant height and body mass data were not provided in this data set by the organization. Sex was stated by applicants as either male or female. All recruits with data sets that were available and who successfully completed all required phases of academy training were included in the data analysis. The exclusion criterion was data sets with clearly incorrectly entered data. Examples of clearly incorrectly entered data could range from an erroneously entered 2.4 km run time of 60 seconds to obviously unrealistic subject age of 5 years old. Due to the retrospective nature of this analysis, the institutional ethics committee approved the use of pre-existing data (HSR-17-18-370). The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki [31].

2.2 Procedures

The applicant recruit participant data were collected as a normal part of academy business practices. ATB1 comprised of a 68.8-meter (m) agility run (AR), number of push-ups (PU) in 60-s, number of sit-ups (SU) in 60-s, number of revolutions using an arm ergometer in 60-s, and a 2.4 km run. ATB2 comprised of a 68.8-meter agility run (AR), number of PU in 60-s (PU), number of SU in 60-s (SU), and a 20MSFT. Fitness testing was conducted according to agency Human Resources (HR) guidelines to ensure consistency for all applicant participants as part of the hiring process. HR personnel who conducted the tests were all trained in the required procedures for each test, and the participants completed assessments as part of an application/screening/hiring process prior to initial training/academy entry routinely 6– 12 months before commencement of training.

Participants were briefed on the assessment procedures in a field setting before the assessments began. Participants then completed the physical fitness tests in the order presented. Physical fitness tests generally took 60 minutes to complete. Applicant physical fitness testing was conducted on a regular basis throughout the calendar years across various agency approved locations, and at numerous times (typically between 8:00am to 8:00pm) on any day of the week, depending on staff availability and scheduling. While booking assessment sessions in this way could have affected some of the data that were recorded, this was unavoidable given the numerous logistical elements involved in routine law enforcement academy application operations. It should, however, be stated that these scheduling challenges represent the real-world environment typical in law enforcement. As such, this approach provides practical research that is a true representation of data recorded within these programs.

2.3 68.8-m agility run (AR)

The AR is a validated assessment [32] that has been used in the applicant process for over 10 years and was designed to replicate a short distance foot pursuit performed by an LEO and also provide a measure of agility, acceleration, change of direction speed, and power. On a pre-marked course, participants completed 5 linear sprints within a 12.1-m square grid while completing four 45° direction changes diagonally crossing the grid. Participants were also required to step over 3 barriers that were 2.44-m long and 0.15-m high that simulated street curbs during 3 of the 5 sprints. Time was recorded via a handheld stopwatch from the command of “go” until the participant passed the finish line of the course. Use of a handheld stopwatch was the agency measurement protocol for this test.

2.4 Push-ups

PU were used to assess upper-body muscular endurance with participants completing as many repetitions as possible in 60-s. This is a prevailing and common test in law enforcement, and the procedures for the test followed recognized law enforcement practices. A tester placed a fist on the floor directly under the participant’s chest (females were paired with female testers) to ensure that they descended to an appropriate depth. Although there are some limitations with this approach, this ensured that participants descended to the correct depth [33]. On the start command, the tester began timing, and the participant flexed their elbows and lowered their torso until their chests contacted the tester’s fist before they extended their elbows to return to the start position. Participants performed as many push-ups using this technique in within 60-s [24 , 33– 38].

2.5 Sit-ups

Abdominal muscular endurance was assessed via the 60-s SU test. The technique used was typical for law enforcement personnel [26 , 39– 42]. Participants were supine with their knees flexed, heels flat on the ground, and hands cupped on the ears. The feet were held by a partner and on the start command, participants raised their shoulders from the ground and while keeping their hands cupped at ear level, touched their elbows to their knees. The participant then returned to the start position until their scapulae touched the ground. Participants completed as many repetitions as possible in 60-s with this technique.

2.6 Arm ergometer

The arm ergometer provided a test of upper-body endurance [34 , 43], and was part of ATB1 but not ATB2. The agency shifted applicant test batteries as a matter of normal organizational business practices, and this was beyond the control of researchers. This test was performed on an arm ergometer (Monark 881E, Vansbro, Sweden) positioned on a table [34]. Organizational procedures required the participant to complete 10 revolutions of the arm ergometer before the test to set the workload to 50 watts (which remained for the workload for the entire test) and allow the participant to become familiar to the equipment. Before starting the trial, the participant moved one handle to the start position marked on the ergometer so that one full revolution was completed before the counter registered “1.” The counter was then reset to zero before the tester started the assessment. Participants completed as many revolutions as possible in 60-s. The final revolution number completed at the 60-s mark was read off the counter to provide the score.

2.7 2.4 km run or 20 meter multistage fitness test (20MSFT)

Depending on the date of assessment (see above for details on ATB1 and ATB2 and agency policy change), participants completed either a 2.4 km run or 20MSFT as part of the assessment battery. The 20MSFT was substituted by the organization as dates in this series progressed toward the end. This policy change was implemented by the academy agency outside the purview of researchers and was part of a larger agency effort to evaluate different types of running assessments for participants attending this academy. Participants who completed ATB1 completed the 2.4 km run and recruits who completed ATB2 completed the 20MSFT. Nonetheless, both tests were used to measure aerobic capacity [44, 45].

2.7.1 2.4-km run

Participants completed 6 laps as quickly as possible around a set outdoor 440 yard dirt track. Run time was recorded for each participant via a handheld stopwatch to the nearest 0.1 seconds. Time was recorded as minutes:seconds and converted to seconds for this study.

2.7.2 20 meter multistage fitness test (20MSFT)

To complete the 20MSFT, participants ran back and forth between 2 lines (indicated by markers) spaced 20-m apart. The speed of running for this test was standardized by prerecorded auditory cues (i.e., beeps) typically played via an audio device. The 20MSFT was stopped when the participant was unable to reach the lines twice in a row in accordance with the auditory cues. This test was scored according to the final level and stage the participant was able to achieve, and the level and stage data was used to calculate the total number of completed shuttles.

2.8 Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were processed using the Statistics Package for Social Sciences (Version 27, IBM Corporation, New York, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean±-standard deviation [SD]) were calculated for each variable. Not all participants completed all tests (e.g., some participants (as noted in Table 3 by age group) did not have data for the 2.4-km run in ATB1); nonetheless, all available datasets with correctly entered data for recruits who completed academy were included in the analysis. The sample was stratified by sex and age (18– 24, 25– 29, 30– 34, 35– 39, and 40+ years of age) for both ATB1 and ATB2. Descriptive data (mean±-standard deviation [SD]) were calculated for each of these groups. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the stated sexes for ATB1 and ATB2, with significance set as p < 0.05. Sexes were combined for the age group analysis [40 , 47] when analyzing both the ATB1 and ATB2. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there were significant (p < 0.05) interactions between the age groups. ATB1 and ATB2 were analyzed separately. If a significant interaction was found, a Bonferroni post hoc adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons was used to identify any between-group differences. The ANOVA analysis was adopted in this study due to the robustness of this statistical procedures when used with large samples, even with unequal group sizes which could affect data homogeneity of variance [40 , 48].

3 Results

Mean data and standard deviations of ATB1 data by stated sex are shown in Table 1, while ATB2 data is shown in Table 2. Male participants generally outperformed female participants in all fitness assessments across both ATBs. For ATB1, male participants were significantly faster in the AR and 2.4-km run and completed a greater number of PU, SU, and arm ergometer revolutions compared to female participants (p≤0.002). Male participants generally outperformed female participants in all fitness assessments across ATB2 as well. Male participants were significantly faster in the AR, and completed a greater number of PU, SU, 20MSFT shuttles compared to female participants (p≤0.001).

Table 1
Test performance (mean±SD) by successful applicants stratified by sex on Applicant Test Battery 1 (ATB1) physical assessments (time to complete the 68.8-m agility run (AR), number of push-ups and sit-ups completed in 60 seconds, number of revolutions completed in 60-second arm ergometer test (Arm Erg), and 2.4-km run time). 2.4-km-run data had 1349 males and 310 females

Males (n = 1362) Females (n = 311) p

AR (s) 17.21±1.07 18.65±1.15 <0.001

No. of push-ups 44.53±12.46 26.83±9.45* <0.001

No. of sit-ups 40.42±9.11 36.32±8.04* 0.002

Arm Erg (revs) 132.86±36.91 110.31±15.60* <0.001

2.4-km-run time (total secs.) 762.36±97.71 819.93±71.98* <0.001

Males (n = 1362)	Females (n = 311)		p
AR (s)	17.21±1.07	18.65±1.15*	<0.001
No. of push-ups	44.53±12.46	26.83±9.45*	<0.001
No. of sit-ups	40.42±9.11	36.32±8.04*	0.002
Arm Erg (revs)	132.86±36.91	110.31±15.60*	<0.001
2.4-km-run time (total secs.)	762.36±97.71	819.93±71.98*	<0.001

*Significantly (p < 0.05) different from the males.

Table 2

Test performance (mean±SD) by successful applicants stratified by sex on Applicant Test Battery 2 (ATB2) physical assessments (time to complete the 68.8-m agility run (AR), number of push-ups and sit-ups completed in 60 seconds, and number of completed shuttles for a 20-multi-stage shuttle run (20MSFT))

Males (n = 287)	Females (n = 68)		p
Agility (s)	17.18±1.01	18.55±1.04*	<0.001
No. of push-ups	47.78±12.97	30.16±9.95*	<0.001
No. of sit-ups	41.27±9.61	37.37±8.13*	<0.001
20MSFT (no. of shuttles)	50.48±15.68	40.19±11.40*	<0.001

*Significantly (p < 0.05) different from the males.

Mean data and standard deviations of ATB1 are shown in Table 3. For ATB1, there was a significant interaction for the AR and 2.4-km run (both p < 0.001). The post hoc analyses indicated that the 18– 24 age group demonstrated faster times in the AR compared to all other age groups; 25– 29 age group (p = 0.001), 30– 34 age group (p < 0.001), 35– 39 age group (p < 0.001), and 40+ age group (p < 0.001). The 25– 29 age group was faster than the 35– 39 age group (p = 0.017) and 40+ age group (p < 0.001). The 30– 34 age group was faster than the 40+ age group (p < 0.001). With regards to the 2.4-km run in ABT1, post hoc analyses revealed that the 18– 24 age group was faster than the 25– 29 age group (p = 0.024), 30– 34 age group (p = 0.001), 35– 39 age group (p = 0.030), and 40+ age group (p = 0.030).

In ATB2 (Table 3), there was only a significant interaction for the AR (p < 0.001). Post hoc analyses revealed that the 18– 24 age group was significantly faster in the AR compared to all other groups except the 25– 29 age group; 30– 34 (p = 0.007), 35-3 age group 9 (p < 0.001), and 40+ age group (p = 0.002). The 25– 29 age group was significantly faster than the 35– 39 age group (p = 0.001) and 40+ age group (p = 0.026).

Table 3

Means and standard deviations of Applicant Test Battery 1 (ATB1) and Applicant Test Battery 2 (ATB2) by age group. Subject numbers for each assessments and age group reported respectively. All relationships statistically significant (p < 0.02)

Age Group (males and	18– 24	25– 29	30– 34	35– 39	40+
females combined)
ATB1 (n = 1674)	n = 672	n = 626	n = 218	n = 77	n = 81
Agility (secs.)	17.25±1.15*¹	17.51±1.22^#	17.63±1.20^∧	17.96±1.27	18.28±1.22
Push-ups (no.)	41.79±13.80	40.73±13.66	41.29±14.17	40.35±12.42	41.36±13.33
Sit-ups (no.)	40.05±9.34	39.44±8.89²	39.69±8.63	39.39±9.09	38.21±9.10
Arm Erg (no.)	127.29±19.11	129.97±51.90³	127.66±19.12	128.86±17.59	132.60±17.82
2.4-km Run (total secs.)	760.11±91.87*⁴	776.29±98.27⁵	788.91±97.95⁶	794.23±90.18	793.69±100.26⁷
ATB2 (n = 355)	n = 153	n = 121	n = 47	n = 16	n = 18
Agility (secs)	17.18±1.03^$	17.38±1.17^#	17.80±1.17	18.51±1.21	18.22±0.77
Push-ups (no.)	43.99±13.52	43.58±14.47	47.72±16.34	46.0±12.32	43.44±14.66
Sit-ups (no.)	41.07±8.89	39.33±9.16	40.74±11.50	39.0±7.66	44.72±11.02
20MSFT (no. of shuttles)	49.21±15.69	49.52±16.64	45.57±14.34	41.13±10.98	50.06±9.21

*Significantly faster than 25– 29, 30– 34, 35– 39, and 40+ . ^#Significantly faster than 35– 39 and 40+ . ^∧ Significantly faster than 40+ . ^$Significantly faster than 30– 34, 35– 39, and 40+ . ¹n = 671. ²n = 625. ³n = 625. ⁴n = 666. ⁵n = 619. ⁶n = 217. ⁷n = 80.

4 Discussion

This study reviewed archival data on the performance of LE applicants in two ATB assessments of physical fitness for a large US law enforcement agency that operated an initial academy program The data collection period spanned 2017– 2019. Review of this type of data is extremely important as there are over 822 state, regional, and local initial LE academies across the US with no unifying national standards [4]. The major goals of this study included creating a “point-in-time” descriptive profile of the physical performance of LE applicants and determining any general differences between sex, as well as between chronological age groups when across two ATBs. It was hypothesized that there would be significant differences between sex as well as differences between age cohorts. The hypotheses were generally supported in that males and of a younger age group exhibited better scores across the applicant test batteries. Consistent with prior research [34 , 47], male participants, in general, performed significantly better than female participants across ATB assessments. As will be discussed, specific programming to assist in the development of multiple fitness capacities amongst older and female applicants is advisable to increase physical performance.

Firstly, agility is a fitness characteristic important for critical job tasks such as foot pursuits for LEOs. The ability to rapidly accelerate, decelerate, and change direction, such as during a foot pursuit or other running tasks across short and distinct distances, are important LE patrol physiological task requirements [44 , 50]. The AR in this study was designed to be representative of a foot pursuit [21 , 51]. In the current study, male participants completed the AR in significantly less time (better performance) than female participants in both ATB1 and ATB2. Further, time to complete the AR when the sexes were combined and grouped by age showed that older groups tended to be slower in the AR compared to younger groups, especially the 18– 24 age group. These results reflect that the components of the AR such as strength, power, agility, tend to decrease with age.

It is important to discuss these fitness characteristics that relate to a faster AR, as that will affect how the current results can be interpreted. Post et al. [51] found that the AR had significant relationships to other displays of lower-body power and running speed in college-aged civilians; specifically tests of linear speed, change-of-direction, and lower-body power and strength such as the 20-m sprint, Illinois Agility Test, vertical jump, and isometric mid-thigh pull. Therefore, recruits slower in the AR in this study could have had limitations in running speed, and lower-body power and strength. To assist in improving performance relative to foot pursuits in recruits, developmental interventions should be evaluated to assist females and older age subjects. For example, applicants including females and older individuals who exhibit slower AR times could be provided programming focused on strength, power, and agility development in advance of commencement at academy.

Muscular endurance has been identified as a critical law enforcement physical ability [49]. PU and SU have been common assessments used in LE physical ability testing [21 , 52]. In ATB1, the arm ergometer test was also used as a metric for muscular endurance [34 , 43]. Completing more PUs and SUs has also been related to increased rates of academy graduation [34 , 53]. In both ATB1 and ATB2, male participants completed more PU and SU compared to female participants. Male participants also, generally, completed more arm ergometer revolutions than female participants in ATB1. However, when males and females were combined within the different age groups, there were no significant between group differences in PU, SU, or arm ergometer revolutions. Muscular endurance training has historically had a greater focus than other aspects of physical fitness in law enforcement training academies [36, 54], and it is plausible the subjects from this agency knew this and completed some form of muscular endurance training prior to applying. This could have limited the between-age group differences seen in this study. Nonetheless, female participants still tended to generally demonstrate less muscular endurance compared to male participants. Specific programs targeting upper-body muscular endurance immediately after applicant assessment and prior to academy commencement could assist with many females developing a better capacity for completing tasks requiring muscular endurance including, but not limited to defensive tactics, firearms, and handcuffing.

As noted in prior research, aerobic capacity is also critical to LE physical job tasks [49] with a common assessment being the 2.4-km-run [33 , 52]. The 2.4-km-run is traditionally completed at a steady pace, running in one direction, on an athletics track or similar locations. This is an internally paced assessment in that participants run as fast or slow as they wish and pace can vary across the 2.4-km-run [44 , 50]. Faster 2.4-km-run times have also been associated with successful completion of initial academy training [34 , 53]. This study found significant differences between 2.4-km-run times of male participants and female participants with male participants generally displaying faster run times than female participants in ATB1. Moreover, the 18– 24 age group completed the 2.4-km run faster than all other age groups. Identifying groups that display slower 2.4-km run times at the applicant phase can provide a point-in-time assessment that can guide additional physical preparation for academy attendance. For example, those exhibiting slower 2.4-km run times at the application phase could be provided specific strategies and training programs (distances, pacing, number of days of running or other aerobic activity per week, etc.) immediately after applicant assessment that they could employ prior to academy commencement. This would be especially important for female applicants and older individuals.

The 20MSFT, completed as part of ATB2, also provided a measure of aerobic capacity [44, 45]. Statistically significant differences were observed between male participants and female participants in the number of 20MSFT shuttles completed. When sexes were combined into the age groups, however, differences did not reach statistical significance. Several reasons may explain the lack of differences in that the 20MSFT can induce higher running intensity and changes of direction [45], is a newer test, and is a different test structure for LE applicants. The participants may not have been as familiar with the test, pacing options, or rapid and repeated bouts of acceleration, deceleration, and changes of direction for longer periods of time. If applicants had been doing more long, slow distance running in their preparation for the hiring fitness tests, they may not have been as prepared to complete the higher intensity efforts required in the 20MSFT [44, 45]. This could have limited the differences between the age groups. While these factors may be considered a limitation, the agency selected the 20MSFT in an effort to measure repeated acceleration, deceleration, change of direction, use of an externally paced assessment, and reduced logistics compared to the 2.4-km-run. Future exploration and analysis of 20MSFT use in this population should focus on the assessment’s possible correlations to performance on other LE job-related physical tests, academy completion, and injury rates.

As these were common LE physical fitness tests that have been shown to relate actual LE job-relevant physical tasks, this study contains important implications for LE applicant assessment, academy physical preparation, and academy physical fitness program delivery. As noted previously, the population of those applying to LE initial/academy training positions is dwindling due to demographic shifts [5 –7], greater levels of overweight/obesity [10 –12], lower levels of chronic physical activity, and lower engagement in physical activity [13, 14]. Further, initial academy training can cost as much as USD$148,677 (2021) to train a new officer [55]. As a result, law enforcement applicant testing functions as a valuable component of the hiring and initial academy training process. Properly designed ATBs can help identify applicants that may be both more or less likely to perform better on physical tasks, complete initial academy training, and perform the physical job tasks required of patrol duties following training. Agencies may evolve and update their ATBs based on new data findings (like that presented in this study), development of newer assessments, legal case rulings, test administration logistics, and numerous other reasons. In the case of this sample, the agency decided to evaluate ATB2 as a method of potentially reducing test administration logistics.

There are limitations with this study that should be noted. The data was from one US agency and two specific ATBs from this agency. Nonetheless, the sample was very diverse and was from one of the most populous states in the US in a region with over 10 million socio-economically and ethnically diverse residents. This sample intentionally examined a specific point-in-time (2017– 2019 – across approximately 36 months). The sample also contained a “restricted” range in that only those applicants who successfully completed all steps of the hiring process (written examination, background check, psychological and medical screening, etc.) and ultimately accepted a position of recruit trainee/initial academy student were included in this sample. Analysis of an “unrestricted” sample or all who completed ATB1 or ATB2 who did not complete all steps in the hiring process or were not ultimately accepted to academy could likely exhibit different results. Another potential limitation is that absolute levels of physical fitness and academy completion are not necessarily binary. There may exist an upper “saturation point” or “ceiling effect” where physical fitness measures observed in this study do not necessarily translate into increased physical job task performance. At the same time, increased levels of common physical fitness measures correlate with progressively reduced risk of injury ([56 –58] lower incidence of population specific (law enforcement) cardiovascular disease risk [59], increased chance of graduation [34]. In other words, the fitter a recruit arrives at training, the lower the risk of injury and greater the probability of surviving training to successful completion.

5 Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that from 2017– 2019 and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were significant differences between male and female recruit participants performing one of two different ABTs. There were also select differences when considering the recruits by age group (18– 24, 25– 29, 30– 34, 35– 39, and 40+ groups). Male recruits, generally, outperformed female recruits in all fitness assessments across both ATBs. The 18– 24 year age group demonstrated faster run times in the AR and 2.4-km for ABT1 compared to all groups. In ATB2, the 18– 24 age group was faster in the AR compared to all other groups except the 25– 29 age group. As the assessments in each ATB were common to LE applications, these data can assist in establishing a point-in-time for future benchmarking and possible comparison and analysis. Even though there were observed fitness differences in age and sex, it may be possible that some older aged recruits and females arrive fitter. In these cases, applicants and recruits should seek to address any identified large variations and/or larger deficiencies from observed data in an effort to be more well-rounded, mitigate injury risk, and maximize chance of graduation. For example, if an applicant/recruit was faster in running tasks, but completed fewer push-ups, a plan to maintain running ability with a greater emphasis on upper body strength would be more beneficial. Regardless of the ATB used, female and older applicants, in general, would benefit from specific fitness training to better prepare for academy, especially given challenges imparted by demographic changes and reduced general physical fitness.

Ethical approval

California State University – Fullerton (HSR-17-18-370).

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the agency for participating in this research.

Funding

This study received no external financial assistance.

References

United States Congress. The Constitution’s Basic Principles: Federalism. [cited December 11 2022]; (1789).Available from:https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.

States, counties, and statistically equivalent entities In: Bureau USC, editor.: United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau; 1990. pp. 4-19.

(2018). Howmany cities are in the United States. [cited May 2023 2023];Available from:https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/how-many-cities-are-in-the-us.

Little Hoover Commission. Issue Brief: Comparing law enforcement basic training academies. State of California.2021.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Crude birth rates, fertility rates and birth rates, by age, race, and hispanic origin of mother:United States, selected years 1950-2018. Centers for Disease Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics [cited July 11 2021]; (2021). Available from:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2019/001-508.pdf.

Smith, S. A crisis facing law enforcement: 21st century. Police Chief. 2016.

Police Executive Research Forum. Survey on police workforce trends. [cited May 22 2023]; (2021). Available from:https://www.policeforum.org/workforcesurveyjune2021.

California Department of Education. (1998-1999). 1998-1999 California Physical Fitness Report, overall summary results. California Department of Education [cited December 15 2020]; Available from:https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/PhysFitness/PFTest_St_2002.asp?cYear=1998-99&cChoice=PFTest1&RptNumber=0.

California Department of Education. (2018-2019). 2018-2019 California Physical Fitness Report, overall summary results. California Department of Education [cited December 13 2022]; Available from:https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/PhysFitness/PFTDN/Summary2011.aspx?r=0&t=4&y=2018-19&c=00000000000000&n=0000.

10.

Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2022). Defining adult overweight & obesity. Centers for Disease Control [cited December 14 2022]; Available from:https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html.

11.

Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among adults aged 20 and over: United States, 1960–1962 Through 2017–2018. In: NCHS Health E-Stats, editor. 2020.

12.

Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among children and adolescents aged 2– 19 Years: United States, 1963– 1965 through 2017– 2018. In: NCHS Health E-Stats, editor. 2020.

13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Table 25. Participation in leisure-time aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities that meet the federal 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans among adults aged 18 and over, by selected characteristics: United States, selected years 1998–2018. [cited June 10 2021]; (2019). Available from:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2019/025-508.pdf.

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in the prevalence of physical activity and sedentary behaviors national YRBS: 1991–2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited July 11 2021]; (2020).Available from:https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/factsheets/2019_physical_trend_yrbs.htm.

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Table 15. Functional limitation among adults aged 18 and over, by selected characteristics: United States, selected years 2010-2018. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics [cited July 11 2021]; (2019). Available from:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2019/015-508.pdf.

16.

Ammar

, Brach

, Trabelsi

, Chtourou

, Boukhris

, Masmoudi

, Bouaziz

, Bentlage

, How

, Ahmed

, Müller

, Aloui

, Hammouda

, Paineiras-Domingos

, Braakman-Jansen

, Wrede

, Bastoni

, Pernambuco

, Mataruna

, Taheri

, Irandoust

, Khacharem

, Bragazzi

, Chamari

, Glenn

, Bott

, Gargouri

, Chaari

, Batatia

, Ali

, Abdelkarim

, Jarraya

, Abed

, Souissi

, Van Gemert-Pijnen

, Riemann

, Moalla

, Gómez-Raja

, Epstein

, Sanderman

, Schulz

, Jerg

, Al-Horani

, Mansi

, Jmail

, Barbosa

, Ferreira-Santos

, Simunič

, Pišot

, Gaggioli

, Bailey

, Steinacker

, Driss

, Hoekelmann

. Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on eating behaviour and physical activity: results of the ECLB-COVID19 international online survey. Nutrients . 2020';12(6);.

17.

Tayech

, Mejri

, Makhlouf

, Mathlouthi

, Behm

, Chaouachi

. Second wave of COVID-19 global pandemic and athletes’ confinement: recommendations to better manage and optimize the modified lifestyle. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2020; 17(22):8385.

18.

Lockie

, Pope

, Saaroni

, Dulla

, Dawes

, Orr

. Job-specific physical fitness changes measured by the Work Sample Test Battery within deputy sheriffs between training academy and their first patrol assignment. International Journal of Exercise Science. . 2020; 13(4):1262–74.

19.

Lockie

, Moreno

, Rodas

, Dulla

, Orr

, Dawes

. With great power comes great ability: Extending research on fitness characteristics that influence work sample test battery performance in law enforcement recruits. Work . 2021; 68(4):1069–80.

20.

Lockie

, Orr

, Moreno

, Dawes

, Dulla

. Time spent working in custody influences work sample test battery performance of deputy sheriffs compared to recruits. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2019; 16(7):1108.

21.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Orr

, Dulla

. Physical fitness: Differences between initial hiring to academy in law enforcement recruits who graduate or separate from academy. Work . 2021; 68(4):1081–90.

22.

Decker

, Orr

, Pope

, Hinton

. Physiological demands of law enforcement occupational tasks in Australian police officers. J Aust Strenth Cond . 2016; 24(6):78–9.

23.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Kornhauser

, Holmes

, Orr

. Young officers drive faster, but older officers crash less: Results of a police pursuit driving course. NZ J Evid Based Policing . 2018; 3(1):37–41.

24.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Balfany

, Gonzales

, Beitzel

, Dulla

, Orr

. Physical fitness characteristics that relate to work sample test battery performance in law enforcement recruits. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2018; 15(11):2477.

25.

Lockie

, Beitzel

, Dulla

, Dawes

, Orr

, Hernandez

. Between-Sex differences in the work sample test battery performed by law enforcement Recruits: implications for training and potential job performance. J Strength Cond Res . 2022; 36(5):1310–7.

26.

Dawes

, Lindsay

, Bero

, Elder

, Kornhauser

, Holmes

. Physical fitness characteristics of high vs. low performers on an occupationally specific physical agility test for patrol officers.. J Strength Cond Res . 2017; 31(10):2808–15.

27.

Orr

, Pope

, Stierli

, Hinton

. Grip strength and its relationship to police recruit task performance and injury risk: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2017; 14(8):941.

28.

Lockie

, Moreno

, McGuire

, Ruvalcaba

, Bloodgood

, Dulla

, Orr

, Jay Dawes

. Relationships between isometric strength and the 74.84-kg (165-lb) body drag test in law enforcement recruits.. Journal of Human Kinetics.202074(5-13).

29.

Beck

, Clasey

, Yates

, Koebke

, Palmer

, Abel

. Relationship of physical fitness measures vs. occupational physical ability in campus law enforcement officers.. J Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29(8):2340–50.

30.

Moreno

, Dulla

, Dawes

, Orr

, Cesario

, Lockie

. Lower-body power and its relationship with body drag velocity in law enforcement recruits. Int J Exerc Sci . 2019; 12(4):847–58.

31.

World Medical AssociationWorld Medical Association declaration of Helsinki.Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA . 1997; 277(11):925–6.

32.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Physical Ability Test. [cited May 15 2023]; Available from:https://lasd.org/careers/physicaltest/.

33.

Lockie

, Orr

, Stierli

, Cesario

, Moreno

, Bloodgood

, Dulla

, Dawes

. The physical characteristics by sex and age for custody assistants from a law enforcement agency. J Strength Cond Res . 2019; 33(8):2223–32.

34.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Dulla

, Orr

, Hernandez

. Physical fitness, sex considerations, and academy graduation for law enforcement recruits. J Strength Cond Res . 2020; 34(12):3356–63.

35.

Lockie

, Stierli

, Dawes

, Cesario

, Moreno

, Bloodgood

, Orr

, Dulla

. Are there similarities in physical fitness characteristics of successful candidates attending law enforcement training regardless of training cohort. Trainology . 2018; 7(1):5–9.

36.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Orr

, Dulla

. Recruit fitness standards from a large law enforcement agency: between-class comparisons, percentile rankings, and implications for physical training. J Strength Cond Res . 2020; 34(4):934–41.

37.

Lockie

, Ruvalcaba

, Stierli

, Dulla

, Dawes

, Orr

. Waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio in law enforcement agency recruits: Relationship to performance in physical fitness tests. J Strength Cond Res . 2020; 34(6):1666–75.

38.

Augustsson

, Bersås

, Thomas

, Sahlberg

, Augustsson

, Svantesson

. Gender differences and reliability of selected physical performance tests in young women and men. Advances in Physiotherapy . 2009; 11, 64–70.

39.

Orr

, Dawes

, Pope

, Terry

. Assessing differences in anthropometric and fitness characteristics between police academy cadets and incumbent officers. J Strength Cond Res . 2018; 32(9):2632–41.

40.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Kornhauser

, Holmes

. Cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis of the effects of age on flexibility, strength endurance, lower-body power, and aerobic fitness in law enforcement officers. J Strength Cond Res . 2019; 33(2):451–8.

41.

Cesario

, Dulla

, Bloodgood

, Moreno

, Dawes

, Lockie

. Relationships between assessments in a physical ability test for law enforcement: Is there redundancy in certain assessments?International Journal of Exercise Science.2018; 11, 1063–73.

42.

Cocke

, Dawes

, Orr

. The use of 2 conditioning programs and the fitness characteristics of police academy cadets. Journal of Athletic Training . 2016; 51(11):887–96.

43.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Dulla

, Orr

. Extending research on law enforcement academy graduation and fitness: A research note on receiver operating characteristic curves. J Strength Cond Res . 2022; 36(7):2018–22.

44.

Lockie

, Hernandez

, Moreno

, Dulla

, Dawes

, Orr

. 2. 4-km run and 20-m multistage fitness test relationships in law enforcement recruits after academy training. J Strength Cond Res . 2020; 34(4):942–5.

45.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Moreno

, Cesario

, Balfany

, Stierli

, Dulla

, Orr

. Relationship between the 20-m multistage fitness test and 2. 4km run in law enforcement recruits. J Strength Cond Res . 2021; 35(10):2756–61.

46.

Bloodgood

, Dawes

, Orr

, Stierli

, Cesario

, Moreno

, Dulla

, Lockie

. Effects of sex and age on physical testing performance for law enforcement agency candidates: implications for academy training. J Strength Cond Res . 2021; 35(9):2629–35.

47.

Lockie

, Dawes

, Orr

, Stierli

, Dulla

, Orjalo

. Analysis of the effects of sex and age on upper- and lower-body power for law enforcement agency recruits before academy training. J Strength Cond Res . 2018; 32(7):1968–74.

48.

Gamage

, Weerahandi

. Size performance of some tests in one-way anova. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation . 1998; 27(3):625–40.

49.

Krueger

, Chan

Patrol officer physical demands study. California Commisson on Peace Officer Standards and Training [cited December 11 2022]; 284]. (2019). Available from:https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs/publications/Patrol_Officer_Physical_Demands_Study.pdf

50.

Lockie

, Dulla

, Orr

, Dawes

. The 20m multistage fitness test and 2.4km run: applications to law enforcement fitness assessment.. Strength & Conditioning Journal . 2021; 43(6):68–75.

51.

Post

, Dawes

, Lockie

. Relationships between tests of strength, power, and speed and the 75-yard pursuit run. J Strength Cond Res . 2022; 36(1):99–105.

52.

Shusko

, Benedetti

, Korre

, Eshleman

, Farioli

, Christophi

, Kales

. Recruit fitness as a predictor of police academy graduation. Occ Med . 2017; 67(7):555–61.

53.

Dawes

, Lockie

, Orr

, Kornhauser

, Holmes

. Initial fitness testing scores as a predictor of police academy graduation. J Aust Strenth Cond . 2019; 27, 30–37.

54.

Rodas

, Dulla

, Moreno

, Bloodgood

, Thompson

, Orr

, Dawes

, Lockie

. The effects of traditional versus ability-based physical training on the health and fitness of custody assistant recruits. Int J Exerc Sci . 2022; 15(3):1641–60.

55.

Wilson

, Dalton

, Scheer

, Grammich

Police recruitment and retention for the new millenium. Rand Corporation [cited December 10 2022]; (2010).Available from:https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG959.pdf.

56.

Pope

, Herbert

, Kirwan

, Graham

. Predicting attrition in basic military training. Mil Med . 1999; 164(10):710–4.

57.

Orr

, Stewart

, Pope

, Stierli

, Hinton

Musculoskeletal fitness as a predictor of injury during police academy training: A retrospective cohort study.World Confederation for Physical Therapy Congress 2017.; Cape Town, South Africa.

58.

Orr

, Stierli

, Hinton

, Steele

, editors. The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Assessment as a predictor of injury risk in police recruits. Tactical Strength and Conditioning Conference; 2013; Melbourne, Austrailia.

59.

Zimmerman

. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Factors in Law Enforcement Personnel: A Comprehensive Review. Cardiology in Review . 2012; 20(4):159–66.