The College at Brockport: State University of New York

Digital Commons @Brockport

Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education
Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education
Faculty Publications

2005

Introduction to the Brockport Physical Fitness

Technical Manual
Joseph P. Winnick
The College at Brockport, jwinnick@brockport.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/pes_facpub

Part of the Kinesiology Commons

Repository Citation
Winnick, Joseph P., "Introduction to the Brockport Physical Fitness Technical Manual" (2005). Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical
Education Faculty Publications. 9.
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/pes_facpub/9
Citation/Publisher Attribution:
Winnick, Joseph P. (2005). Introduction to the Brockport Physical Fitness Technical Manual. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
22(4), 315-322.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education at Digital Commons @Brockport. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital
Commons @Brockport. For more information, please contact kmyers@brockport.edu.
ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 2005, 22, 315-322
© 2005 Human Kinetics, Inc.

introduction to the Brockport Physicai

Fitness Test Technicai Manual
Joseph P. Winnick
State University of New York, College at Brockport

Health-related criterion-referenced physical fitness has developed into an

important domain for all youngsters in American schools. Although considered
important for youngsters with or without disabilities, much less attention has been
given to measuring and assessing health-related physical fitness of youngsters with
disabilities. The Brockport Physical Fitness Test (BPFT) was developed as a health-
related criterion- referenced test of fitness as a part of a federal grant entitled Proj-
ect Target: Criterion-Referenced Physical Fitness Standards for Adolescents with
Disabilities. This special issue of the Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly (APAQ)
presents the conceptual framework for the BPFT and the technical information
used as a basis for the selection of test items and standards associated with the test.
Technical information is presented in separate articles covering aerobic function-
ing, body composition, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility/range
of motion. This first article introduces the reader to health-related fitness testing.
Project Target, the BPFT, the general organization of information in this issue, and
key contributors to Project Target and the development of the BPFT.

Early Health-Related Physical Fitness Tests

Since 1980 there have been two important advances regarding physical fitness
testing. The first was the distinction between health-related and skill-related fitness
and the second was the assessment of participant performance against criterion-
referenced standards rather than norm-referenced standards. Examples of health
related physical fitness tests developed and published since the 1980s have included
the South Carolina Physical Fitness Test (Pate, 1983); the FITNESSGRAM tests
(Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, 1987,2004); the Physical Best developed
by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
(AAHPHERD; McSwegin, Pemberton, Petray, & Going, 1989); and the President's
Challenge (President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 2004). Although
these tests acknowledge the need for modifications and accommodations for
youngsters with disabilities in their test administration information, none provide
specific criterion-referenced standards for youngsters with disabilities. Each was

Joseph P. Winnick is Distinguished Service Professor with the Department of Physical Education
and Sport, State University of New York, College at Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420. E-mail:
jwinnick@brockport.edu.

315
316 Winnick

clearly developed for populations without disabilities. As stated in the Physical Best
manual, "Unfortunately, there is not enough objective information on the health and
fitness status of many handicapped individuals; therefore, it is difficult to provide
specific standards and guidelines" (McSwegin et al., 1989, p. 23). Project Target
was designed to address the need for health-related criterion-referenced tests and
standards appropriate for youngsters with disabilities.

Project Target
Between 1993 and 1998, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services funded Project Target, a research study
designed to develop a health-related, criterion-referenced physical fitness test for
youngsters ages 10 to 17 with disabilities. The project was entitled "Project Target:
Criterion-Referenced Physical Fitness Standards for Adolescents with Disabili-
ties." Project Target was centered at the State University of New York, College at
Brockport, directed by Joseph P. Winnick and coordinated by Francis X. Short.
The essence of the project was to develop standards for the attainment of healthful
living through physical fitness and to enhance the development of health-related
fitness of youngsters with disabilities.
The project created the Brockport Physical Fitness Test (BPFT; Winnick &
Short, 1999a), including criterion-referenced standards for adolescents with mental
retardation and mild limitations infitness(MR), visual impairments (blindness; VI),
cerebral palsy (CP), spinal cord injury (SCI), and congenital anomaly/amputation
(CA/A). Readers are referred to the BPFT test manual (Winnick & Short, 1999a)
for more detail. The test also provided a process that could be employed to develop
a test and standards for youngsters with other disabilities.

Technical Information
The infonnation included in this special issue presents technical information
associated with the BPFT. It is drawn from the technical manual developed in
connection with the final Project Target report submitted to the U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Winnick
& Short, 1998) and subsequently published as apart of the Physical Challenge
software (Winnick & Short, 1999b) associated with the BPFT. Although presented
in the software package, it became evident that the information presented in this
manner was not reaching the desired population for which it was intended. The
authors had hoped that publishing the information in software associated with the
BPFT would serve to educate professionals, especially those interested in research,
about health-related physical fitness, the current status of assessment associated
with the BPFT, and suggestions for further research. Instead, the authors continu-
ally received requests for information about these topics. It became obvious that
the software was not reaching interested persons and that another strategy was
necessary to disseminate the information. This special issue provides the technical
infonnation undergirding the BPFT. Although most of the information presented
represents the original information presented in the final report of Project Target
and the Physical Challenge software, it has been reorganized slightly and updated
 introduction 317

to provide more recent information on the topic. Thus, this special issue presents
the basis and rationale for the selection of test items and health-related criterion-
referenced standards associated with the BPFT. To best understand the rationale
for the selection of test items and standards, readers should be familiar with the
conceptual framework presented in the next article of this issue.
In developing the BPFT, it was decided to select FITNESSGRAM as an impor-
tant reference for test construction. FITNESSGRAM was adopted by AAHPERD as
its recommended test of health-related physical fitness for youngsters without dis-
abilities and was considered to be conceptually consistent with the goals of Project
Target. Also, this coordination with FITNESSGRAM would enhance inclusionary
practices at the practitioner level. Thus, the rationale for the items and standards
recommended for the general population already have been presented. Readers are
referred to The Prudential HTNESSGRAM Technical Reference Manual (Mon-ow,
Falls, & Kohl, 1994) for much of this material. Emphasis in this issue is placed on
the conceptual framework and rationale for selecting test items and standards for
youngsters with disabilities.
The selection of test items and standards for the BPFT was influenced by
years of previous research in adapted physical activity, data collected on 1,542
youngsters over the life of Project Target, and the opinions of a panel of experts
in the areas of health, fitness, and adapted physical activity. The final product rep-
resents a good beginning for health-related criterion-referenced physical fitness
assessment related to youngsters with disabilities. After reading this issue, it will
be very clear, however, that this area is fertile ground for further research activity
and hopefully the information presented will serve as a good foundation and point
of departure for future work.
The BPFT includes 27 different test items under three components of health-
related physical fitness: aerobic functioning, body composition, and musculosk-
eletal functioning (muscular strength/endurance and flexibility/range of motion).
Criterion-referenced (CR) standards are provided for all test items (see Table 1).
This issue is designed to provide interested readers with a detailed rationale for
the selection of test items and standards associated with the Brockport Physical
Fitness Test. Thus, it is consistent with the contemporary view that validity is the
degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretation of test scores entailed
by proposed users of tests (American Educational Research Association, AERA;
American Psychological Association, APA; and National Council on Measurement
in Education, NCME, 1999). Following the article focusing on the conceptual
framework for the BPFT, four additional articles associated with components or
subcomponents of health-related fitness are presented: aerobic functioning, body
composition, muscular strength and endurance, and fiexibility/range of motion.
(Muscular strength and endurance and fiexibility/range of motion are subcompo-
nents of musculoskeletal functioning, but are treated separately because ofthe large
number of items associated with this component.) Each article includes information
on validity and reliability.
The validity section of each article includes opening paragraphs to establish
that the fitness component, or subcomponent, in question does, in fact, relate to
health status. The opening paragraphs also attempt to define criterion levels of the
component that can be used as the basis for selecting health-related physical fitness
standards (critical values of VO^^^, percent body fat, etc.).
318 Winnick

Table 1 Components and Test Items for the Brockport Physicai

Fitness Test (BPFT)
Aerobic function
20-m PACER
Modified 16-m PACER
Target aerobic movement test (TAMT)
One-mile run/walk
Body composition
Skinfold measures
Body mass index (BMI)
Musculoskeletal function
Muscular strength and endurance Flexibility or range of motion
Bench Press Modified Apley test
Curl-up Back-saver sit and reach
Modified curl-up Shoulder stretch
Dumbbell press Modified Thomas test
Extended arm hang Target stretch test (TST)
Flexed arm hang
Dominant grip strength
Isometric push-up
Pull-up
Modified pull-up
Push-up
40-m push/walk
Reverse curl
Seated push-up
Trunk lift
Wheelchair ramp test
Note. From The Brockport Physical Fitness Training Guide, p. 3, by J. Winnick and F. Short, 1999c.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Reprinted with permission.

Following the validity section of each article, test items are presented with
available information on standards and attainability. Test items are linked to the com-
ponent or subcomponent of fitness being discussed. Readers must refer to the test
manual (Winnick & Short, 1999a) for a complete description of test protocols.
Standards are then discussed with each test item. The standards subsection
provides a rationale for recommended CR standards. Links between test scores
(laps, times, skinfolds, etc.) to criterion levels of the component (VO^^^^, percent
body fat, 20th percentile, etc.) are provided. We have linked standards to indices
of either physiological OT functional health. Physiological health is related to the
 introduction 319

organic well-being of the individual. Indices of physiological health include traits

or capacities that are associated with well-being, absence of a disease or condition,
or low risk of developing a disease or condition. Functional health is related to
the physical capability of the individual. Indices of functional health include the
ability to independently perform important tasks, such as activities of daily living
and the ability to sustain the performance of those tasks.
In the BPFT, health-related standards are either general or specific. A general
standard is one believed to be appropriate for the general population. A specific
standard is one that has been adjusted to account for the effects of a particular
impairment or disability on test performance. For many items, general standards
are provided for both minimal and preferred levels. A minimal general standard
represents the lowest acceptable criterion for health-related fitness for a particular
item for the general population. A preferred standard is established to represent a
good level of health-related fitness for members ofthe general population. In some
cases, only a single general standard is provided for a particular item. Youngsters
who attain a single general standard also are considered to have reached a good
level of health-related fitness.
The attainability subsection typically reports passing rates for the various
tests by disability groups. In a strict theoretical sense, the issue of attainability in
the development of a criterion-referenced test is moot. CR standards are selected
because they are believed to reflect important elements of a particular domain (e.g.,
health). If the standards accurately reflect desirable levels of health-related fitness
the fact that they may be "too easy" or "too hard" technically is irrelevant. In a
practical sense, however, attainability is an important aspect in CR fitness devel-
opment, especially for youngsters with disabilities. One of the reasons for fitness
testing is to draw both student and teacher attention to the importance of fitness
and to motivate students to pursue higher (or at least healthy) levels of fitness.
When test items cannot be performed and/or standards are perceived as being out
of reach, the message seems to be that physical fitness is not an appropriate pursuit
for youngsters with disabilities. One of the goals of the BPFT, therefore, was to
select items and standards that could be linked to some index of health status but
also would be attainable for youngsters with disabilities.
A major section on reliability is also included in each ofthe four articles. Reli-
ability sections generally focus on available "norm-referenced reliability" data for
each test item. Test-retest information is expressed as either an interclass, intraclass,
or alpha reliability coefficient. Some "criterion-referenced reliability" data (i.e.,
consistency of classification) also are presented, although this information is more
limited. Each of the four articles concludes with implications for future research.

Advisory Committee and Consuitants

A very important step in conducting Project Target was to select an advisory com-
mittee and a panel of experts as well as a variety of consultants to provide overall
guidance and content validity. The advisory committee served as the project's panel
of experts. In concert with recommendations by Yun and Ulrich (2002), these per-
sons were extremely highly qualified and represented important perspectives from
multiple fields. The procedure employed in the project was to adopt recommenda-
tions from the panel of experts when total consensus was attained. Contributors as
320 Winnick

advisory committee members or consultants are presented in the next section with
their affiliation at the time of development of the BPFT.

Advisory Committee
Dr. Kirk J. Cureton (University of Georgia), a major contributor to the develop-
ment of the FITNESSGRAM, who wrote the technical reference material for
the measures of aerobic capacity associated with that test (Cureton, 1994);
Dr. Harold W. Kohl (Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research), a co-editor of
the technical reference manual for the FITNESSGRAM (Morrow, Falls, &
Kohl, 1994);
Dr. James H. Rimmer (University of Northern Illinois), an expert in adapted
physical education and author of Fitness and Rehabilitation Programs for
Special Populations (1999);
Dr. Margaret Jo Safrit (American University), an author in measurement and
evaluation in physical education and exercise science (Safrit, 1990);
Dr. Roy J. Shephard (University of Toronto and Brock University), a pre-
eminent authority on physical fitness of persons with disabilities and author
of Fitness in Special Populations (1990);
Dr. Kenneth J. Richter (Mercy Hospital, Pontiac, Michigan), medical director of
the United States Cerebral Palsy Athletic Association with particular expertise
in physical activity of persons with physical disabilities; and
Dr. Julian U. Stein (George Mason University), a distinguished authority on
adapted physical education with extensive experience particularly in the area
of mental retardation.

Consuitants
Project staff also drew upon the expertise of a number of consultants who are
authorities in their field. Among those who played significant roles as consultants
to Project Target were the following:
Mr. Jeffrey Jones (President, United States Cerebral Palsy Athletic Associa-
tion) and Dr. Michael Paciorek (Eastem Michigan University), who along with
advisory committee member Richter, provided valuable information on fitness
testing of youngsters with cerebral palsy;
Dr. Bo Femhall (George Washington University) and Dr. Ken Pitetti (Wichita
State University), who consulted on tests of aerobic functioning and were
principal investigators of a validation study on Project Target measures of
aerobic capacity using participants with mental retardation;
Dr. Paul Surburg (Indiana University), who critiqued Project Target field tests
and accompanying rationale and contributed to the flexibility/range of motion
chapter in the BPFT training manual;
 Introduction 321

Dr. Pat DiRocco (University of Wisconsin, La Crosse), who provided com-

mentary on Project Target field tests and contributed a chapter on muscular
strength and endurance in the BPFT training manual;
Dr. Timothy Lohman (University of Arizona), who provided standcirds for
certain measures of body composition and contributed to the subsequent article
in this issue on body composition, which included information on skinfolds
and body mass index;
Dr. Jeff McCubbin (Oregon State University) and Dr. Georgia Frey (Texas
A&M University), who contributed to the area of aerobic functioning; and
Dr. Stephen Klesius (University of South Florida), who filmed the adminis-
tration of virtually all Project Target test items and edited the instructional
videotape.

Closing Remarks
Health-related criterion-referenced physical fitness testing and assessment are
of vital importance in the lives of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately,
relatively little research has been systematically conducted to advance this area.
The development of the BPFT represents a comprehensive and serious attempt to
advance knowledge in this area. This special issue summarizes technical informa-
tion underlying the BPFT and suggests areas of need for future research. Hopefully,
scholars will reflect and build on this information to enhance the physiological and
functional health of individuals with disabilities.

References
American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for education and psycho-
logical testing. Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association.
Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research. (1987). FITNESSGRAM: User's manual. Dallas,
TX: Author.
Cooper Institute, Meredith, M. & Welk, G.J. (Ed.). (2004). FrTNESSGRAM ACTIVnYGRAM
test administration manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Cureton, K.J. (1994). Aerobic capacity. In J.R. Morrow, H.B. Falls, & H.W. Kohl (Eds.),
The Prudential FITNESSGRAM technical reference manual (pp. 33-55). Dallas, TX:
Cooper Institute for Aerobics Institute.
McSwegin, P., Pemberton, C , Petray, C , & Going S. (1989). Physical best. Reston, VA:
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Morrow, J.R., Falls, H.B., & Kohl, H.W. (Eds.). (1994). The Prudential FITNESSGRAM
technical reference manual. Dallas, TX: Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research.
Pate, R. (Ed.). (1983). South Carolina physical fitness test manual (2nd ed.) Columbia: South
Carolina Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. (2004). The president's challenge:
Physical activity & fitness awards program. Bloomington, IN: Author.
Yi. {\99A). Fitness and rehabilitationprogramsfor special populations.T)\ib\iqv&,
IA: Wm. C. Brown.
322 Winnick

Safrit, M. J. (1990). Introduction to measurement in physical education and exercise science.

(2"'' ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby.
Shephard, R.J. (1990). Fitness in special populations. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Winnick, J.R & Short, F.X. (1998). Project Target: Criterion-referenced physical fitness
standardsfor adolescents with disabilities: Final report. (Project no. H023C30091-95).
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
Brockport, NY: State University of New York, Brockport. (ERIC ED 433 627)
Winnick, J.P., & Short, EX. (1999a). The Brockport Physical Fitness Test. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Winnick, J.P. & Short, F.X. (1999b). Fitness challenge. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Winnick, J.R & Short, F.X. (1999c). The Brockport Physical Fitness Test training guide.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Yun, J. & Uhich, D.A. (2002). Estimating measurement validity: ATutodal. Adapted Physi-
cal Activity Quarterly, 19, 32-47.

Acknowledgments
The authors of this special issue would like to extend their gratitude for the help given
to this issue by William J. Merriman, Manhattan College; David L. Porretta, The Ohio State
University; and E. William Vogler, Southern Illinois University. These individuals reviewed
each of the manuscripts in this issue and made outstanding suggestions to improve them.
The Brockport Physical Fitness Test was developed as a result of Project Target funded
between 1993-98 by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, project number H023C30091-95. The contents of this project are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department
of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred.