standards ( Thompson, 2019 ), follow safety guidelines ( Côté, Bruner, Erickson, Strachan, & Fraser-Thomas, 2010 ), and continue to improve their professional knowledge ( Hedlund, Fletcher, Pack, & Dahlin, 2018 ). Due to the various situations (e.g., participation- vs. performance-based sport) in which
Lori Gano-Overway, Pete Van Mullem, Melissa Long, Melissa Thompson, Bob Benham, Christine Bolger, Andrew Driska, Anthony Moreno and Dan Schuster
Susan Wilkinson, Kay M. Williamson and Ruth Rozdilsky
Issues concerning children’s fitness levels and fitness tests have been prevalent in the literature. Topics include whether fitness levels of American youth have declined and whether fitness tests are reliable, valid, and appropriate. Schools have questioned the merit of fitness tests, as opposed to fitness as an activity toward a healthy lifestyle. Absent from discussion are various moral and ethical implications embedded in the differential performance criteria set for boys and girls of the same age. Given the physiological similarity between boys and girls until age 12, this study was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between fitness scores of boys and girls aged 10 through 13 years on the Physical Best test battery to warrant differential performance criteria. Girls were found to be significantly more flexible than boys on the sit and reach test, while boys performed significantly more pull-ups on the pull-up test. Prior to age 13 there were no statistically significant differences between mean fitness scores of girls and boys of the same age, even though established performance criteria are lower for girls than for boys. It is apparent that potential gender bias exists in the determination of Physical Best’s performance criteria for boys and girls. The consequences of differential expectations are discussed and a call for the re-evaluation of fitness standards are included.
Sofiya Alhassan, Christine W. St. Laurent, Sarah Burkart, Cory J. Greever and Matthew N. Ahmadi
constrained by other demands, such as meeting early education learning standards (state-mandated policies). Therefore, the majority of health behavior interventions that have been implemented by teachers have reported minimal to no significant change in health behaviors. 12 , 13 Such findings could
Matthew S. Tenan, Andrew J. Tweedell and Courtney A. Haynes
mean of the 6 visual assessments (2 from each investigator) was used as the ‘gold standard’ for contrasting with the algorithmic approaches. 2 , 14 Algorithmic Detection of Muscle Onset Prior to algorithmic analysis, the raw waveform was zero-lag bandpass filtered (10 Hz–1 kHz) to remove
Lauren Anne Lipker, Caitlyn Rae Persinger, Bradley Steven Michalko and Christopher J. Durall
ascertain the extent to which current evidence supports the use of BFR to reduce quadriceps muscle atrophy following ACLR in comparison with standard care. Focused Clinical Question Is BFR more effective than standard care for reducing quadriceps atrophy after ACLR? Summary of Search, “Best Evidence
C. Jessie Jones and Janie Clark
Because of the recognized value of exercise for older adults, senior fitness programs have been developed in various facilities throughout the United States and in many other countries. However, there appears to be a shortage of professionally trained senior fitness specialists to develop and instruct such programs. A number of professional health and fitness organizations/associations and individual entrepreneurs have developed training programs leading to some type of certification. However, because there are no published curriculum standards to guide the development of these training programs, they often lack components essential for teaching students how to instruct safe and effective classes for senior participants. Curriculum Standards to Prepare Senior Fitness Instructors, developed by a national coalition, were presented at the 1995 International Conference on Aging and Physical Activity in Colorado. This project was undertaken not to promote national certification or licensing but, rather, to help educators plan training programs. Input from the conferees was synthesized into the standards, which are provided in this paper.
Katelyn Barnes, Lauren Ball and Ben Desbrow
Personal trainers are well placed to provide nutrition care in line with their recommended scope of practice. However, providing nutrition care beyond their recommended scope of practice has been identified as an industry risk. The International Confederation of Registers for Exercise Professionals (ICREPs) have international standards for nutrition knowledge and skills that are recommended for all fitness professionals, including personal trainers. This study investigates whether the ICREPs standards align with i) national nutrition education standards and ii) national nutrition occupational standards and scopes of practice for personal trainers within ICREPs affiliated countries. Content analysis of each standard and/or scope of practice was undertaken to extract nutrition statements. Extracted statements were matched with nutrition components of the ICREPs standards to result in a score based on the number of aligned ICREPs knowledge and skills criteria. Ten countries, with 16 organizations, were identified as being involved in the development of national education standards, occupational standards, or scopes of practice for personal trainers. The educational and occupational standards varied widely among countries and had minimal alignment with the ICREPs standards. As such, the expected role of personal trainers in providing nutrition care appeared to differ between countries. Further work is required to support personal trainers to develop a level of knowledge and skills that enables the provision of safe, consistent, and effective nutrition care.
Asunción Ferri-Morales, Marcus Vinicius Nascimento-Ferreira, Dimitris Vlachopoulos, Esther Ubago-Guisado, Ana Torres-Costoso, Augusto Cesar F. De Moraes, Alan R. Barker, Luis A. Moreno, Vicente Martínez-Vizcaino and Luis Gracia-Marco
). Consequently, %BF is routinely measured among athletes, and therefore, valid and accessible tools are needed for an accurate measure. To date, there is no universally applicable criterion or “gold standard” methodology for body composition assessment. Multicomponent models ( 38 ) or hydrodensitometry ( 11 , 13
Mark R. Lafave, Nicholas G. Mohtadi and Denise S. Chan
Edited by Gary Wilkerson
Evaluation of musculoskeletal injuries requires special knowledge and skills that are shared by different health professions, but the process used to establish a diagnosis is not necessarily the same. Medicine has employed the objective structured clinical exams (OSCE) to assess clinical competence. The performances of two Canadian athletic therapists were assessed by two different methods for assessment of clinical competence in the evaluation of knee injuries. On the basis of existing standards, both of the athletic therapists would have passed the examination using the Standardized Orthopedic Assessment Tool currently used to assess the clinical competence of athletic therapy students, but both would have failed using the Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine OSCE for sport medicine physicians. The failure could be because the performances of only two subjects were assessed, but it could also be because different constructs are represented by the two methods. If we truly want to provide patient-centered care, it should be important to have similar standards, regardless of the clinician’s professional discipline.
Anita N. Lee
Coaches’ achievement is commonly evaluated by competition results or winning percentages. Teams with high winning percentages, rankings, or outstanding competition results are not only contributed by coaches, but also efforts of athletes and other stakeholders. The Standard 40 of the National Standards for Sport Coaches (2006) is to “utilize an objective and effective process for evaluation of self and staff,” which requires coaches to have the knowledge, abilities, and skills (KASs) to “collect direct feedback from athletes and identify ways to improve techniques and coaching style” and being able to perform “self-evaluation for professional growth and development” (NASPE, 2006, p. 23). The benchmarks of Standard 40 include input that should be collected from all stakeholders, such as athletes, parents, guardians, athletic administrators, and other coaches (NASPE, 2006). An effective program requires a coach to have effective communication skills, inter- and intra-personal interaction skills, leadership, and administrative skills, be able to provide positive and corrective feedback to athletes, and have the KASs to coach a sport in a selected competitive level. Evaluation methods are categorized into self-evaluation and evaluation by others, which include journals/dairies, video-analyses, checklists, surveys, and meetings/discussions. The advantages of journals/diaries are short and easy to write, and easy to retrieve and re-read, but coaches may not spend time to re-read them again. Video analyses are a great tool to allow multiple evaluators to observe coaching performance without time limit. Videos can be replayed, played in slow motion, placed online, and emailed to other evaluators to save travel time and cost. However, video analyses are time consuming to watch. It also requires video-taping equipments and skills. Checklists and surveys are easy to use, and can be used with a large number of participants, but they require specific skills to develop valid and reliable instruments. The response rate may be low unless the stakeholders are mandated to complete and return the checklists and surveys. Meetings and discussions allow direct feedback collection and conversations, but they could be redundant unless concise meeting agenda and discussion questions are designed.