OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and validity of measures taken during the Chester step test (CST) used to predict VO(2)max and prescribe subsequent exercise. METHODS: The CST was performed twice on separate days by 7 males and 6 females aged 22.4 (SD 4.6) years. Heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and oxygen uptake (VO(2)) were measured at each stage of the CST. RESULTS: RPE, HR, and actual VO(2) were the same at each stage for both trials but each of these measures was significantly different between CST stages (p<0.0005). Intertrial bias +/-95% limits of agreement (95% LoA) of HR reached acceptable limits at CST stage IV (-2+/-10 beats/min) and for RPE at stages III (0.2+/-1.4) and IV (0.5+/-1.9). Age estimated HRmax significantly overestimated actual HRmax of 5 beats/min (p = 0.016) and the 95% LoA showed that this error could range from an underestimation of 17 beats/min to an overestimation of 7 beats/min. Estimated versus actual VO(2) at each CST stage during both trials showed errors ranging between 11% and 19%. Trial 1 underestimated actual VO(2)max by 2.8 ml/kg/min (p = 0.006) and trial 2 by 1.6 ml/kg/min (not significant). The intertrial agreement in predicted VO(2)max was relatively narrow with a bias +/-95% LoA of -0.8+/-3.7 ml/kg/min. The RPE and %HRmax (actual) correlation improved with a second trial. At all CST stages in trial 2 RPE:%HRmax coefficients were significant with the highest correlations at CST stages III (r = 0.78) and IV (r = 0.84). CONCLUSION: CST VO(2)max prediction validity is questioned but the CST is reliable on a test-retest basis. VO(2)max prediction error is due more to VO(2) estimation error at each CST stage compared with error in age estimated HRmax. The HR/RPE relation at >50% VO(2)max reliably represents the recommended intensity for developing cardiorespiratory fitness, but only when a practice trial of the CST is first performed.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and validity of measures taken during the Chester step test (CST) used to predict VO(2)max and prescribe subsequent exercise. METHODS: The CST was performed twice on separate days by 7 males and 6 females aged 22.4 (SD 4.6) years. Heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and oxygen uptake (VO(2)) were measured at each stage of the CST. RESULTS: RPE, HR, and actual VO(2) were the same at each stage for both trials but each of these measures was significantly different between CST stages (p<0.0005). Intertrial bias +/-95% limits of agreement (95% LoA) of HR reached acceptable limits at CST stage IV (-2+/-10 beats/min) and for RPE at stages III (0.2+/-1.4) and IV (0.5+/-1.9). Age estimated HRmax significantly overestimated actual HRmax of 5 beats/min (p = 0.016) and the 95% LoA showed that this error could range from an underestimation of 17 beats/min to an overestimation of 7 beats/min. Estimated versus actual VO(2) at each CST stage during both trials showed errors ranging between 11% and 19%. Trial 1 underestimated actual VO(2)max by 2.8 ml/kg/min (p = 0.006) and trial 2 by 1.6 ml/kg/min (not significant). The intertrial agreement in predicted VO(2)max was relatively narrow with a bias +/-95% LoA of -0.8+/-3.7 ml/kg/min. The RPE and %HRmax (actual) correlation improved with a second trial. At all CST stages in trial 2 RPE:%HRmax coefficients were significant with the highest correlations at CST stages III (r = 0.78) and IV (r = 0.84). CONCLUSION: CST VO(2)max prediction validity is questioned but the CST is reliable on a test-retest basis. VO(2)max prediction error is due more to VO(2) estimation error at each CST stage compared with error in age estimated HRmax. The HR/RPE relation at >50% VO(2)max reliably represents the recommended intensity for developing cardiorespiratory fitness, but only when a practice trial of the CST is first performed.
Authors: B E Ainsworth; W L Haskell; A S Leon; D R Jacobs; H J Montoye; J F Sallis; R S Paffenbarger Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Francesco Sartor; Gianluca Vernillo; Helma M de Morree; Alberto G Bonomi; Antonio La Torre; Hans-Peter Kubis; Arsenio Veicsteinas Journal: Sports Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Jérémy B Coquart; Roger G Eston; Timothy D Noakes; Claire Tourny-Chollet; Maxime L'hermette; Frédéric Lemaître; Murielle Garcin Journal: Sports Med Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Richard W Bohannon; Deborah J Bubela; Ying-Chih Wang; Susan S Magasi; Richard C Gershon Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.775