Change in Physical Education Motivation and Physical Activity Behavior

Measurement in Physical Educationand Exercise Science, 12: 167–183, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN 1091-367X print / 1532-7841 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10913670802216148

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

The Responsible Use of Youth FitnessTesting to Enhance Student Motivation,

Enjoyment, and Performance

Lenny D. Wiersma and Clay P. ShermanCenter for the Advancement of Responsible Youth Sport

California State University, Fullerton

While physical fitness testing has the potential to invoke embarrassment andanxiety, strategies can be developed that can motivate students to exert maximaleffort, provide positive feedback on skill improvement, and encourage students toset fitness goals that can be achieved through developmentally appropriate physicalactivities. The purpose of this article is to discuss relevant psychological theoriesthat explain factors related to students’ performance on fitness testing, as well asto provide instructional strategies that minimize adverse reactions to fitness testingand that maximize effort, enjoyment, and motivation. Throughout the article, weaddress the relationship of physical fitness testing to several psychological factorssuch as perceptions of competence, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, enjoyment,goal orientation, and physical activity promotion.

Key words: Children, fitness, motivation

Highly publicized comparisons of fitness scores between U.S. and Europeanchildren in the 1950s were a major impetus for the initial use of standardizedfitness testing in schools. On the Kraus-Weber Test of Minimal Muscular Fitness,

Correspondence should be sent to Lenny D. Wiersma, 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA92834-3599. E-mail: [email protected]

168 WIERSMA AND SHERMAN

only 42% of American children met minimal fitness standards compared to92% of European youth (Kraus & Hirschland, 1954). In response, PresidentDwight D. Eisenhower initiated the President’s Council on Youth Fitness in1956, requiring regular fitness testing of children in American schools. PresidentJohn F. Kennedy, in his 1960 article The Soft American published in SportsIllustrated, defended the use of fitness testing as a means toward defending ournation should the U.S. enter the Cold War. The President stated,

The harsh fact of the matter is that there is an increasingly large number of youngAmericans who are getting soft. And such softness on the part of individual citizenscan help to strip and destroy the vitality of a nation� � � The stamina and strengthwhich the defense of liberty requires are not the product of a few weeks’ basictraining or a month’s conditioning. These only come from bodies which havebeen conditioned by a lifetime of participation in sports and interest in physicalactivity. Our struggles against aggressors throughout our history have been wonon the playgrounds and corner lots and fields of America. Thus, in a very real andimmediate sense, our growing softness, our increasing lack of physical fitness, isa menace to our security. (p. 16)

Almost immediately, critics of fitness testing deemed it inappropriate as a centralfocus to Physical Education programs. Oberteuffer (1963) claimed, “Bludgeonedby a Presidential plea for physical fitness, we reluctantly test and exercise, pullup, and run-walk 600 yards, thus chasing a biological end which not only has norelation to the educative process, but which has a built-in factor which doomsthe program to fail in our society” (p. 254).

The focus of fitness scores as an extrinsic motive to be fit has, no doubt,contributed to the negative characterization of physical fitness testing in schoolsfor the last half-century. With a modern emphasis on standardized testing forcomparative purposes (normative or criterion-related), and the negative mediaattention that often accompanies low fitness scores of schoolchildren (e.g., Leal& Agopian, 2005), it is reasonable that critics have decried fitness testing as“demeaning, embarrassing, or uncomfortable” (Rowland, 1995) and questionedtheir continued usage (Cale, Harris, & Chen, 2007; Naughton, Carlson, &Greene, 2006).

We believe that fitness testing can be a positive and enjoyable experience anda useful tool to motivate youth to be physically active if used in a developmen-tally appropriate manner as one aspect of a comprehensive physical educationcurriculum and if delivered in a positive and supportive environment. This articleis divided into two major sections. In the first section, we outline the psycho-logical factors that impact students’ performance on fitness tests, tying theminto relevant theories of motivation and competence. The second section willoutline possible psychological reactions to, and outcomes of, fitness testing and

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FITNESS TESTING 169

provide instructional strategies related to the delivery and protocol of physicalfitness testing in a manner that may enhance physical education experiences.Throughout, our objective is to address psychological considerations relatedto (a) improving children’s performance and enhancing children’s experiencesduring fitness assessments, and (b) the positive implementation of fitness testinginto school curricula.

PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES IMPACTINGCHILDREN’S FITNESS PERFORMANCE AND

TESTING EXPERIENCE

Researchers using youth fitness scores attempt to make associations betweenfitness levels and various criterion variables, such as academic achievement(California Department of Education [CDE], 2005; Grissom, 2005; Singh &McMahan, 2006), delinquent tendencies (Sherman & Wiersma, 2005), or diseaserisk (Kim et al., 2005; Ruiz et al., 2007). Moreover, fitness scores are used asdependent variables to test physical activity intervention effectiveness (Bush,Pittman, McKay, Ortiz, Wong, & Klish, 2007; Eliakim, Nemet, Balakirski, &Epstein, 2007), to analyze physical education or physical activity programs(Annesi, Westcott, Faigenbaum, & Unruh, 2005; Carrel, Clark, Peterson,Eickhoff, & Allen, 2007), or to create a depiction of fitness levels in childrencompared to past generations (Morrow, 2005; Tomkinson, Leger, Olds, &Cazorla, 2003). Any inferences about scores, however, are limited to the extentto which they are reflective of children’s actual fitness levels. The validity ofthese inferences is contingent on psychological variables that impact children’sperformance.

Internal validity refers to the extent to which scores on an assessment arereflective of the actual performance of the participant rather than some other,outside explanation or factor. Potential threats to internal validity in fitnesstesting may include, among many other things, psychological or motivationalfactors that may impact on children’s performance, the two most important ofwhich are motivation and effort. To put it simply, why would a student wantto perform well on standardized fitness testing? What rewards—intrinsic orextrinsic—are generally present to bring out the student’s greatest effort? In theabsence of positive motivation and concerted effort, is it likely that children’sscores are reflective of actual fitness levels? Delivering fitness testing in a mannerthat increases motivation and effort will increase the internal validity of fitnesstesting in youth and, more importantly, may contribute to students’ perceptionsof efficacy, enjoyment, and interest in physical activity.

This section will overview three psychological theories that relate tomaximizing students’ performance on fitness testing and that provide an


understanding of how testing can lead to positive affective outcomes such ascompetence and enjoyment. The theories include the psychological aspects ofgoal orientation (Nicholls, 1984, 1989), competence motivation (Harter, 1981),and cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Goal-Orientation Theory

According to the goal-orientation theory, students can be motivated by a task (ormastery) orientation, focusing on personal improvement, learning, and effort, orby an ego (or performance) orientation through which a focus on comparisonswith others is of primary importance (Ames & Archer, 1988; Duda & Nicholls,1992; Nicholls, 1984, 1989). Research in physical activity and sport environ-ments has found that students with a task orientation perform well in settingsin which personal improvement and skill mastery is reinforced, while studentswith an ego orientation who have high perceptions of competence perform wellwith social comparisons and challenges (Duda, 1989; Roberts & Treasure, 1995).Conversely, task-oriented individuals who perceive an overemphasis on publicevaluation may perform poorly or anxiously, while ego-oriented individuals havea tendency to give up easily if they cannot perform as well as their peers “asa strategy to avoid embarrassment and maintain perceptions of competence”(Solomon, 1996, p. 737).

Administrators of fitness tests should keep in mind that different strategies canbe used to enhance motivation and effort for children of differing achievementgoal orientations. In our field-based testing of elementary school children, wehave found success in many of these strategies (offered throughout this article)and have observed high levels of effort from students as a result. It is importantto note that fitness testing is only one part of physical education programs andis usually not a primary criterion for a student’s grade, and it can be integratedas an important aspect of a well-balanced program. Administering fitness testsas a one-time assessment to fulfill district or state requirements makes testingan isolated part of the curriculum and does not establish sufficient buy-in fromstudents about its importance. Teachers or administrators who adopt a tone that“testing is mandated and we need to get it out of the way so we can get backto our curriculum” send that message to the students, who in turn will likelyperform in the same nondescript manner.

Teaching students the skills to be tested, such as the appropriate form forpush-ups or pacing techniques for aerobic capacity measures, and providingtime in class throughout the year to practice the skills, will allow for a focuson mastery and improvement. Providing opportunities to perform the skillswithout being tested may build students’ competence and allow them to practicewithout the pressure to perform. Administering fitness tests by rotating studentsin small groups based on similar skill or fitness levels reduces the possibility of


embarrassment from lower-skilled students performing in front of other studentsand allows for more favorable comparisons with peers. While others have arguedthat fitness testing may demotivate lower skilled children or discourage them tobe physically fit (Corbin, Pangrazi, & Welk, 1995; Rowland, 1995), we believethat a testing environment can be created that encourages even the least-skilledor least-fit children to try their best in testing situations.

Students to whom social comparison is important also may be motivated toperform well on fitness testing. These students tend to have higher perceptions ofcompetence, are often well-skilled, and regularly participate in physical activities.Challenges tend to work well for this group, and they function as an importantand relevant form of incentive to try hard. For instance, students who are egooriented can be motivated by knowing performance-based percentile ranks, classhigh scores, or performance on previous tests. If a small group of such studentsis tested together, they can encourage each other and support each other to reachhigh standards. While this form of motivation does not work for all children, itcan be used responsibly for some children who would benefit from these motives.

Competence Motivation

The development of competence is considered a primary motivation for youngpeople to engage in a task (Harter, 1981). Engaging in a task does not mean justdoing it, but investing one’s attention and effort into it and challenging oneselfto improve. According to the Competence Motivation theory, individuals engagein an activity for the purpose of mastery, which serves as a reward in and ofitself; information reinforcing perceptions of competence increases enjoyment ofthe task which, in turn, leads to continued challenge and improvement (Harter,1981). Competence can be derived through one’s own assessment of performance(which is difficult for young performers but becomes more refined as a childmatures) or through the feedback provided by others, most notably teachers,parents, coaches, or peers.

The role of fitness testing in the development of competence is thus dependenton the extent to which performance on early mastery attempts leads to a desire toget better at the task and to be excited for future mastery attempts. Undoubtedly,students who do not perform well on such tests can internalize that informationand can be less motivated to display their (lack of) fitness to other students. Theconverse holds true for those who perform well on the tests and who internalizethat success such that they are motivated to continue doing the task in the future.The key is how the teacher or administrator of the tests uses test results in amanner that can motivate all students regardless of perceived ability.

Using performance indicators on physical fitness tests can be a motivationaltool for students of all abilities. If similar tests are used year to year, and teachersfocus on and reinforce improvement, students could be provided with feedback


that they are, in fact, becoming more skilled at certain tasks, more fit, andhealthier compared to previous years. While improvement over time (year toyear) is related to natural growth and biological maturity, healthy fitness zonesare established relative to age and can be used to monitor progress controllingfor maturation throughout childhood and adolescence. During an academic year,students can be guided to plot their scores over testing occasions and use previousscores to develop reasonable, challenging, and specific goals related to specificfitness areas. Prior to subsequent testing, teachers can ask a student, “Look at thenumber of push-ups you completed in the November test. Compare that to thehealthy fitness range chart. What can you do in the next 6 weeks to improve?”This dialogue, with goal development, can be used to guide all children to besuccessful, not just those whose perceptions of ability are already high.

Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Another theory of motivation relevant to the psychology of fitness testingis Deci and Ryan’s (1985) conceptualization of cognitive evaluation theory,which posits that perceptions of competence, effort, and enjoyment are influ-enced by perceptions of control and choice. To the extent that young peoplereceive feedback about ability and attribute that performance to intrinsic versusextrinsic factors, they become more or less motivated to engage in that task.Extrinsic factors in a performer’s environment can have a negative impacton one’s intrinsic motivation, and positive information about an individual’sperformance may enhance motivation while negative information may reduceit. In this regard, the use of normative feedback (percentile ranks or physicalfitness awards, for example) versus criterion-referenced feedback (i.e., healthyfitness zones) may have differential effects on motivation. Whitehead and Corbin(1991), for example, presented bogus feedback to students based on whetherthey performed at a higher or a lower percentile rank (when no such data wereactually collected) and found that students who were told that they were in alow ranking (“Compared to other junior high school boys/girls your score is inthe bottom 20% range”) had subsequent decreases in intrinsic motivation. Theresearchers concluded that “interpreting fitness results through percentile-basedcategorization may reduce the intrinsic motivation of those who need it themost—those relatively low in fitness” (p. 229).

Practitioners can deliver fitness testing with these theories in mind. We agreewith a number of researchers (Cale & Harris, 2005; Freedson & Rowland, 1992;Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994; Morrow, 2005) that children should receive infor-mation relative to a healthy fitness standard (criterion) rather than a normativerank and that grading students based on fitness scores is inappropriate and doesnot promote students to increase physical activity levels (Corbin, 2002; Corbinet al., 1995). Focusing on controllable factors such as effort (“I know some of


you are not really excited about running today, but let’s try to get your heartrate to the upper end of your range”) or attention (“It’s really important that youfocus on your pacing when you run back and forth—try to get about 2 secondsrest between laps”) downplays the role of environmental or genetic factors thatmay influence fitness levels.

Putting fitness testing into a proper motivational context will vary basedon the personality and achievement orientation of students in a testing cohort.The first author has used different strategies to introduce the FITNESSGRAM®

(Meredith & Welk, 2005) to children in an after-school physical activity programin which testing was used to measure intervention effectiveness. Children weretested in small groups and rotated through stations, some of which were othertests and some of which were small group games; the testing was spread outover several days to allow for smaller group assessment. The small groupswere put together based on similar skill level and motivation of the studentsonce these aspects became clear. For a group of 11-year-old boys who werephysically fit and who also had competitive sport experience (in this case,soccer), the FITNESSGRAM® was introduced as a battery of tests similarto those used by professional scouts in the National Football League, MajorLeague Baseball, and Major League Soccer. The boys were told that fitnesswas an important part of playing sports and that teams needed to see how fitpotential players were to decide if they should be drafted. The boys linkedwhat they were about to do with an activity performed by their role modelsand were noticeably interested in performing the tests with excitement andeffort. Another benefit of this approach is that it potentially bridges the gapbetween performing a fitness task with something relevant and meaningful totheir lives, something that is commonly lacking in youth fitness testing situations(Hopple & Graham, 1995).

A small group of girls, in contrast, were introduced to the tests and weretold that it would be interesting to see how they could perform compared to theboys. As this group of girls was developmentally more advanced at age 11 thantheir male classmates, this was not only a reasonable comparison to make, butit made the girls excited about the prospect of comparing favorably and gettingexcited to rise to the challenge. We understand that these approaches wouldlikely not be approved of by those who differentiate sports performance fromphysical activity testing (in the case of the boys) or who discourage comparisonto others (as in the case of the girls), especially in light of what was discussed inthe previous paragraphs. The point is that different motivational strategies canbe used depending on the situation, and, as stated earlier, while an approachmay not work with everybody, it can be used when it may be appropriate.Maximizing student motivation and effort is necessary to make proper inferencesabout fitness test results, and creating a motivating and positive environmentin which all students strive for high performance is challenging but possible.


Knowing one’s students—their levels of efficacy and motivational orientation,for example—is critical in this regard and is reflective of the student-centeredapproach that is embraced by effective educators.

STRATEGIES FOR EDUCATIONALLY ANDPSYCHOLOGICALLY SOUND FITNESS TESTING

Unlike standardized testing in the classroom (such as in math or reading),physical fitness tests can be physically and emotionally uncomfortable. Tests tofatigue (such as in running to exhaustion [i.e., the PACER (Progressive AerobicCardiovascular Endurance Run)] or the flexed-arm hang), as well as maximaltests of strength (such as push-ups or curl-ups), generally lead to some degree ofdiscomfort. These feelings may be especially uncomfortable (and even foreign)to children who are not regularly active and are not used to exerting themselvesphysically. Moreover, when students are tested in a public setting in which othersobserve, or when they perform alongside their peers, they may be more likely toinvoke peer comparison and feel embarrassed if they do not appear to performfavorably. Results that provide potentially embarrassing feedback to students onvariables, such as skinfold measurements or height and weight measures, alsohave the potential to affect students emotionally. While this may, to some extent,exist with classroom-based achievement tests, we believe it is more likely toexist in physical education settings. Teachers have a responsibility, therefore,to conduct the testing in a caring and sensitive manner and to be aware of thepotential negative implications that could accompany fitness testing.

The previous section outlined the importance of accounting for motivation andeffort in making valid inferences about scores from physical fitness test results.The primary purpose of this section is to examine physical fitness testing fromthe psychological perspective in terms of how testing is described, developed,and evaluated in the schools and its potential impact on students. It is notedthat fitness testing should not exist apart from a well-designed and developmen-tally appropriate PE program. Furthermore, the application of fitness testing isinappropriate without sufficient attention to developing and communicating: (a)clear and measurable objectives consistent with national and/or state physicaleducation standards, (b) educational content that sets up the need and protocolfor fitness testing, and (c) essential steps in an educationally and psychologicallysound testing protocol. As others have written, physical activity (i.e., develop-mentally appropriate PE) is the process, and fitness is the outcome (e.g., Corbin &Pangrazi, 1993; Morrow, 2007); students need to understand and benefit fromthe process if they are to fully understand and achieve the outcome.


Objectives Consistent with Physical Education Standards

As stated throughout this article, fitness testing that is not an integral part ofthe larger curriculum can lead to unmotivated performance by students andadverse reactions to testing. More than a decade ago, Hopple and Graham (1995)interviewed children on what they “think, feel, and know” about school-basedfitness testing (specifically the mile run), and concluded that their perceptionswere “not entirely flattering” (p. 415). The majority of participants could notarticulate the objective of being tested, identified clever ways in which they couldget out of the test, and viewed the test as uncomfortable and lacking in meaning.In essence, these findings are consistent with past (and current) criticism thatfitness testing fails to meet educational objectives (Cale et al., 2007; Keating &Silverman, 2004; Rowland, 1995).

The foundation for fitness testing should be the promotion of enjoyable andregular physical activity participation leading toward the eventual developmentof life-long physical activity behaviors. Physical activity and fitness trackingand assessment should be executed with this foundational philosophy in mind.National and state education bodies (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, NationalAssociation for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE], state Departments ofEducation) have articulated the need for increasing student understanding ofthe role and application of fitness assessment and the appropriate focus onpsychological principles that apply to participation in and receiving benefits ofphysical activity. For example, national physical education standards (NASPE,2004a) include Standard 4 (“Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing levelof physical fitness”) and Standard 6 (“Values physical activity for health,enjoyment, challenge, self-expression, and social interaction”). Three Californiaphysical education standards (CDE, 2006) relate to assessing and maintainingphysical fitness, demonstrating knowledge of physical fitness, and utilizingknowledge of psychological concepts, principles, and strategies that apply tolearning and performing physical activity. These standards provide additionalmerit for the responsible use of fitness testing in the public schools. The nextsection will identify and discuss fitness testing practices that have children’s andadolescents’ best interests at heart, emanating primarily from a psychologicallysound perspective.

Educational Content: Setting up the Need and Protocolfor Fitness Testing

From the international comparisons and presidential propaganda of the 1950sand 1960s, to the years leading to the academic and assessment emphases of theNo Child Left Behind era (Public Law 107-110, 2002), to the current concern ofchildhood inactivity, the place and importance of physical education in schools


has been ambiguous. Even today, in an era when the increasing prevalence ofobesity is common knowledge, educational administrators struggle to embrace,fund, and support regularly scheduled and developmentally appropriate physicaleducation in the schools. We believe that education of children and adolescentsshould include the importance of physical activity participation and the physicaland psychological benefits of becoming physically fit, and that physical fitnesstesting can be used to help children and adolescents understand where they are,relative to receiving the greatest benefits of being fit.

Teachers should emphasize that fitness test results are a combination ofstudents’ current fitness level (how active you are, how much you move andexercise), their genetics (from your parents, whether you are short or tall, or yourbody type), maturation (stage of development of your body as you get older),motivation (do you really want to do this test?), and effort (how hard do youtry?). In essence, teachers can tell students, “You may really want to do the test(motivated) and really try hard (effort), but your body is not as ready (developed)as the bodies of some of your classmates.” Teachers should emphasize that it issometimes not logical to compare scores to other classmates (“Hey, this appledoesn’t taste like an orange”), but that students SHOULD want to compare theirtest results to (a) their previous test results, and (b) a health standard, such asthe Healthy Fitness Zone. Children can be told that if they score in the HealthyFitness Zone, “many researchers feel your body is protected from many of thediseases that can occur from being unfit.”

One major factor that is under the control of the students is the amount ofmoderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in which they regularly engage.Although quantity of regular MVPA is a primary topic of another article inthis issue (Welk, this issue), it is worth discussion at this point because ofthe connection between participation in regular MVPA and the psychologicalantecedents and consequences of an educationally sound physical educationprogram with fitness education as one of several important cornerstones.

The study and application of physical activity antecedents are importantfrom the perspective of adoption, adherence, and noncompliance. Most physicalactivity promotion models (i.e., Social-Cognitive Theory [Bandura, 1977, 1986],Youth Physical Activity Promotion Model [Welk, 1999], Value-ExpectancyTheory [Eccles & Harold, 1991]) include correlates or precursors of physicalactivity that include those that can be influenced by physical fitness testing.Welk’s (1999) Youth Physical Activity Promotion model, in particular, outlinesenabling (physical fitness and skills), predisposing (perceptions of competence,enjoyment, attitudes), and reinforcing (parents, teachers, peers) factors thatincrease or decrease the likelihood that youth voluntarily engage in physicalactivities. When teachers use fitness testing appropriately, make it fun andenjoyable, and allow students opportunities to improve, they engage in behaviorthat encourages young people to try different physical activities (e.g., riding


bikes, playing tag games, joining a soccer team, shooting baskets) and performthem regularly. Many of these teaching behaviors are congruent with a masterymotivational climate, in which children are given the opportunity to participatein a wide variety of physical activities (e.g., running, dodging, galloping,dribbling, throwing/catching, kicking, striking) in a manner that affords themmany opportunities to practice (e.g., one ball for every child maximizes theopportunities to play). In so doing, games and activities should minimize waittime (inactivity) and spotlighting (a couple of students participating whileother watch), and allow children to play, improve, and focus on their ownskill development. Importantly, this is generally how students define “fun”:participating/playing and improving/getting better. Students who regularlyengage in developmentally appropriate physical activity will likely performfavorably on physical fitness tests.

Desirable psychological consequences of physical activity behaviors can bediscussed broadly as the reduction of negative, or the promotion of positive, acuteor chronic psychological states. Teachers, coaches, and parents who understandsome of these consequences are in a good position to educate students as to thepsychological benefits of regular MVPA and encourage students to increase theirawareness of such benefits, which include positive mood (Calfas & Taylor, 1994),self-concept and self-esteem (Fox, 2000; Spence, McGannon, & Poon, 2005),stress reduction (Crews & Landers, 1987; Spalding, Lyon, Steel, & Hatfield,2004), anxiety reduction (Goodwin, 2003; Petruzello, Landers, Hatfield, Kubitz,& Salazar, 1991), and depression reduction (Motl, Birnbaum, Kubik, & Dishman,2004; North, McCullagh, & Tran, 1990). Fitness testing performed outside thecontext of regular and developmentally appropriate physical education may resultin negative psychological states, which, in turn, may lead to disengagement from,nonparticipation in, and/or distaste for regular physical activity.

Essential Steps in an Educationally and PsychologicallySound Testing Protocol

Execution of the physical fitness assessment process includes following devel-opmentally appropriate and educationally sound practices (American Alliancefor Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance [AAHPERD], 1999a,1999b; Corbin et al., 1995). Although these practices are not original, they willbe discussed with a primary focus on psychological concepts related to fitnessassessment in youth.

First, educators must engage students regularly (i.e., daily) in developmentallyappropriate physical education practices that engage them in a minimum of50% MVPA time for the scheduled physical education period (U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2000). For many PE programs,this would result in approximately 20 to 30 min of MVPA a day. Regularly


delivered physical education will foster broad skill competencies as students areengaged in and learn a variety of movement forms, physical skills, and specializedsport skills. As students gain broad skill competencies, several psychologicalconstructs are likely to be affected, including self-concept (“I am a mover”),enjoyment or liking of games and sport (“I like learning and playing games inPE and at recess”), and competence (“I am good at lots of different games andsports”). In addition, students are engaging in regular MVPA, which is at leastmoderately related to health-related physical fitness and will develop a goodfitness foundation in initial level preparation for fitness testing.

Second, opportunities can also be provided to engage in additional MVPAduring the school day and immediately after school (e.g., structured andsemi-structured activity choices provided during recess and lunch periods andafter-school intramural sport opportunities). In addition to structured physicaleducation, these opportunities will help students meet the recommended 60min or more of daily MVPA (NASPE, 2004b; Strong et al., 2005; USDHHS,2000). Combined with regular PE, these additional opportunities to be physicallyactive will help many students achieve a minimum level of fitness that willallow them to safely participate in fitness testing protocols and likely achieveminimum health standards (e.g., score in the Healthy Fitness Zone for theFITNESSGRAM®).

Third, fitness test items include assessments for body composition, cardio-vascular endurance, and musculoskeletal fitness. The latter two categories ofassessment include specific assessments that are performed to exhaustion (e.g.,PACER, push-ups, curl-ups). Other assessments have technical components thatrequire knowledge of test protocol for valid measurement (e.g., back-saver sitand reach, trunk lift). For these reasons and others (e.g., test anxiety, stress fromthe unknown, safe test execution), instruction, training, and practice with eachfitness test is required. The second author recalls participating in the PresidentialFitness Test as a fifth grader in the mid 1970s. One of the test items was thebench push-up. After performing approximately 70 bench push-ups on a Friday,he had to sit out from participation in two Little League baseball games (Saturdayand Sunday), as he was not able to lift his arms above his waist. Adequateexposure to test protocol likely would have prevented this situation.

Some of the exceptional physical education programs in the Orange County(CA) area include 5 min of test-specific fitness training every day after thedaily warm-up activity (e.g., PACER practice, sets of curl-ups or push-upswith varying, student-selected, number of repetitions). Sometimes the warm-upitself is the fitness training (e.g., squats, lunges, curl-ups, or push-ups). Fitnessactivities can be performed as a game. For example, two partner activities thatboth authors use in working with children, adolescents, and adults are: (a) QuickHands (hand tag in push-up position) and (b) Ball Pass (in curl-up position).In the first game, two students face each other in correct push-up position


(students maintain position on toes for as long as they can and then may moveto knees). The object is to tag your partner’s hand (left or right) with yourfinger tips (finger tips discourages slapping and smashing behaviors) withoutgetting tagged yourself. No points are kept, and no rewards are offered (exceptfor participating and laughing). In the second game, students sit in a curl-upposition, toes to toes, with shoulders flexed and elbows extended, passing a ballback and forth. In both games, after 15–30 sec of participation, students arerequested to quickly find and play with a new partner. Each game is repeatedwith a new partner 5 to 10 times. Obviously, with these games, the focus is on fun(e.g., enjoyment of physical activity, playing with others, getting better/stronger,building confidence). In addition, students can be encouraged to participate instrengthening or flexibility exercises while doing homework (e.g., stretchingwhile reading, 30-sec breaks every 15 min to do squats, lunges, curl-ups, orpush-ups). Some physical education programs require students to keep physicalactivity logs for after-school and weekend hours. Students are not necessarilygraded on whether they choose to be physically active, but are required tosubmit activity logs and discuss motives, activity choices, and likely outcomesor consequences (short- and long-term) of those choices.

Finally, after students have learned about and practiced the fitness tests andparticipated in regular MVPA, it is appropriate to engage them in the assessmentof their personal fitness levels. Students should engage in fitness testing regularly,as often as every 4 to 8 weeks. Fitness testing in this capacity is formative; thatis, information is used from the fitness testing as feedback to guide studentsin adopting or adhering to new behaviors or maintaining previously establishedbehaviors. Fitness testing also results in regular feedback regarding fitness goals.Although we have seen schools spend an entire week (or more) completingstate-mandated fitness tests, the testing protocol could easily be completed inone 40-min period with a class size of up to 40 students. In this scenario, forupper elementary to high school students (most 10-year olds and up), six fitnessstations are set up. Students select a trusted partner to complete the tests with andmove about the stations at their preference (Corbin, 2007). Some stations requireassistance from a teacher or cadence CD (e.g., PACER), while others do not(height, weight, trunk lift, back-saver sit and reach). Most student pairs becometrusting partners; infrequently, teacher intervention is required and reassignmentnecessary. Students are constantly reminded to focus on their own fitness statusand ignore others. Our experience has demonstrated that when students knowthat their grade or some status award is not related to their fitness scores, but thattheir scores are for their knowledge, they are truthful and conscientious. Studentslearn that the PE teacher is also interested in their fitness scores because he orshe is in a good position to help, guide, and encourage them as they develophealthy behaviors related to physical activity participation and fitness outcomes.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this article was to provide insight into the psychologicalissues surrounding children’s performance on fitness tests, strategies to enhancestudents’ experiences during testing, and ways in which testing protocols canbe appropriately implemented in schools. Table 1 provides a summary of themost relevant psychological aspects of fitness testing and implementation, all ofwhich increase the likelihood that positive outcomes may result from gatheringinformation on youth health and fitness. Many challenges still exist, and webelieve that researchers still need to determine the connection between youthfitness, physical activity involvement, and the promotion of healthy lifestylesin young people. We also know that past generations of students have less-than-fond memories of fitness testing as a result of inappropriate practices thathave likely turned them off to physical activity, and that it can be difficult toconvince school administrators, physical activity researchers, and parents whoare the product of these generations that testing can be positive and enjoyable. Ifphysical fitness testing practices are done thoughtlessly, and if conditions leadto negative reactions in youth, then testing should not be done. However, withthe recent resurgence of arguments for and against the value of fitness testing,amid vast public awareness of the crisis surrounding the sedentary nature ofmany youth, we are once again faced with the challenge of not only doing it,but doing it right. And like anything else, doing it right means doing it in thebest interests of youth, with a focus on youth, in a way that can truly benefit

TABLE 1Review of Psychological Implications and Practices of Physical Fitness Testing

1. The foundation of fitness testing should be on the promotion of enjoyable and regular physicalactivity participation.

2. Testing should take place as an integrated aspect of a physical education curriculum withopportunities to practice skills and fitness activities in fun, game-like conditions.

3. Students should be provided with the opportunity to regularly assess their own fitness (with atrusted partner) in informal testing sessions. The emphases of these sessions should be onself-responsibility, trust, and self-improvement.

4. Fitness test “data” should be used to help students draw conclusions about their activity choicesand plan for health-related physical fitness maintenance or improvement.

5. Task-oriented students perform best when improvement and skill mastery is reinforced, whileego-oriented students with high perceptions of competence perform well with social ornormative challenges.

6. Teachers should use criterion-referenced standards to provide feedback on student performanceand focus on controllable factors such as motivation, effort, and developing a passion formovement.

7. Physical education programs that promote competence and enjoyment set students up for apositive physical fitness testing experience and for the achievement of healthy fitness scores.


youth. The role of education is to build skills in children, to inspire them toact, and to build in them a sense of competence that can be applied to otherareas of life. In this regard, we urge test administrators and teachers to structuretesting environments that are positive and challenging and that inspire youth tobe aware of, and interested in, their fitness levels and take steps to engage in alifetime of play, activity, and exercise.

REFERENCES

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD). (1999a).Physical best activity guide (Elementary level). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD). (1999b).Physical best activity guide (Secondary level). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategiesand motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

Annesi, J. J., Westcott, W. L., Faigenbaum, A. D., & Unruh, J. L. (2005). Effects of a 12-weekphysical activity protocol delivered by YMCA after-school counselors (Youth Fit for Life) onfitness and self-efficacy changes in 5–12-year-old boys and girls. Research Quarterly for Exercise& Sport, 76, 468–476.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bush, C. L., Pittman, P., McKay, S., Ortiz, T., Wong, W. W., & Klish, W. J. (2007). Park-based

obesity intervention program for inner-city minority children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151(5),513–517.

Cale, L., & Harris, J. (Eds.). (2005). Exercise and young people: Issues, implications, and initiatives.Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cale, L., Harris, J., & Chen. M. H. (2007). More than 10 years after “The Horse is Dead� � �”: Surelyit must be time to dismount?! Pediatric Exercise Science, 19, 115–131.

Calfas, K. J., & Taylor, W. C. (1994). Effects of physical activity on psychological variables inadolescents. Pediatric Exercise Science, 6, 406–423.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2005). A study of the relationship between physicalfitness and academic achievement in California using 2004 test results. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2006). Physical education model content standards forCalifornia public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Carrel, A. L., Clark, R. R., Peterson, S., Eickhoff, J., & Allen, D. B. (2007). School-based fitnesschanges are lost during the summer vacation. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,161(6), 561–564.

Corbin, C. B. (2002). Physical activity for everyone: What every physical educator should know aboutpromoting lifelong physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 128–144.

Corbin, C. B. (2007). Commentary to “More than 10 Years After the Horse is Dead � � � ” PediatricExercise Science, 19, 123–125.

Corbin, C. B., & Pangrazi, R. P. (1993). Physical fitness: Questions teachers ask. Journal of PhysicalEducation, Recreation, and Dance, 64(7), 14–19.

Corbin, C. B., Pangrazi, R. P., & Welk, G. J. (1995). A response to “The Horse is Dead; Let’sDismount.” Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 347–351.


Crews, D. J., & Landers, D. M. (1987). A meta-analytic review of aerobic fitness and reactivity topsychosocial stressors. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 19, 114–120.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New York: Plenum Press.

Duda, J. L. (1989). Goal perspectives, participation and persistence in sport. International Journalof Sport Psychology, 20, 42–56.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork andsport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles’Expectancy-Value Model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–35.

Eliakim, A., Nemet, D., Balakirski, Y., & Epstein, Y. (2007). The effects of nutritional-physicalactivity school-based intervention on fatness and fitness in preschool children. Journal of PediatricEndocrinology and Metabolism, 20(6), 711–718.

Fox, K. R. (2000). Self-esteem, self perceptions, and exercise. International Journal of SportPsychology, 11, 408–430.

Freedson, P. S., & Rowland, T. W. (1992). Youth activity versus youth fitness: Let’s direct ourefforts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(2), 133–136.

Goodwin, R. D. (2003). Association between physical activity and mental disorder among adults inthe United States. Preventive Medicine, 36, 698–703.

Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Achievement goal orientations and intrinsic motivationin physical fitness testing with children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 6, 159–168.

Grissom, J. B. (2005). Physical fitness and academic achievement. Journal of Exercise Physiology—Online, 8(1), 11–25.

Harter, S. (1981). The development of competence motivation in the mastery of cognitive andphysical skills: Is there still a place for joy? In G. C. Roberts & D. M. Landers (Eds.), Psychologyof motor behavior and sport—1980 (pp. 3–29). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hopple, C., & Graham, G. (1995). What students think, feel, and know about physical fitness testing.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 408–417.

Keating, X. D., & Silverman, S. (2004). Teachers’ use of fitness tests in school-basedphysical education programs. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8,145–165.

Kennedy, J. F. (1960). The soft American. Sports Illustrated, 13, 15–17.Kim, J., Must, A., Fitzmaurice, G. M., Gillman, M. W., Chomitz, V., Kramer, E., et al. (2005).

Relationship of physical fitness to prevalence and incidence of overweight among schoolchildren.Obesity Research, 13, 1246–1254.

Kraus, H., & Hirschland, R. P. (1954). Minimum muscular fitness tests in school children. TheResearch Quarterly, 25, 178–188.

Leal, F., & Agopian, E. V. (2005, November 5). O.C. kids get “F” for fitness. Orange CountyRegister, pp. 1, 3.

Meredith, M. D., & Welk, G. J. (Eds.). (2005, updated 3rd Ed.). FITNESSGRAM®/ACTIVITYGRAMTest Administration Manual. Dallas, TX: The Cooper Institute.

Morrow, Jr., J. R. (2005). Are American children and youth fit? It’s time to learn. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 76(4), 377–388.

Morrow, Jr., J. R. (2007). Commentary to “More than 10 Years After the Horse is Dead � � � ”Pediatric Exercise Science, 19, 127–129.

Motl, R. W., Birnbaum, A. S., Kubik, M. Y., & Dishman, R. K. (2004). Naturally occurringchanges in physical activity are inversely related to depressive symptoms during early adolescence.Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 336–342.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). (2004a). Moving into the future:National standards for physical education (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.


National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). (2004b). Physical activity forchildren: A statement of guidelines for children 5–12. Reston, VA: Author.

Naughton, G. A., Carlson, J. S., & Greene, D. A. (2006). A challenge to fitness testing in primaryschools. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 40–45.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student motivation (pp. 39–68). New York:Academic Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

North, T. C., McCullagh, P., & Tran, Z. V. (1990). Effects of exercise on depression. Exercise andSport Sciences Reviews, 18, 379–415.

Oberteuffer, D. (1963). On learning values through sport. Quest, 1, 23–29.Petruzzello, S. J., Landers, D. M., Hatfield, B. D., Kubitz, K. A., & Salazar, W. (1991). A meta-

analysis on the anxiety-reducing effects of acute and chronic exercise: Outcomes and mechanisms.Sport Medicine, 11, 143–182.

Roberts, G. C., & Treasure, D. C. (1995). Achievement goals, motivational climate and achievementstrategies and behaviors in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 64–80.

Rowland, T. W. (1995). “The horse is dead; Let’s dismount.” Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 117–120.Ruiz, J. R., Ortega, F. B., Rizzo, N. S., Villa, I., Hurtig-Wennloff, A., Oja, L., et al. (2007). High

cardiovascular fitness is associated with low metabolic risk score in children: The European YouthHeart Study. Pediatric Research, 61(3), 350–355.

Sherman, C. P., & Wiersma, L. D. (2005). An analysis of the relationship of correlates of physicalactivity and protective factors for violence prevention. Paper presented at the Sixth NationalConference on Family and Community Violence Prevention: Exploring the Links BetweenFamilies and Communities, Honolulu, HI.

Singh, S., & McMahan, S. (2006). An evaluation of the relationship between academic performanceand physical fitness measures in California schools. California Journal of Health Promotion, 4(2),207–214.

Solomon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students’ behaviors and perceptions in aphysical education setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731–738.

Spalding, T. W., Lyon, L. A., Steel, D. H., & Hatfield, B. D. (2004). Aerobic exercise trainingand cardiovascular reactivity to psychological stress in sedentary young normotensive men andwomen. Psychophysiology, 41, 552–562.

Spence, J. C., McGannon, K. R., & Poon, P. (2005). The effects of exercise on global self-esteem:A quantitative review. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 207–221.

Strong, W. B., Malina, R. M., Blimkie, C. J. R., Daniels, S. R., Dishman, R. K., Gutin, B.,et al. (2005). Evidence based physical activity for school-aged youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 146,732–737.

Tomkinson, G. R., Leger, L. A., Olds, T. S., & Cazorla, G. (2003). Secular trends in the performanceof children and adolescents (1980–2000): An analysis of 55 studies of the 20m shuttle run test in11 countries. Sports Medicine, 33, 285–300.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (2000). Healthy People 2010.Washington, DC: Author.

Welk, G. J. (1999). The Youth Physical Activity Promotion model: A conceptual bridge betweentheory and practice. Quest, 51, 5–23.

Whitehead, J. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1991). Youth fitness testing: The effect of percentile-basedevaluative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62,225–231.