Back

Responsiveness Of Health-Related Field-Based Physical Fitness Tests In Adults: The Adult-Fit Project

Cuenca-Garcia, M.; Cruz-Leon, C.; Jimenez-Iglesias, J.; Sanchez-Parente, S.; Segura-Jimenez, V.; Ortega, F. B.; Castro-Pinero, J.

2025-07-15 sports medicine
10.1101/2025.07.12.25331202 medRxiv
Show abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the responsiveness of the health-related field-based physical fitness tests used in adults. A total of 62 non-active participants aged 18 to 64 years were randomized into the intervention (n=31) or control group (n=31). The exercise program included 3 sessions/wk (60 min/session) of multicomponent exercise training for 12 weeks. The control group continued with their usual routines. Pre-post differences were explored with pairwise comparison ANOVA for each group. Percentage of change and the size effect were also calculated. The proportion of responders/non-responders and percentage of the population that was expected to respond to the intervention were calculated. Characteristics of study groups were similar at baseline (all P>0.05). All tests were found to be responsive (all P<0.01) after the exercise program, except the waist circumference measurement (P=0.09); with an effects size of moderate to large (Cohens d >0.50), except to the weight, body mass index, waist circumference and handgrip tests with trivial effect sizes (P>0.05, Cohens d<0.20). The highest proportion of individual responders based on the standard deviation was observed in the 4x10-m shuttle run, 30-s sit-to-stand, 6-m gait speed and timed up & go tests. The proportion of the population that was expected to respond to the intervention was higher than 85% in most of the field-based physical fitness tests evaluated. Overall, all health-related field-based physical fitness tests were found to be responsive after a multicomponent exercise intervention regardless sex and age.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.