Fitness Testing by The U.S. Air Force Academy, 1955-1981

Report USAFSAM.TR.
83-22
SPHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING BY THE

U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, 1955-1981
James C.Mier, Ph.D.

Robert D.Shadduck, Captain, USAFR (U.S. Air Force Academy)
Kory G.Comum, Second Lieutenant, USAF
-. ,
4.
DTIC
FLECTE
September 1983 NV818
CL Final Report for Period August 1981 - August 1982 D
E?_
LJ Approved for public release; distributin unlimited.
USAF SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE

Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC)
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235
' L."j
- ~ 4-..
[WIIII
NOTICES
This final report was submitted by personnel of the Crew Performance

Branch, Crew Technology Division, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Aerospace
Medical Division, AFSC, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, under job order
7930-10-28.
When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any
purpose other than in connection with a definitely Government-related procure-
ment, the United States Government incurs no responsibility or any obligation
whatsoever. The fact that the Government may have formulated or in any way
.1 supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be

regarded by implication, or otherwise in any manner construed, as licensing
the holder, or any other person or corporation; or as conveying any rights or
permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any
way be related thereto.
The voluntary informed consent of the subjects used in this research was
obtained in accordance with AFR 169-3.
The Office of Public Affairs has reviewed this report, and it is releas-
able to the National Technical Information Service, where it will be available
to the general public, including foreign nationals.
This report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.
JASJ C. MILLER, Ph.D. WILLIAM F. STORM, Ph.D.

.-. Project Scientist Supervi sor
ROYCE MOSER, Jr.

Colonel, USAF, MC
Commander
'4,
. . * . S .. . . .... . .. . . .... . .. . . .- . _. . . -
7T... T7 In-.... .
UNCLASSIF IED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (1nM. De Entered)
REPOT
NTATON
DCU AGEREAD INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
[ USAFSAM-TR-83-22[
1. REMPORT RUM-R 12. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Final Report
4. TITLE (and litle)
PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING BY THE U.S. AIR FORCE Aug 1981 - Aug 1982
ACADEMY, 1955-1981 6. PERFORMING oG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(e) a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)
James C. Miller, Ph.D 4 Robert D. Shadduck, Captair,

USAFR (Admissions Liaison Office, V.S. Air Force
Academy); Kory G. Cornum, Second Lieutenant, USXF
•. PERFORhMG ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK
USAF School of Aerospace Medicine (VNE) AREA & WoRK UNIT NUMBERS
Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC) 62202F
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235 7930-10-28
11 iTOL FICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
US'I)f Aerospace Medicine (VtE) September 1983
Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC) 13. NUMBER OF PAGES
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235 92
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if difermt from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISO. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
16. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thu Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (at the tract entered In Block 20, it different from Report)
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree side if neceaeaW and Identify by block number)
Physical Fitness Candidates Testing

Strength Cadets Energy Expenditure
Aerobics Physical Aptitude Weight
Altitude Endurance Practice
ABSTRACT
I. (Continue on reveree aide iineceeary and Identify by block number)
. - T
rhs
report documents the histories of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) and
the Aerobics Run, as applied to USAF Academy Cadets, and the Physical Apti-
tude Exam (PAE) taken by Academy applicants, and briefly discusses the nature
of Basic Cadet Training. Data concerning applicant practice of PAE events
are presented. A reference bibliography of USAFA reports about the PFT and
PAE is included. The report of a working group, which recommended changes to
USAFA physical fitness testing procedures, is appended.j.
D FOP 1473 --EDITION OF I NOV 65 ISOBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED .

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("en Date Entered)
* ** *b. .- *- --. *~b . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .- .]

5''
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 3
PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (PFT) . .... . 3

History of AFA Physical Fitness Test................................ 3
PFT Historical Records.............................................. 8
AEROBICS TEST .................... ............ 22
PHYSICAL APTITUDE EXAMINATION (PAE).................................... 24
PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF CADET AND OFFICER LIFE ............................. 56 .1o
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................. .................... .........

......... 60
APPENDIX A: A NOTE ABOUT T-SCORE CONVERSIONS .......................... 79
APPENDIX B: REPORT OF WORKSHOP ON USAFA PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING ...... 80
APPENDIX C: RELATED PROJECTS.......................................... 91
FIGURES
Figure
1. Illustration of PAE events ...................................... 28
TABLES
Table
1. Women's PFT conversion chart, July 1979 .......................... 6
2. Men's PFT conversion chart, July 1979 ............................ 7
3. BCT PFT results, 1978 - 1981 ...................................... 20

4. Fall PFT results by class 21 -
5. USAF weight standards (as of Nov 1, 1981) ........................ 22
6. Aerobics test (1.5-mile run) distribution and standard scores .... 25
1o
....... o..........° o . . ................ .. . .'

CONTENTS (continued)
Table Page
7.* Test item analysis .............................................. 26

8. Correlations between PAE composite and Fourth Class physical
education grade .............. ............................. 43
9. Correlations between PAE composite and individual subject

Fourth Class physical education grade ........................ 43
10. Correlations between individual PAE test items and

Fourth Class physical education grade ........................ 44
11. Correlations between PAE and leadership ......................... 45

12. Test-item reliabilities......................................... 46
13. Intercorrelations between PAE test items ........................ 47
14. First and second PAE performance scores for 37 male USAFA
applicants .................................................... 51
15. Reported numbers of repetitions of exercises ..................... 52
16. Repetition minimums and ratios of mean reported repetitions
to goals ...................................................... 52
17. Relationships between arm exercise repetitions and PAE event
performance changes ........................................... 53
18. Relationships between leg exercise repetitions and PAE event
performance changes ............................ ............ *.. 53
19. Relationships among height, weight, and the performance of

events at the first PAE ............. ............... 54
20. Caloric demand of tasks during BCT active periods ................ 57

21. Sum of estimated daily average energy expenditure rates .......... 58
A-1. T-scores, z-scores, and the proportion below the T-score ........ o 79
B-1. USAF Academy PAE male pull-up summary ............... o......... ... 83
B-2. USAF Academy PAE male standing long jump summary ....
.o......... o. 83
B-3. USAF Academy PAE male basketball throw summary ................... 83
B-4. USAF Academy PAE male 300-yd shuttle run summary ................. 83
2
I1
PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING BY THE U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, 1955-1981
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) has screened candidates with regard to
physical strength and aptitude since 1955. The USAFA has also tested the
strength and endurance of cadets, twice per year, since 1961. The cadets have
been required to perform the Air Force Aerobics run since 1970. In the
process of administering these three tests and regularly reexamining their
validity, members of the USAFA staff have generated a number of technical
papers. Unfortunately, these papers have not been published nor widely circu-
lated. This report compiles and summarizes the available information about
USAFA's approach to physical fitness (and physical aptitude) testing.
The report is divided into sections that deal with (a) the Physical
Fitness Test given to Fourth through Second Class (freshmen through junior)
cadets, (b) the Aerobics run performed by all cadets, (c) the Physical Apti-
tude Examination given to candidates, and (d) the physical demands of Basic
Cadet Training. A reference bibliography is included. The latter was
compiled from the reference sections of papers discussed in this report.
PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (PFT)
The following sunary of the Physical Fitness Test, provided by the USAFA
Directorate of Athletics (AH), adequately explains the history and require-
ments of the test:
History of AFA Physical Fitness Test
In October 1961, the Director of Athletics became

convinced that the First Classmen were not securing enough
physical exercise to maintain their physical fitness.
Although these cadets participated in the intramural
sports program, the majority were coaches, officials, or
administrators and in effect, were non-participants. In
order to assure the graduating cadet would enter service
life with a relatively high level of physical fitness,
Colonel Martin proposed the following to the Academy
Board:
a. Require First Classmen to take a physical fitness

test semiannually during the months of October
and April.
1. Require each cadet who fails to achieve a total

score of 250 in October to take a weekly re-test
until a minimum total score of 250 is achieved.
c. Require each cadet who fails to achieve a total

score of 250 and fails to meet minimum standards
for each test item in April to be re-tested each
week until minimum standards are met.
. . * ." . . ,
d. On or about 1 June, cadets who are still defi-
, cient will be reported to the Superintendent and
the Academy Board as being deficient in physical
fitness. (Memo, Dir of Ath, Subj: Physical
Fitness Test for the First Class)
Each First Classmen would be required to meet the

following minimum standard of performance.
Pull-ups 7
Standing Broad Jump 7 feet
Push-ups 30
Sit-ups (2 minutes) 50
600 yard run 1:50.0
The Academy Board thoroughly discussed the recommen-

dations of Colonel Martin and a proposed cadet regulation
governing physical fitness. Minor changes were made in
the regulation. The Board then unanimously approved the
recommendations and the new regulation. (Minutes, Academy
Board Meeting, 16 Oct 61)
No historical records are available to indicate the
origin of the five item test although it can be safely
assumed that the test was derived from similar tests being
administered both in civilian universities and at USMA
during this time period.
By 1968 the PFT had undergone minor changes in its

minimum requirements. These changes based on over 5000
cadet scores are shown below:
Pull- Push- Sit-

UPS SBJ ups ups 600 Yd Run
4th Class (Freshmen) 1st Sem NONE ESTABLISHED

4th Class (Freshmen) 2nd Sem 3 6'06" 24 40 2:07
3rd Class (Sophomores) 1st Sem 5 6'09" 27 45 2:04
All Others (Juniors & Seniors) 7 7'00" 30 50 2:00
For 1981 these minimums are:
(MEN)
4th Class (Freshmen) 1st Sem

3rd Class (Sophomores) Ist Sere 6 6'11" 29 50 2:06
All Others (Juniors & Seniors) 8 7102" 32 55 2:03
4
C,+
""
+"'""'""°"""' "" -"" " * "V. _i.
-f*(WOME*N)
4th Class (Freshmen) 1st Sem

3rd Class (Sophomores) 1st Sem 2 5'05" 9 46 2:23
All Others (Juniors & Seniors) 3 5'08" 11 50 2:20
In order to weigh the five test items equally, a
standard 0 to 100 point scale was established for each

item, so that the highest possible combined score was 500.
The 0 to 100 point scale chosen was the T-scale,

which can be computed for any set of scores, regardless of
ft the unit of measurement. (feet and inches, minutes and
seconds, etc.)
The T-scale was chosen instead of the percentile

method because all the units on a T-scale are at intervals
of equal distance throughout the scale. On a percentile
scale, the scores may be closely grouped near the mean and
spread out at each end of the scale. This means that
T-scores can be averaged together more accurately than
percentile scores.
The women's and men's distributions of raw scores, with associated T-scores,
are presented in Tables I and 2, respectively.I
Accession For
NTIS GRA&I
DTIC TAB rn
Unanncun'ced
Justif!Lxcatio
By]
Distribution/
Avail[,bility Codes
Dist
-Avail and/or
Special
Q ,,
10n
the T-scale, the mean is 50, and each standard deviation above or
below the mean is an increment of 10. Thus, two standard deviations below the
mean is a T-score of 30, two above is 70. See Appendix A.
. . . . . . .- - 5 . .
- . . . .. . . . . . . .. . t. .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
TABLE 1. WOMEN'S PFT CONVERSION CHART, JULY 1979
PULL-UPS LONG JUMP PUSH-UPS SIT-UPS 600-YD RUN _

Raw Std R Sf Raw Std Rd aw Std
Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score
85 100 113 100

84 98 114 98
83 96 115 96
82 94 116 94
81 92 117 92
7'10" 100 80 90 118 90
7'9" 98 79 88 119 88
7'8" 95 78 86 120 86
717" 93 34 100 77 84 121 84
7'6" 90 33 98 76 82 122 82
7'5" 88 32 95 75 80 123 80
7'4" 85 31 92 74 78 124 78
7'3" 83 30 89 73 76 125 76
7'2" 80 29 86 72 74 126 74
7'1" 78 28 83 71 72 127 72
7'0" 75 27 80 70 70 128 70
6'11" 73 26 77 69 68 129 68
6'10" 70 25 74 68 66 130 66
6'9" 68 24 71 67 64 131 64
6'8" 65 23 68 66 62 132 62
10 100 6'7" 63 22 65 65 60 133 60
9 90 6'6" 60 21 62 64 58 134 58
8 80 6'5" 57 20 59 63 56 135 56
7 70 6'4" 55 19 56 f2 54 136 54
6 60 6'3" 53 18 53 61 52 137 52
MEAN 5 50 612" 50 17 50 60 48 138 50
4 40 611" 48 16 47 59 46 139 46
*1*3 30 6'0" 45 15 44 58 44 ***140 42
**2 20 511" 43 14 41 57 42 141 38
*1 10 5'10" 40 13 38 56 40 142 34
0 0 5'9" 37 12 35 "1 38 **143 30
***518" 35 *1*11 32 54 36 144 26
517" 32 10 29 53 34 145 22
5'6" 30 1*9 26 52 32 *14r 18
**515" 27 8 23 51 30 147 14
5'4" 25 *7 20 ***50 28 148 10
513" 23 6 17 49 26 149 6
*512" 20 5 14 48 24 150 2
5'1" 17 4 11 47 22 151 0
5'0" 15 3 8 **46 20
4'11" 22 2 5 45 18
4'10" 10 1 2 44 16
419" 7 43 14
418" 5 *42 12
4'7" 2 41 10
4'6" 0 40 8
39 6
38 4
37 2
36 0
35
*Denotes 4' - 1st Semester

**Denotes 3' - 1st Semester
***Denotes 3* - 2nd Semester
* ,.. . ... ,,.. . ,~ . ..........

'
TABLE 2. MEN'S PFT CONVERSION CHART, JULY 1979
PULL-UPS LONG JUMP PUSH-UPS SIT-UPS 600-YD RUN

Raw d Rawtd Raw Std
Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score
65 100
64 98
,".462 63 96
94
60 90 95 100
59 88 96 97
58 86 97 94
57 84 98 91
56 82 85 100 99 89
55 80 84 97 100 86
910" 100 54 78 83 94 101 83
8'11" 97 53 76 82 91 102 80
8'10" 93 52 74 81 88 103 78
8t9"1 90 51 72 80 85 104 76
818"0 87 50 70 79 82 105 74
8'7" 83 49 68 78 79 106 72
816" 80 48 66 77 76 107 70
20 100 8'5" 77 47 64 76 73 108 68
19 94 8'4" 73 46 62 75 70 109 66
18 89 8t3"1 70 45 60 74 67 110 64
17 83 8'12" 67 44 58 73 64 111 62
16 77 8' 1" 64 43 56 72 61 112 60
15 72 8fO" 60 42 55 71 58 113 58
14 66 7'111" 57 41 54 70 56 114 56
13 61 71101" 54 40 52 69 54 115 54
12 55 719" 52 39 51 68 52 116 52
MEAN 11 50 7'8" 50 38 50 67 50 117 50
10 45 7'7" 47 37 48 66 48 118 48
9 40 7'6" 45 36 45 65 46 119 45
. 8 35 715" 43 35 42 64 44 120 43
7 30 7'4" 40 34 39 63 42 121 40
** 6 25 7'3" 37 33 36 62 40 122 38
5 20 ***7'2"1 35 ***32 33 61 38 ***123 35
* 4 15 7' 1" 32 31 30 60 36 124 33
3 10 7'0" 30 30 27 59 34 125 29
2 5 **61111 27 **29 24 58 32 **126 25
1 1 6110" 25 28 21 57 30 127 21
6'9" 23 27 18 56 28 128 18
*6'8" 20 *26 15 ***55 26 129 15
6'7" 17 25 12 54 24 *130 11
6'6" 15 24 9 53 22 131 8
6'5" 12 23 6 52 20 132 6
6'4" 10 22 3 51 18 133 4
6'3" 7 21 1 **50 16 134 2
6'2" 5 20 0 49 14 135 0
6'11" 2 48 12
6'0" 0 47 10
46 8
*45 6
44 5
43 4
42 3
41 2
40 1
*Denotes 4° - 1st Semester

"1 Denotes 3* - Ist Semester
***Denotes 3° - 2nd Semester
As noted by AH, the criteria for passing the PFT exercises are based on
the distributions of 5000 cadet scores compiled over two years. Based on this
sample of cadets, the standard scores predict the following numbers of fail-
ures per 1000 male cadets in each exercise in each class:
Glog 600-yd.",
pull-ups jump push-ups sit-ups run
4th class, 2nd sem 0 1 0 0 0

3rd class, 1st sem 6 11 5 0 6
All others 67 67 45 8 67
Failures per 100 female cadets in each exercise in each class would be:
4th class, 2nd sem 0 0 0 0 0

3rd class, 1st sem 0 1 1 0 2
All others 2 7 4 1 21
As one can see, the tests receive varied emphases, and the tests all become
more discriminating with Cadet progress at USAFA. Originally, the end-of-3rd-
class-year criterion for each exercise was two standard deviations below the
mean, or a T-score of 30, which predicts a 2.3% failure rate (Lt Col Thomas,
personal communication). The rationale for the current set of criteria may
not be well documented. There are also some problems with the sampling that
produced the distributions for men and women. The men's sample of 5000
contains an unknown number of test repetitions by cadets, and an unknown
distribution of time of testing (i.e., 4th class, 3rd class, etc.). The
women's sample may only contain about 300 women (the first two classes) unless
it has been updated since Lt Col Thomas departed AH. Recently (fall 1981), Al
considered using the third class, second semester criteria (*** in Tables 1
and 2) as criteria for all cadets.
The brief summary of the PFT provided by Walter (1970) in the introduc-
tion to his dissertation contains a description of the genesis of the rapid
testing procedure adopted by AH. This procedure allows a regulated 3
minutes per exercise, in the order: pull-ups, long-jump, push-ups (number in
2 minutes), sit-ups, and the start of the 600-yd run.
4 Cadets were tested on an individual basis in the past

but recently have been tested on a mass basis called the
station system. This was done to accommodate the growing
number of cadets. The station system requires twenty-
eight to thirty-five hours of testing and retesting per
semester with a current enrollment of over 3800 cadets.
Local studies made of the PFT show that: it relates well
to the PAE, performance drops off in the senior year, and
continued motivation is necessary to maintain a high level
of performance.
PFT Historical Records
The following excerpts from USAFA historical records, available from the
USAFA library, document a number of years of progress in administering the
PFT. The integration of the Aerobics run (1971-72) and weight monitoring
(1977) programs with the PFT is also documented here.
8
1964-65 (academic year):
During the summer program, the physical fitness test

was administered twice, the week of 13-17 July and the
week of 11-14 August. The station method of administering
the test was used for the first time and was "far supe-
rior" to previous methods employed. After starting the
first test item, the Basic Cadet completed the physical
fitness test in 15 minutes. Five of the cadets completed
each item in three minutes or less. "This provided the
capability of running 100 to 120 basic cadets through the
PFT in approximately 40 minutes." Members of the First
Class Detail served as test administrators for each test-
ing cycle. The detail members required only one
15-minute orientation briefing to prepare them for the
testing. (Rpt, OIC, PFT, to DAPE, Subj: After Action
Report, Physical Fitness Testing, 13 Aug 64)
The first physical fitness test was completed by 811
Basic Cadets; 128 were medically excused. The mean for
each was as follows: (Ibid)
Class of 1968 Class of 1967
Pull-ups 7.73 8.15

Standing Broad Jump 7'3.2 7'3
Dips 13.95 17.57
Sit-ups 62.4 66.01
600-Yard Run 1 min 50.9 sec 1 min 43.6 sec
Total Converted Score Mean 248 280
The Department of Physical Education believed there

were two reasons why the Class of 1968 had a lower mean
score than the Class of 1967. In the first place, the
test was administered with very little rest between the
test items - 15 minutes, as compared to the 50 minutes
allowed the previous summer. This would have a definite
effect on the performance of the last three test items.
Secondly, the Basic Cadet in the previous summer had been
permitted to rest in the straight arm position while
performing the dips on the parallel bars, a practice which
was forbidden in the summer of 1963. This might account
for the fact that the mean was lower for the Class of
1968. However, the Class of 1968 as a whole exhibited a
weaker upper body area. Their pull-ups were less and
their sit-ups were considerably lower than those of the
Class of 1967. Furthermore, the 600 yard run by the Class
of 1968 was considerably slower. This might partially be
explained "by the lack of rest after performing the sit-
ups, and the lack of pacing knowledge exhibited by each
basic cadet." (Ibid)
9
.'
A complete analysis of the PFT Program made during

the reporting period indicated that the mean PFT score of
the Wing rose from 249 in the fall to 254 in the spring,
which was four points between the top and bottom squad-
rons. Although the PFT was an individual item, it was
felt that internal squadron motivation played a big part
in each cadet's score. Several squadrons, it was noted,
engaged in intrasquadron competition and/or extra condi-
tioning programs for their weak cadets, obviously with
considerable success. Also noted was a steady decline in
the performance of the First Classmen dating from the
spring testing period in their Second Class year.
(Report, DAEX to DOIH, Subject: Superintendent's Semi-
annual Report, 26 July 1967)
During the fall semester Research and Evaluation

Division administered the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) with
significant results. Each of the classes showed an
increase in its mean score over that of the previous
spring. The First Class reversed a trend toward poorer
performance in the First Class year. However, in the
spring, the First Classmen again showed a decline but
their fall mean score was the highest in their four years
at the Academy. In the fall semester, 37 cadets scored
over 400 points on the PFT and one member of the Class of
1968 achieved a perfect score of 500. In the spring, the
Division completed a thorough analysis of the PFT program
for the 1967-68 academic year. "The mean PFT score of the
entire Wing was raised from 255 in the fall to 278 in the
spring. This was 28 points above the statistically pre-
dicted mean of 250. An order of mean list was compiled
for all of the squadrons based on each squadron's mean
score. There was a difference of over 56 points between
the top and bottom squadrons." (Reports, DAEX to DOIH,
Subject: Superintendent's Semiannual Reports, 31 January
1968 and 24 July 1968)
Volume 5 of the Academy Physical Education Research

Digest was published; it contained abstracts of the fol-
lowing eight completed research studies: (1) Research
Abstracts; (2) Physical Aptitude Examination (PAE) Synthe-
sis; (3) PAE Comparison of Selected Data; (4) PAE Compari-
son of Athletes by Sport; (5) Physical Fitness Test (PFT)
Comparison of Athletes by Sport; (6) Athlete/Non-Athlete
Comparison of Academic Grades, PE Grades, PAE and PFT; (7)
Athlete/Non-Athlete Comparison of Attrition; and (8)
Comparison of Swim Test Results. (Input...AHX, 18 June
1971)
10
:z_..N
A total of 6,618 cadets took the physical fitness

test (PFT) during this academic year. The Cadet Wing mean
was 260. For the second successive year the Air Force
Aerobics Test was used in lieu of the PFT for First Class-
men, who "definitely prefer" the Aerobics Test. (Rprt,
AHX to HO, 12 Jul 72 (Atch 3))
Scores on the PFT administered to the Class of 1975

on 8-9 July follow, as does a comparison of PFT scores
over the last 4 years. (Memo for Record, Capt K. R.
Ziegler, OIC, Physical Assessments, subj: After Action
Rprt, First PFT (Summer 1971), 12 Aug 71)
Class Average Mean Score

d 219.57
1974 250.52
1973 238.47
1972 216.93 [Aerobics run]
Comparison of Five Test Items by Class
Test Item 1975 1974 1973 1972

Pul-Ups 2T1 T--75 Y52
Broad Jump 7'10.28" 7'.46" 7'5" 7'4.47"
Push-Ups 22.86 35.41 34.6 33.2
Sit-Ups 63.27 67.30 65.4 62.3
600-Yd Run 2:02.29 1:52.41 1:50.2 1:52.20
Additional Results (Class of 1975)

High Score 454
Low Score 36
Zero Pull-Ups 9
Medical Excusals 40
NOR, INC* 25
400 Club 5
*No official reason or incomplete - includes all cadets
who did not sign into the Academy, or who processed out
during the first week.
11
. ..
.%I..
*. *-.* .> ~
.. . *,~
. . . . . .
r' Minimum scores for the PFT were:
Standing 600-
Class Semester Pul 1-Ups Broad Jump Push-Ups Sit-Ups Yd Run
4th 1st None Established

4th 2nd 3 6'06" 24 40 2:07
3rd 1st 5 6'09" 27 45 2:04
All other cadets 7 7'00" 30 50 2:00
This year's Wing mean standard for the PFT was 263.8
points, compared to a mean score of 260.0 points the pre-
ceding year. (Report, AH to HO, 2 July 1973)
The same minima were required as in 1972-73.
Also, the wing mean standard score for the PFT was
265.3 points, slightly higher than the 264.8 mean from the
previous year. This can be broken down by class as
follows:
Class Mean Standard Score
*1975 272.8 [Aerobics run]
1976 272.8
1977 263.5
. 1978 258.1
Wing 265.3
*First classmen ran the 1 1/2 mile run in lieu of the PFT;
however, their scores were converted to the same standard
scale.
The May Elective Program was no longer in existence,

per se. First Classmen took an Aerobics Program in which
they construct their own workout schedule in order to
participate in enough aerobic activities to gain "20
aerobics points" per week. A great variety of activities
were available to them and they participated during their
free time, keeping their own records. They had only one
'scheduled" physical education class during which they
were briefed on the Aerobics Program. The intent was to
groom a fitness program of enjoyable activities for later
use as officers in the Air Force. This course proved to
be enjoyable and rewarding to the First Classonen and far
more beneficial than the previous May Elective Program.
12
1975 (Jul-Dec):
The same minima were required as 1972-1973.

The Cadet Wing mean standard score for the fall
semester was 262.5. Broken down by class the mean stan-
dard scores reflected the following:

T"7r 299.3 [Aerobics run]
1977 263.8
1978 249.6
1979 237.4
1976 (calendar year):

The minima were:
*FLEX-ARM
HANG LONG
CLASS SEMESTER PULL-UPS JUMP PUSH-UPS SIT-UPS 600-YD RUN
F urth First NONE ESTABLISHED
DFourth Second 15 sec 5'0" 5 38 2:25
+Fourth Second 3 6'6" 24 40 2:07
Third First 5 6'9" 27 45 2:04
Third Second 7 710" 30 50 2:00
Second First ..........
Second Second 7 710" 30 50 2:00
*Indicates flex-arm hang for women in seconds instead of
pull-ups.
#Women
+Men
[Note the inclusion of the flexed-arm hang in the PFT.]
First Classmen and Second Classmen (first semester

only) take the standard Air Force Aerobics 1.5 mile dis-
tance run in lieu of the physical fitness test (PFT).
Maximum allowable time for this run is 11:45 minutes. Run
times are converted to a standard scale. The Cadet Wing
mean standard score for the Fall Semester 1976 PFT was
279.19 points, broken down by class as follows: .

T9-T 288.25 [Aerobics run]
1978 318.59 [Aerobics run]
1979 260.19
1980 249.68
AHPE monitored the reconditioning program. During

BCT [Basic Cadet Training] 322 cadets attended recondi-
tioning; 218 men and 104 women. In the Fall Semester
1976, there were 15 PFT failures enrolled in
13
''
mr,"
" ''" " J "" -"
"' "" " "" " "' ". ' " ' - ",' - " " ' ' -."" ' " "' "-" " "" "- "
,, :': i : : - ,]* -
F1
. u. ' .,
-'. ,, - . '.
- - - - .~ ' . . . ." .. - ..
reconditioning. In addition, there were 36 cadets in the .-

Class of 1980 who were identified as marginal performers
(when compared to Fourth Class second semester minimums)
but were not enrolled in reconditioning. This was the
first time Fourth Classmen were not placed in
reconditioning after performing below standard. Fourteen
upperclassmen served as reconditioning supervisors and
counselors.
Once each semester every cadet is required to take

" the PFT. Second Class, first semester, and all First
Classmen took the 1 1/2 mile aerobics run in lieu of the
PFT. The maximum for the women's 1 1/2 mile run has not
been established. The following table shows the minimum
passing scores for the otIftr classes on the PFT:
Pull-Ups Standing
Class Semester Sex Fl Arm Hang Broad Jump Push-Ups Sit-Ups 600-Yd Run
4th 1st M None Established

4th W
4th 2nd M 3 6'6" 24 40 2:07
W 15 Sec 5'0" 5 38 2:25
3rd Ist M 5 6'9" 27 45 2:04
W 18 Sec 513" 7 42 2:20
3rd 2nd M 7 740" 30 50 2:00
2nd 2nd W 22 Sec 5'6" 9 45 2:15
[Note the inclusion of the flexed-arm hang for women again.]

-#.,
The Wing mean standard score for the Fall 1977 semes-
ter PFT was 295.55 points, higher than the 276.27 mean
from the Spring 1977 PFT. This can be broken down by
class as follows:
Mean Standard Scores
Class Spring '77 Fall '77

i -- 275.67-
1980 270.35 260.80
1979 291.58 330.67
1978 292.39 315.08 [Aerobics run]
1977 250.63 -- [Aerobics run]
First and Second Classmen took the 1 1/2 mile run in

lieu of the PFT; however, their scores were converted to
the same standard scale.
A reconditioning program was conducted each semes-

ter. Trainees were PFT and aerobics run failures. Women
were enrolled during the spring cycle for the first time.
14
7.
, :"v . *'-* - . - . .-.

- .-*- . '.4. '-"... .m
, . . - ,. -.-7. . . -' . ,' ... . . :4 -,
- :
In addition, a weight monitoring and control program was
initiated this year. Cadet weights were monitored through
a computer program. Overweight cadets were identified,
counselled, given physical activity programs and diet
assistance.
All cadets were required to take the PFT and Aerobics

Test each semester except the First Class. The First
Class was required to run the Aerobics Test each semes-
ter. Aerobics testing was conducted by individual squad-
rons with the Evaluation Branch supplying the computer
cards, computing the results, and supervising the remedial
training, if required. Only those cadets in the category
of on-season intercollegiate athletics or cadets having
currently 400/500 PFT Club status, or cadets having a
'valid medical excusal with a blue slip were excused from
taking the PFT. With the exception of 500 Club members,
excused cadets must take the PFT and Aerobics Test at
least once during each academic year.
The new PFT minimum standards are as follows:
Fourth Class Men Women

(1) Pull-UPS 1
(2) Standing Long Jump 6161 510"
(3) Push-ups 24 5
(4) Sit-ups (2 min) 40 38
(5) 600-yard run 2:07 min 2:25 min
Third Class, First Semester Men Women

(1) Pull-ups 7 r
(2) Standing Long Jump 6'9" 5131
(3) Push-ups 27 7
(4) Sit-ups (2 min) 45 42
(5) 600-yard run 2:04 min 2:20 min
Third Class, Second Semester Men Women

and Second Class
(1) Pull-ups 7 3
(2) Standing Long Jump 7' 5'6"
13 Push-ups 30 9
Sit-ups (2 min) 50 45
(5) 600-yard run 2:00 min 2:15 min
This year, the women's integration panel did not hold
a formal session. However Lieutenant Colonel Thomas,
panel chairman, initiated a proposal in 1976 to change the
Women's PFT flexed-arm-hang to pull-ups. Of the five PFT
test items, this was the only test item that differed from
men, Approval was granted. Beginning with the past
summer program (summer 1978), Class of 1982, women cadets
performed pull-ups in lieu of the flexed-arm-hang. Women
15
L4
- - - - - .- - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-it-72
cadets in the Classes of 1980 and 1981 started doing

pull-ups during the regular PFT cycles (twice a year).
All cadets were required to take the Physical Fitness

Test (PFT) and Aerobics Test each semester, except First
Class Cadets. The First Class was required to run the
Aerobics Test each semester. The PFT was scheduled and
administered by the Physical Education staff. The Aero-
bics Test was conducted by the individual squadrons. The
Evaluation Branch supplied the computer cards, computed
the results, and supervised the remedial training. Only
on-season intercollegiate athletes, 400/500 club members,
and cadets with valid medical excusals were excused from
taking the tests. With the exception of 500 club members,
all cadets must take the PFT and Aerobics at least once
each academic year.
The new PFT minimum standards which took effect this

year are as follows:
Fourth Class Men Women

(1) Pull1-ups 4 1
(2) Standing Long Jump 6'8" 5'-
(3) Push-ups 26 7
(4) Sit-ups (2 min) 45 42
(5) 600-yard run 2:10 2:26
Third Class, First Semester Men Women

(1) Pul l-ups 6 2
(2) Standing Long Jump 6'11" 5'51
(3) Push-ups 29 9
(4) Sit-ups (2 min) 50 46
(5) 600-yard run 2:06 2:23
Third Class and Second Class,
Second Semester Men Women
(1) Pul l-ups 9 3
(2) Standing Long Jump 12" 5'811
13? Push-ups 32 11
Sit-ups (2 min) 55 50
(5) 600-yard run 2:03 2:20
The minimum standard for the Aerobics Test is the
same for all classes: men 11:15 and women 13:31.
This year a four year reconditioning plan was devel-

oped and implemented. As a result of this, it was recom-
mended that ten cadets, based on their performance on the
PFT, be placed in R-Flight in lieu of summer leave. These
ten cadets were reconditioned by AHP and all of them
successfully completed the requirements at the end of the
R-Fl ight period.
16
7.-. -2- V
During 1979, 254 cadets were identified and involved I

in the Weight Monitoring Program. These cadets were
tested for body fat percentages. Results of these tests
placed 33
formen andand16 27%
women
to in
3% the
to 20% men, for "soft core"These
women). rangecadets
(17%
were counseled and placed on a formal weight reduction

.'.p rog ram.,
A second group of 11 men and 4 women were placed in 7

the "hard core" group (men over 20%, and women over 30%).
This group was given a physical at the Cadet Clinic and
then placed on a reduced caloric diet and enrolled in
reconditioning by the Athletic Review Committee. Together
the group lost a total of 281 pounds equating to a mean
loss of 6.5 pounds per person. The "hard core" men aver-
aged 11 pounds per man weight loss and the "hard core"
women averaged 8.3 pounds loss.
A Cadet Reconditioning Program is set up to recondi-

tion cadets failing the fall and spring PFT's. In the
fall of 1978, 16 cadets were recommended for recondition-
ing by the Athletic Review Committee. All cadets made
good progress and were removed from reconditioning in
December. In the spring cycle there were 21 cadets taking
part in conditioning activities. Total cadets in condi-
tioning were 24 men and 13 women for the entire year.
Last spring 2 women and 5 men were recommended for R-
Flight due to PFT failure. All passed at the end of
June. In addition to the PFT failures, there were 13 hard
core overweight people enrolled for weight reduction. All
succeeded in meeting their Air Force maximum stdndard.
The following material was extracted from a recent briefing given by the
Athletics Department to the Superintendent:
The purpose of the PFT is to measure and determine
the fitness level of the Cadet Wing. The test is used to
identify physical strengths and weaknesses of cadets, to
motivate cadets toward maintaining a high level of phys-
ical fitness, and to develop an understanding of the
importance of physical fitness to future officers of the
United States Air Force.
The PFT is given to the lower three classes once each

semester. The test itself is administered over a four-day
period with one cad.t group scheduled to test each day. -
Two make-up tests are scheduled during the semester for
those cadets who are unable to test during the normal -!
schedule.
17
.**-'. .. .. . ....
.. ,.J L . . . .. -. , - . S: *- o .*-S.-
L . o. ." , , ° - . .. .
The actual test consists of five items: pull-ups,

long jump, push-ups, sit-ups, and the 600-yard run, in
this order. The test takes fifteen minutes for each cadet
to complete. Three minutes are given to each test event;
however, the sit-ups test consists of the maximum number
of sit-ups a cadet can perform in a two-minute period.
Each test event is scored on a scale of 0 to 100 with

the total test worth 500 points.
Class standards include different minimum require-

ments for each class but the same maximum standards for
all classes.
Class minimum standards are:
EVENT 40 30 20
[Fres'imen] [Sophoores] [JunTors]
MEN
PULL-UPS 4 6 8
LONG JUMP 6'8" 6'11" 7'2"
PUSH-UPS 26 29 32
- SIT-UPS 45 50 55
600-YD RUN 2:10 2:06 2:03
WOMEN
• PULL-UPS 1 2 3
LONG JUMP 512" 51511 518"
PUSH-UPS 7 9 11
SIT-UPS 42 46 50
600-Y) RUN 2:26 2:23 2:20
Cadets who achieve the minimum on all items pass the test
regardless of their total score. Cadets who fail one item
must score 226 points to pass the test. Cadets who fail
two or more events fail the test regardless of their
points.
Percentile rankings of total points within each class
are:
MEN
SCORE 40 30 20
100 0 0 0
150 0 .4 .73
200 1.7 4.3 5.5
250 7.0 17.4 22.0
300 25.0 43.9 50.6
350 50.8 68.4 74.9
400 71.5 86.5 91.1
450 90.8 97.7 99.1
500 99.9 99.9 99.9
18
r'j ...- - - - . - .--
WOMEN
SCORE 40 30 20
150 0 6.9 1.9

200 6.2 14.3 7.0
250 17.0 35.4 20.5
300 41.6 58.0 48.6
350 60.9 73.3 70.1
400 75.6 P2.7 89.1
450 92.1 95.5 95.1
500 99.9 99.9 99.9
Cadets who score 500 points on the PFT are excused

from taking the PFT for the rest of their cadet career.
In order to score 500 points a cadet must achieve the
maximums as shown.
MEN WOMEN
PULL-UPS 20 10
LONG JUMP 9'0" 7'10"
PUSH-UPS 65 34
SIT-UPS 85 85
600-YD RUN 1:35 1:53
We are presently in the process of designing and

purchasing distinctive T-shirts to give to 500 Club
members. 500 Club members will be permitted to wear these
shirts to their PE classes or any other PE activity.
Names of 500 Club cadets are displayed on the 500

Club board maintained in the cadet gym.
Cadets who score 400 points on the fall PFT are

excused from the spring PFT.
Cadets who fail the PFT receive an "F" in PE 105,
106, etc. All failures are placed on athletic probation.
All failures are also reviewed by the Athletic Review
Committee for appropriate action. The ARC makes recom-
mendations on special reconditioning, PE R-Flight, and
disenrol Iment.
The fall PFT was given 21-24 September with make-ups

given 3 and 24 October. We have an overall failure rate
of 2.1%, with a male failure rate of 1.6% and a female
rate of 5.8%. These rates are an improvement over past
years.
We use past PFT's to understand where cadets now

stand physically and whether they are improving or not.
BCT [Basic Cadet Training] PFT results for the four

classes now at the academy show a vast decrease in failure
rates from the first BCT PFT to the second [Table 3].
19
p. - . ...- , .• . .. ..
TABLE 3. BCT PFT RESULTS, 1978 - 1981
TOTAL MEN WOMEN

BCT
CLASS TEST PASS FAIL %FAIL PASS FAIL %FAIL PASS FAIL %FAIL
18 1 1022 347 25.3 952 259 21.4 70 88 55.7
2 1236 155 11.1 1118 105 8.5 118 50 29.8
1 1046 337 24.4 971 262 21.2 75 75 50.0

1983
2 1147 94 7.8 1046 73 6.5 101 21 17.2
1 994 532 34.9 914 411 31.0 80 121 60.2

1984
2 1360 67 4.7 1226 36 2.9 134 31 18.8
~1985 195 1 970 416 30.0 917 300 24.7 53 116 68.6
2 1177 71 5.69 1078 40 3.71 99 31 28.8
Although acclimatization to the altitude and knowledge of

how to take the test account for some of this improvement,
the physical conditioning resulting from basic training is
readily apparent.
However, even as cadets are removed from the physical

rigors of BCT, they still increase in physical fitness.
On the fall PFT, all classes had improved drastically over
their respective BCT PFT failure rates [Table 4].
By tracing yearly average event scores as well as

overall point totals, we can see how physical performance
on each event has developed over the last sixteen years of
the test [three years for women]. Pull-ups have increased
for men from 10 to almost 13. Pull-ups for women have
decreased. In the spring 1981 we tightened the adminis-
tration of individual test items which lowered score
averages on that test.
Long jump for both sexes remains very consistent.
Push-ups have increased for both men and women with the
most marked improvement being with the women [from about
12 to about 28 for the women]. Sit-ups have also improved
with both sexes [women improved from about 57 to about 67,
equalling men]. Both groups have shown slight increases
in their times on the 600-yard run.
In overall point averages, both men and women have

shown a steady increase.
20
TABLE 4. FALL PFT RESULTS BY CLASS
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
PASS FAIL %FAIL PASS FAIL %FAIL PASS FAIL %FAIL
1983 814 11 1.3 732 8 1.0 82 3 3.6
1984 1034 33 3.2 908 17 1.9 126 16 12.7
1985 1107 20 1.8 959 17 1.8 148 3 2.0
We compared cadet performance on the PFT for the

class of 1985 to other men and women throughout the
nation. This comparison was made based on the results of
national PFT performance given to a comparable age group.
We compared the two summer PFTs and the fall PFT to
national performance. Even on the first PFT, when the
cadet is not acclimated to the altitude, the men score in
the 80th percentile or higher on pull-ups, long jump and
push-ups. They are above the 50th percentile for sit-ups
and are at the 40th percentile on the run. As you can
see, cadet performance improves on the second summer PFT
and fall PFT. We associate the cadets' lower performance
on sit-ups and run to the difference in administration of
our test versus the national test. Our test is adminis-
tered in 15 minutes and the national test is administered
in two days with strength items on the first day (pull-
ups, push-ups and sit-ups) and endurance items (600-yd run
and long jump) on the second day.
For women we were only able to compare three events.

The national test for women does not include pull-ups or
push-ups. In BCT our women scored at or above the 75th
percentile on the long jump and sit-ups. They were at the
44th percentile on the run. We again attribute this to
test administration. Our women's performance also
improved on the second summer PFT and fall PFT.
We also compared the Wing's mean performance on this

fall's PFT to the national rankings. The cadets performed
extremely well (80th to 100th percentile) on all items
except men's 600-yard run.
We are bringing into the academy cadets who are at a

high level of fitness.
21
°.7
The fitness level of cadets appears to have increased

over the years from 1964 to present as measured by the
PFT.
Cadet performances on the PFT compare very favorably

-* with national PFT performance of a comparable age group.
Current weight standards set by AFMPC/ASD and published in AFR 35-11 (and
applicable to all USAF personnel, regardless of age, after 1 November 1981)
are shown in TaEe 5.
TABLE 5. USAF WEIGHT STANDARDS (AS OF NOV 1, 1981)
Men Women
Height inches Maximum Height inches Maximum
60 153 58 126
61 155 59 128
62 158 60 130
63 160 61 132
64 164 62 134
65 169 63 136
66 174 64 139
67 179 65 144
68 184 66 148
69 189 67 152
70 194 68 156
11 199 69 161
72 205 70 165
73 211 71 169
74 218 72 174
75 224 73 179
76 230 74 185
77 236 75 190
78 242 76 196
79 248 77 201
80 254 78 206
79 211
80 216
AEROBICS TEST
The following text from Walter (1970, pp. 4-5) appears to be the best
USAFA-generated documentation concerning the introduction of Aerobics testing
into the USAFA program.
The United States Air Force has recently completed a

study on a new type of physical fitness program. It is a
1.5 miles running test designed by Lt Colonel Kenneth H.
Cooper, M.D., USAF. (18) Cooper used Balke's Field Test
of Fitness as a foundation for the development of the
program. Balke devised a 15-minute field test, in which
an individual would run (or walk) as fast as he could for
22
15 minutes, and at the end of the exercise, his speed
measured in meters per minute would be calculated. This
value appeared to correlate well with his oxygen consump-
tion established on a treadmill run. (19:33) Cooper
modified Balke's test to accommodate the mass population
of the Air Force by experimenting with different times in
L the run/walk and treadmill testing. He settled upon a
12-minute performance test which correlated well with the
oxygen consumption data derived from treadmill testing.
Cooper then determined that an individual's physical con-
dition could be best evaluated through the measurement of
aerobic capacity and cardiovascular endurance by running
1.5 miles in 12 minutes. The resultant program involved a
pass or fail type of test with category ratings assigned
as a result of performance by various age increments.
Conditioning exercises were also developed for those who
could not pass the test by means of oxygen consumption
tests on the treadmill and/or in the field.
In January 1970, the 1.5 miles test replaced the test

outlined in the RCAF 5BX Plan for Physical Fitness (66) as
part of the official Air Force physical fitness program.
This new program is entitled the USAF Aerobics Physical
Fitness Program. (20) The elimination of the 5BX was
brought about by the continued high incidence of those
diseases involving the heart, lungs, and blood vessels
within the Air Force. Further, it was noted that numerous
knee and back injuries were incurred during 5BX testing
causing the loss of productive man-hours.
In one of Lt Colonel Cooper's original studies of

this program, he implied that an increase of strength in
all muscles of the body, particularly the arms, was com-
mensurate with increased endurance capacity. (18:6) This
was based on data of airmen who could run the mile in less
than 8:00 minutes in the 5BX Plan. Of the 30-35% who
passed the mile run, 87% could also pass the calisthenic
requirements of the 5BX (push-ups, sit-ups, and trunk
circles). With training, 97% of these airmen were able to
pass the same calisthenic requirement. In studying a
group that was able to exceed 1.5 miles in 12:00 minutes,
the percentages were even higher, both at the beginning
and at the end of training. If this relationship is in
fact true, the 1.5 miles test could satisfactorily replace
existing physical tests of fitness as an indicator of
physical strength as well as endurance.
The Aerobics 1.5 mile test replaced the PFT for First Classmen in 1970,
the year Walter completed his dissertation. In his text, Walter went on to
thoroughly review the relationship between aerobic training and the develop-
inent of upper body strength. Walter's data showed, as reiterated by Sampson
(1971):
23
-A
"There was no apparent relationship between the 1.5 miles
test and pull-ups or push-ups. Therefore, it was assumed
that Cooper's theory on upper arm strength being commensu-
rate with endurance capacity was not valid."
The actual correlation values (apparently Pearson product moment) were in the
approximate range of zero to -0.10.
The subsequent integration of the Aerobics test with the PFT was partial-
ly documented in the USAFA History, the applicable excerpts of which were
presented in the preceding section of this report. In the 1971-72 academic
year report, it was noted that First Classmen took the Aerobics test in lieu
of the PFT for the second year. Sometime during this period, standard scores
were established for the Aerobics test. The distribution and standard scores
are reproduced in Table 6 from AHPOI 11-3, Atch 9-3, 18 August 1980.
The sampling of cadets that led to the Aerobics run performance distribu-
tion is not documented. The standard score for the Class of 1972, reported in
the 1971-72 academic year report indicated an average 1.5-mile time of 11:00
minutes (7:19 per mile) based on the currently published distribution. In the
Class of 1975, the cadets averaged 10:17 minutes (6:51 per mile), and in the
Class of 1976, 10:03 minutes (6:52 per mile). In calendar year 1976, first
semester Second Classmen also took the Aerobics test in lieu of the PFT. That
year's report indicates that the Class of 1977 ran the 1.5 miles in 10:08
(6:45 per mile) while the Class of 1978 ran it in 9:54 (6:36 per mile). In
calendar year 1977, First and Second Classmen took the Aerobics test in lieu
of the PFT. The Class of 1977 ran 10:33 (7:02 per mile) in the spring semes-
ter of their senior year, while the Class of 1978 ran 10:06 (6:44 per mile) in
the spring and 9:56 (6:37 per mile) in the fall. These are all average times.
In calendar years 1978 and 1979, Fourth through Second Classmen took the
Aerobics test and the PFT. First Classmen took only the Aerobics test.
PHYSICAL APTITUDE EXAMINATION (PAE)
The PAE is, by far, the most studied and documented of the subjects con-
sidered in this report. This section contains excerpts from several investi-
gations of the PAE. The first excerpt was written as a report to the USAFA
Commandant of Cadets by Maj W. C. McGlothlin in August 1955. It describes the
original structure of the PAE.
A Proposed Physical Aptitude Examination:
In the development of the proposed physical aptitude

examination, the following criteria have been followed:
a. The specific test items should sample as many of
the basic aspects of physical aptitude as possible --
agility, balance, endurance, flexibility, power, and
strength.
L -
:l 24
'i ......
TABLE 6. AEROBICS TEST (1.5-MILE RUN) DISTRIBUTION AND STANDARD SCORES.
Source: AHPOI 11-3, Atch 9-3, USAFA/AH, 18 August 1980. The time
criteria for the run are set to exclude the lower 15% of men cadets
and lower 3.6% of women cadets. These criteria (men, 11:15; women,
13:31) are much more stringent than those set forth for the 17- to
29-year age group in AFR 35-11 (men, 14:30; women, 15:36). "
PFTA SCORES
RAW RAW STD RAW RAW STO RAN RAW STO RAW RAW STO RAW RAW STE RAW RAW SIC
7:46 8:56 499 8:55 10:15 417 10:04 11:35 297 11:13 12:54 200 12:22 14:13 123 13:31 15:33 54
7:47 8:57 498 8:56 10:16 415 10:05 11:36 295 11:14 12:55 199 12:23 14:14 122 13:32 15:34 53
% 7:48 8:58 497 8:57 10:18 413 10:06 11:37 292 11:15 12:56 196 12:24 14:16 121 13:33 15:35 52
7:49 8:59 496 8:58 10:19 412 10:07 11:38 290 1TIW 12:57 7 12:25 14:17 120 13:34 15:36 51
- 7:50 9:00 495 8:59 10:20 410 10:08 11:39 288 11:17 12:59 195 12:26 14:18 119 13:35 15:37 50
7:51 9:01 494 9:00 10:21 408 10:09 11:40 287 11:18 13:00 194 12:27 14:19 118 13:36 15:38 49
7:52 9:03 493 9:01 10:22 407 10:10 11:41 285 11:19 13:01 193 12:28 14:20 117 13:37 15:40 48
7:53 9:04 492 9:02 10:23 405 10:11 11:43 283 11:20 13:02 192 12:29 14:21 116 13:38 15:41 47
7:54 9:05 491 9:03 10:24 404 10:12 11:44 282 11:21 13:03 190 12:30 14:23 115 13:39 15:42 46
7:55 9:06 490 9:04 10:26 402 10:13 11:45 280 11:22 13:04 189 12:31 14:24 114 13:40 15:43 45
* 7:56 9:07 489 9:05 10:27 400 10:14 11:46 278 11:23 13:05 188 12:32 14:25 113 13:41 15:44 44
7:57 9:09 488 9:06 10:28 398 10:15 11:47 277 11:24 13:07 187 12:33 14:26 112 13:42 15:45 43
7:58 9:00 487 9:07 10:29 397 10:16 11:48 275 11:25 13:08 185 12:34 14:27 111 13:43 15:46 42
7:59 9:11 486 9:08 10:30 395 10:17 11:50 273 11:26 13:09 184 12:35 14:28 110 13:44 15:48 41
- 8:00 9:12 485 9:09 10:31 393 10:18 11:51 272 11:27 13:10 183 12:36 14:29 109 13:45 15:49 40
- 8:01 9:13 484 9:10 10:32 392 10:19 11:52 270 11:28 13:11 182 12:37 14:31 108 13:46 15:50 39
8:02 9:14 483 9:11 10:34 390 10:20 11:53 268 11:29 13:12 180 12:38 14:32 107 13:47 15:51 38
":03 9:15 482 9:12 10:35 388 10:21 11:54 267 11:30 13:14 179 12:39 14:33 106 13:48 15:52 37
8:04 9:17 481 9:13 10:36 387 10:22 11:55 265 11:31 13:15 178 12:40 14:34 10 13:49 15:53 36
8:05 9:18 480 9:14 10:37 385 10:23 11:56 263 11:32 13:16 177 12:41 14:35 104 13:50 15:54 35
8:06 9:19 479 9:15 10:38 383 10:24 11:58 262 11:33 13:17 175 12:42 14:36 103 13:51 15:56 34
* 8:07 9:10 478 9:16 10:39 382 10:25 11:59 260 11:34 13:18 174 12:43 14:37 102 13:52 15:57 33
8:08 9:21 477 9:17 10:41 380 10:26 12:00 259 11:35 13:19 173 12:44 14:39 101 13:53 15:58 32
, 8:09 9:22 476 9:18 10:42 378 10:27 12:02 258 11:36 13:20 172 12:45 14:40 100 13:54 15:59 31
8:10 9:23 475 9:19 10:43 377 10:28 12:03 257 11:37 13:22 170 12:46 14:41 99 13:55 16:00 30
8:11 9:25 474 9:20 10:44 375 10:29 12:05 255 11:38 13:23 169 12:47 14:42 98 13:56 16:01 29
8:12 9:26 473 9:21 10:45 373 10:30 12:06 254 11:39 13:24 168 12:48 14:43 97 13:57 16:03 28
8:13 9!27 472 9:22 10:46 372 10:31 12:07 253 11:40 13:25 167 12:49 14:44 96 13:58 16:04 27
8:14 9:28 471 9:23 10:47 370 10:32 12:08 252 11:41 13:26 165 12:50 14:45 95 13:59 16:05 26
* 8:15 9:29 470 9:24 10:49 368 10:33 12:09 250 11:42 13:27 164 12:51 14:47 94 14:00 16:06 25
8:16 9:20 469 9:25 10:50 367 10:34 12:10 249 11:43 13:28 163 12:52 14:48 93 14:01 16:07 24
8:17 9:32 466 9:26 10:51 365 10:35 12:11 248 11:44 13:30 162 12:53 14:49 92 14:02 16:08 23
8:18 9:33 467 9:27 10:52 363 10:36 12:13 247 11:45 13:31 160 12:54 14:50 91 14:03 16:09 22
8:19 9:34 466 9:28 10:53 362 10:37 12:14 245 11:46 73.37 T5 12:55 14:51 90 14:04 16:11 21
* 8:20 9:35 465 9:29 10:54 360 10:38 12:15 244 11:47 13:3 158 12:56 14:52 89 14:05 16:12 20
8:21 9:36 464 9:30 10:56 358 10:39 12:16 243 11:48 13:34 157 12:57 14:54 88 14:06 16:13 19
8:22 9:37 463 9:31 10:57 357 10:40 12:17 242 11:49 13:35 156 12:58 14:55 87 14:07 16:14 18
8:23 9:38 462 9:32 10:58 355 10:41 12:18 240 11:50 13:36 155 12:59 14:56 86 14:08 16:15 17
8:24 9:40 460 9:33 10:59 353 10:42 12:19 239 11:51 13:38 154 13:00 14:57 85 14:09 16:16 16
, 8:25 9:41 459 9:34 11:00 352 10:43 12:21 238 11:52 13:39 153 13:01 14:58 84 14:10 16:17 IS
8:26 9:42 458 9:35 11:01 350 10:44 12:22 237 11:53 13:40 152 13:02 14:99 83 14:11 16:19 14
8:27 9:43 457 9:36 11:02 348 10:45 12:23 235 11:54 13:41 151 13:03 15:00 82 14:12 16:20 13
8:26 8:44 455 9:37 11:04 347 10:46 12:24 234 11:55 13:42 ISO 13:04 15:02 81 14:13 16:21 12
8:29 9:45 454 9:38 11:05 345 10:47 12:25 233 11:56 13:43 149 13:05 15:03 80 14:14 16:22 11
8:30 9:47 453 9:39 11:06 343 10:48 12:25 232 11:57 13:45 140 13:06 15:04 79 14:15 16:23 10
8:31 9:48 452 9:40 11:07 342 10:49 12:26 230 11:58 13:46 147 13:07 15:05 78 14:16 16:24 9
8:32 9:49 450 9:41 11:08 340 10:50 12:27 229 11:59 13:47 146 13:08 15:06 77 14:17 16:26 8
8:33 9:40 449 9:42 11:09 338 10:51 12:29 228 12:00 13:48 145 13:09 15:07 76 14:18 16:27 7
8:34 9:51 448 9:43 11:10 337 10:52 12:30 227 12:01 13:49 144 13:10 15:08 75 14:19 16:28 6
8:35 9:52 447 8:44 11:12 335 10:53 12:31 225 12:02 13:50 143 13:11 15:10 74 14:20 16:29 5
8:36 9:53 445 9:45 11:13 333 10:54 12:32 224 12:03 13:51 142 13:12 15:11 73 14:21 16:30 4
8:37 9:55 444 9:46 11:14 332 10:55 12:33 223 12:04 13:53 141 13:13 15:12 72 14:22 16:31 3
8:38 9:56 443 9:47 11:15 330 10:56 12:34 222 12:05 13:54 140 13:14 15:13 71 14:23 16:32 2
8:39 9:57 442 9:40 11:16 328 10:57 12:36 220 12:06 13:55 139 13:15 15:14 70 14:24 16:34 1
8:40 9:58 440 9:49 11:17 327 10:58 12:37 219 12:07 13:56 138 13:16 15:15 69
8:41 9:59 439 9:50 11:18 325 10:59 12:38 218 12:08 13:57 137 13:17 15:17 68
8:42 10:00 438 9:51 11:20 323 11:00 12:39 217 12:09 13:58 136 13:18 15:18 67
8:43 10:01 437 9:52 11:21 322 11:01 12:40 215 12:10 13:59 135 13:19 15:19 66
8:44 10:03 435 9:53 11:22 320 11:02 12:41 214 12:11 14:01 134 13:20 15:20 65
8.45 10:04 434 9:54 11:23 318 11:03 12:42 213 12:12 14:02 133 13:21 15:21 64
8:46 10:05 432 9:55 11:24 317 11:04 12:44 212 12:13 14:03 132 13:22 15:22 63
8:47 10:06 430 9:56 11:25 315 11:05 12:45 210 12:14 14:04 131 13:23 15:23 62
8:48 10:07 429 9:57 11:26 313 11:06 12:46 209 12:15 14:05 130 13:24 15:25 61
8:49 10:06 427 9:56 11:28 312 11:07 12:47 208 12:16 14:06 129 13:25 15:26 60
8:50 10:09 425 9:59 11:29 310 11:08 12:48 207 12:17 14:08 128 13:26 15:27 59
8:51 10:11 424 10:00 11:30 307 11:09 12:49 205 12:18 14:09 127 13:27 15:28 58
8:52 10:12 422 10:01 11:31 305 11:10 12:50 204 12:19 14:10 126 13:28 15:29 57
8:53 10:13 420 10:02 11:32 302 11:11 12:52 203 12:20 14:11 125 13:29 15:30 56
Aerobics Minimums
Men - 11:15
Women - 13.31
25
. . -- ' ' - - - n T- ,W
b. The specific test times should sample the basic

aspects of physical aptitiude by means of a variety of
types of activity using as many different muscle groups as
possible.
c. The specific test items should stand the test of

basic research with respect to validity, reliability,
objectivity, and the establishment of norms.
Although this study proposes five specific test items

for the Physical Aptitude Examination, it is not to be
assumed that these five test items will continuously he
used. To the contrary, the test items will be changed
periodically to prevent prospective candidates for admis-
sion to the United States Air Force Academy from practic-
ing for the test and thus invalidate the data.
The five items for the initial physical aptitude

examination have been selected on the basis of a factor
analysis study (Div. of PR AOO. Department of Army.
Graphs of study on file in Department of Physical Train-
ing, United States Air Force Academy) of 35 physical
performance test items prepared by the Division of
Personnel Research, Adjutant Generals Office, Department
of the Army, which meet adequate validity requirements.
The data used in developing this factor analysis was
supplied by the Office of Physical Education, United
States Military Academy.
Table 7 below represents an analysis of the test

items. (See Tab 0 for description of test items.)
TABLE 7. TEST ITEM ANALYSIS
!']..Areas of Component Rel iabilIity Under

Item Body Used Tested Mass Testing Situations
1. Pullups Arms & Shoulders Endurance .9

2. Hop, Skip & Jump Total Body Coordination .85
3. 150 Yd Shuttle Total Body with Speed .83
Run Leg Emphasis
4. Mod. Basketball Arms & Torso Power .86
Throw
. urdle Run Total Body with Coordination .8
Leg Emphasis
26
L'
.-' ' .'"
I, K-.-.-- -..- ." *'.- .* * * -... •- . - . . K.
nr.,-,.b r. . ,.-n. u --- . -,,I - .,,- . ,T .- ,- ,,-
Administrative Feasibility of a Physical Aptitude

Examination--The fact that physical aptitude examinations
have been administered successfully by other institutions
is indication enough that the Air Force Academy can admin-
ister a valid and reliable physical aptitude examination.
Some of the factors which demonstrate the administrative
feasibility of the proposed physical aptitude examination
. (Tab G) for the Air Force Acaden are as follows:
a. The proposed physical aptitude examination can be

administered in approximately 60 minutes.
can b. Air Force gymnasium facilities at Testing Centers

n~vcan be used.
c. Scoring of tests and analysis of data can be

machine computed by the Department of Statistical Ser-
vices, United States Air Force Academy.
Conclusions--It is concluded that a physical aptitude

examination is a necessary part of the entrance examina-
tions for candidates to the Air Force Academy and should
be initiated as soon as possible.
The PAE has undergone several changes over the years. The current ver-
sion of the examination is depicted in Figure 1, taken from the 1981-82 USAFA
catalog.
The PAE was implemented as a screening device by USAFA in 1955, after it

* -was developed for the United States Military Academy (USMA, West Point) in
" 1949 by Appleton. The PAE minimum standard score of 400 was set in 1963,
excluding approximately the lower 16% of candidates taking the test. The
flexed-arm hang was instituted for women candidates because they generally
cannot do pull-ups. This lack produced no statistical variance in pull-up
performance to which selection criteria could be applied. Women can generally
perform the flexed-arm hang well enough to produce a performance distribution
wide enough to allow the discrimination of good from bad performers.
27"
27
PHYSICAL APTITUDE EXAMINATION ITEMS
Candidates are advised to prepare for this exam by engaging in vigorous physical activities and by
practicing on specific items. The items included in this examination are listed below.
4 -4
PULL UPS (Men)-From a FLEXED ARM HANG (Women)--You are posi- 300 YARD SHUTTLE RUN-
momentary hang position on a tioned by means of an elevating device (step Run six round trips between
horizontal bar, palms away ladder, platform, etc.) so that your chin is above two turning lines, 25 yards
from face, elevate the body un- the bar, your elbows are flexed, and your chest is apart, in the shortest time pos-
til chin is above th bar. Return close to the bar. Use an overhand grasp, palms sible.
to straightarm hang position a,-ay from body, and maintain a chin-above-bar
and repeat as many times as position as long as possible.
possible.
STANDING LONG JUMP-From a 0tanding position be- BASKETBALL THROW-From a kneeling position on a
hind a take-off tine, jump forward as i," as possible. mat, throw a basketball overhead to attain as great a
Swinging arms, bending knees, and raising h~eels off the distance as possible Three throws are allowed from
floor is allowed, but do not take a preiirmnr, y step or hop. behind the throwing line
Below are the PAE ranges of scores for men and women cadets in a recent entering class:
Flexed
Pull Arm Standing Basketball 300 Yard
Ups Hang Long Jump Throw Shuttle Run
M W M W M W M W
High Scores 29 88 sec 9' 9" 7' 9" 105' 61' 45 8 sec 58 sec
Mean Scores 10.6 277 sec 7' 11," 6' 3" 70' 40' 588 sec 68 7sec
Low Scores 1 1 sec 6' 2" 4' 10" 36' 19' 71 sec 85 sec
Figure 1. Illustration of PAE events (from 1981-82

USAFA Catalog, page 77).
28
Walter, 1970
The following text, from Walter's (1970) "Summary, Conclusions, and

Recommendations" chapter, explains his basic experimental approach and des-
cribes the statistical nature of the PAE. These remarks also address the
relationship of the PAE to the PFT and Aerobics run. Unfortunately, some of
the PAE test items examined by Walter are no longer used in the PAE.
Summar -- The purpose of this study was to recommend a

physicalproficiency testing program for the USAF Academy,
based on the results of investigating the relationship
between the USAF Academy's Candidate Physical Aptitude
Examination, the USAF Academy's Physical Fitness Test, and
the Air Force's physical fitness program, involving aero-
bic exercises. In an attempt to resolve the problem, 200
cadets in the Class of 1973 were randomly sampled and
administered each test twice. The obtained data were
statistically treated by means of the Burroughs B5500 com-
puter to analyze test items involving more than one trial,
to determine the reliability of the tests, to analyze the
relationship of each test with one another, and to analyze
the relationship of the tests which selected variables,
such as age, height, weight, the ponderal index, body
surface area, the athletic activities index, residual
index, and the drop-off index.
In scoring multi-trial test items for the PAE and the

PFT, the USAF Academy had been using the best score of the
trials to add to the composite score of the appropriate
test. Analysis of the multi-trial test items by means of
the intraclass correlation technique revealed that the
average scores in the best grouping of trials should
probably be used as the criterion measure. For the PAE
hop-step and jump and the PAE medicine ball throw, trial 2
and trial 3 appeared to be the best grouping of consecu-
tive trials. The effect of learning was evident in ana-
lyzing all three trials and produced significant trial-
to-trial variation. For the PFT standing broad jump, the
average of all three trials appeared as the appropriate
criterion measure.
All three tests, the PAE, the PFT, and the 1.5 miles
test, were found to be reliable by utilizing the test-
retest design and comparing the results by zero-order
correlation and multiple correlation technique. The high
correlation between the tests and their criterion measure
was evidence of validity since both the test and the cri-
terion were found to be reliable. Further comparisons
between the tests were made in order to select the most
reliable or stable test data to proceed into the study.
By analysis of the means, variance, and the coefficients
of correlation between the tests, the retest of the PAE,
the initial test of the PFT, and the initial test of the
1.5 miles test were selected.
29
Investigation of the PAE revealed that three of the
five test items used in deriving the PAE composite score
were apparently measuring motor ability or motor apti-
tude. These items, the zig zag run, hop-step and jump and
the 300 yard shuttle run, related well to one another and
to the PAE composite score. Also, it was found that the
zig zag run and the hop-step and jump had some effect on
the variance in the PAE composite score. While the medi-
cine ball throw was also a skill type of test time, it did
not relate as favorably. Pull-ups, the fifth test item,
appeared independent of the other test items. In con-
trast, the PFT analysis revealed little or no relationship
between its test items, indicating that the test items
were apparently measuring different factors, such as
muscular strength, muscular endurance, and power. Pull-
ups and push-ups were found to be the most influential
test items in contributing to the variance of the PFT
composite score. The PAE and PFT did relate favorably to "-
each other, however, the test batteries contained several
common test items.
The Air Force 1.5 miles test, a test designed to

measure cardiovascular endurance capacity, showed little
or no relationship to either the PAE or PFT. Of the two
tests, the 1.5 miles test related slightly better to the
PFT, perhaps due to the PFT administrative procedures and
the presence of the 600 yard run in the PFT battery. The
findings were basically in agreement with the literature
with regard to cardiovascular endurance tests and tests
designed to measure muscular strength. (16:113, 27:36)
The findings were also in direct opposition to Cooper's
premise that strength in all the muscles of the body,
particularly the arms, was commensurate with endurance
capacity. (18:6)
In summarizing the relationship of the three tests to

the selected variables, such as age, height, weight, the
ponderal index, body surface area, the athletic activities
index, residual index, and the drop-off index, it was
found that the relationships were low and, in some
instances, not significant. Specifically, there was no
relationship evident between age and the tests. Where
leverage and force were involved in the mechanics of per-
forming a test item, height and weight showed some degree
of relationship with that item. The ponderal index and
body surface area, as possible body classifiers, appeared
no better than height or weight individually. Except for
pull-ups, the athletic activities index related low, but
significantly, with the other test items of the PAE and
PFT. The athletic activities index related slightly
better with the PAE than it did with the PFT. The
relationship of the residual index and the drop-off index
with the 1.5 miles test was found to be low, but signifi-
cant. However, the coefficients of correlation obtained
30
,4L
,. . .o..= . .. * ..... . ... L . .- -.. . - - *. - , . . . . . • .
were slightly higher than previously reported in the

literature. (36:43)
Conclusions--The conclusions of this study are as follows: j
1. The use of the average score of the appropriate
trial grouping as the criterion measure appeared to be the

proper method for scoring the hop-step and jump, the medi-
cine ball throw and the standing broad jump. Using the
best performance as the criterion measure may in fact
measure learning to perform the test, rather than the
physical factor(s) sought.
2. The three tests analyzed, the PAE, the PFT, and

the 1.5 miles tests are reliable tests. Their continued
use is justified, for they appeared to consistently mea-
sure the criteria for which they were designed.
3. On the basis of its relationship with the 1.5

miles test, it may be concluded that the PAE does not
measure cardiovascular endurance. However, the measure-
ment of cardiovascular endurance is not necessarily essen-
tial to meet the criteria for selection of prospective
cadets for the USAF Academy.
4. Some relationship did exist between the 1.5 miles

test and the PFT. The measurement of cardiovascular
endurance may be of greater importance in the evaluation
of the USAF Academy's physical education program.
5. It may be concluded that muscular strength,

particularly in the arms, is not necessarily commensurate
with cardiovascular endurance capacity. The test items
in the PAE and PFT designed to measure the muscular
strength of the arms, such as pull-ups, showed no rela-
tionship with the 1.5 miles test.
6. The physique type of classification device that

involves height and/or weight as used in this study
appeared to be of little value. Cadets may generally be
considered to be a homogeneous group with regard to
physical characteristics because of the initial selection
criteria.
7. The athletic activities index showed some rela-

tionship to the PAE, which was comprised of more skill-
type test items. However, the derivation of the athletic
activities index may not possess enough objectivity to
properly appraise athletic ability and relate to the PAE
and/or PFT.
. . . . .
31
8. While some evidence of relationship was apparent
between the residual index and the drop-off index and the
1.5 miles test, the indices did not sufficiently measure
the quality of cardiovascular endurance as found in
prolonged running. There are physiological as well as
psychological limitations in running, and this appears to
be part of the problem.
'Vi
Recommendations--On the basis of the findings and conclu-
sions of this study, the following recommendations are
submitted:
1. Multi-trial test items selected for use in the

-' PAE should be statistically analyzed to determine whether
the best score of the average scores should be used for
scoring the test. It is recommended that this be a
continuous study and accomplished prior to the design of a
PAE battery of test items for any given year.
2. For the PFT standing broad jump, it is re-omen-

ded that the use of three trials be continued and the
average score of these trials be used as the basis for
scoring in the future.
3. The PAE should justifiably be continued. It

measures what it is purported to measure. Careful evalua-
tion of test items is essential and should be continued.
It is recommended that in the future the PAE include
pull-ups, an agility or speed run, such as the zig zag run
or hurdle run, a jumping test item, such as the standing
broad jump, and a general endurance run, such as a shuttle
run of 300 yards or better. The above test items are easy
to administer and relate best to the criteria deemed ess-
ential for selection of prospective cadets for the USAF
Academy.
4. The PFT should justifiably be continued. It

measures what it is purported to measure. The PFT related
sufficiently to the Air Force's 1.5 miles test to warrant
consideration for use as part of the USAF Academy's physi-
cal education program. Specifically, it is recommended
that it replace the PFT in the first class year, and/or
replace the PFT as early as the spring semester of the
second class year. Such a change may alleviate the his-
* toric decline in physical performance in the first class
year and prepare cadets for the Air Force as participants
and/or supervisors in the program.
stud5. The physique or body type of indices used in this
study did not satisfy the need for the tests used. How-
ever, it is recommended that anthropometric measurement
studies be developed to fulfill this need.
32
i -i'.- -,.i.. : -:--1-i

.> -.-..i: . . - : .- . i .~ i" .i ' i .. i -. ...-- - . i- .. - -- . - . . - .--
- .m -. w r w r
6. The running indices used in this study showed

some improvement in measuring cardiovascular endurance.
Further study of these indices with cardiovascular endur-
ance tests seems essential. It is recommerJed that in
deriving the indices, all out efforts in medium distance
running be used, such as 440 yards and 880 yards.
The following text, reproduced in whole, is a careful consideration of

all available PAE research through 1971. Its existence should prevent
unnecessary duplications of research efforts and guide us in our design of new
testing procedures, if required.
A Synthesis of Air Force Academy Physical

Aptitude Examination Research
by
Orwyn Sampson
May 1971
I. PURPOSE
The Air Force Academy has used the Physical Aptitude

Examination as a candidate selection criterion for sixteen
years. During that time, numerous studies were carried
out which examined, or attempted to examine, such ques-
tions as:
1. What should this test do for us?
2. How well does it accomplish its purpose?

3. How can it be improved?
The purpose of this monogram was to synthesize avail-

able USAFA Physical 'Aptitude Examination studies and
attempt to learn what these studies reveal in terms of the
questions listed above. It is believed that a Physical
Aptitude xamination research synthesis would be of value
in several ways:
1. It would tie together numerous individual studies

which have covered the same ground but in a slightly diff-
erent manner.
2. It would provide the investi'ator with a ready

anthology of research relacing to the Physical Aptitude
Examination.
3. It would prevent needless redundarcy and give

direction to future research efforts.
This paper is divided into three major areas with the

following headings:
33
1. Why the PAE?
2. How effective is the PAE?
3. How can it be improved?
II. WHY THE PAE?
A. Background
The Physical Aptitude Examination, colloquially

called the PAE, is one of several candidate selection
tests administered to young men seeking appointment to the
Jnited States Air Force Academy. It was patterned after a
similar test used at the United States Military Academy.
Five to six individual test items have been used

to comprise the PAE for any given year. These test items
are selected from a battery of approximately twenty test
items, each designed to test either a different aspect of
physical aptitude, or the same aspect, but in a different
manner. The entire battery is listed in the USAFA Cata-
logue.
For many years, one item on a six-item test would

be used solely for research purposes to gain information
in terms of validity, reliability, and objectivity.
Additionally, the test items were changed each year to
"reduce the learning effect." In more recent years, these
practices were changed (20, 61). (Numbers in parentheses
refer to the numerical listing of references in the
bibliography.)
The responsibility for administering the PAE was

given to the Air Force Academy and Aircrew Examining
Centers located at nearly seventy-five Air Force bases
around the world (23,25). To insure standardized testing,
Annual World-Wide Conferences of Air Force Academy and
Aircrew Examining Center Personnel were held at the Air
Force Academy. These conferences began in 1956 and con-
tinued until 1962 at which time the recommendation was
made to send Department of Physical Education personnel to
selected bases each year to conduct PAE clinics. The cost
to USAFA for this program is approximately $2,000 per year
(61).
The PAE is administered to candidates at the base
gymnasium of the Air Force instillation to which they are
assigned for medical testing. It requires approximately
one and one-half hours to administer and is given by per-
sonnel trained in accordance with the USAFA PAE Manual.
34
Several significant changes in the PAE have been
seen since 1966. Originally, the test accounted for only
*% of the final selection composite. This was raised to
*% in 1961 when the AFOOT was dropped (19). In 1960, the
standard scores for zero pull-ups and chins were changed
from 322 and 274, respectively, to 200 thereby making it
more difficult for a weak candidate to receive an appoint-
ment (9). In addition, the minimum composite PAE score
for an appointment was raised from 350 in 1956 to 400 in
1963 (30). The standard score scale used for the PAE
ranges from 200 to 800 with a candidate mean of 500
points.
In the early sixties two important changes were

developing, both in response to budgetary considerations.
An interest in joint service academy testing to avoid
duplication of effort (39) and a desire to develop a
simplified PAE (47,35,43) were generated.
B. Need
In 1955, the same year the first class entered

the Air Force Academy, a report was submitted to higher
headquarters which requested the establishment of a Candi-
date Physical Aptitude Examination (68). That report
included the following definitions which will be adhered
to throughout this paper:
1. Physical Aptitude: A predictive measure of

an individual s capacity to acquire a satisfactory level
of physical ability.
2. Physical Ability: That degree of capability

an individual possesses in order to perform activities
associated with (a) accomplishing military duties, (b)
maintaining good health and physical condition, and (c)
leading an active recreational life with respect to these
definitions, it must be remembered that physical aptitude
is a capacity for acquiring physical ability; this capac-
ity is inferred from a score received on a performance-
type test. How effectively this is accomplished is
examined in a later part of the paper.
The need for a candidate PAE was felt early in

the Academy's development. Much of the need was addressed
from experience gained at the United States Military
Academy after nearly a decade of such testing. (Dr. Lloyd
Appleton originated the PAE at the USMA and later summa-
rized the program in a doctoral dissertation completed at
New York University in 1949.)
*Blank in original document.
35
Justification for the PAE appeared in many forms
(26, 31, 39, 61) and suggested monetary savings to the Air
Force and better identification of successful cadets in
terms of their ability to graduate, their physical educa-
tion performance, and their leadership ability.
Financially, it was estimated that savings of

$60,000 per year would be realized by eliminating those
candidates weak in physical aptitude. It was pointed out
that numerous programs, such as Army Ranger and Airborne
Training, other service academies, various city and state
police departments, and physical education schools, use a
physical aptitude screening of their candidates. It is
strongly believed that considerable amounts of time and
money would be wasted in an attempt to develop a physi-
cally substandard individual for a highly active assign-
ment (39). More is said on this subject under the section
dealing with attrition.
In a policy statement printed in 1964, Owens (26)

summarized the justification for the PAE as follows:
1. Graduates must possess a relatively high
degree of physical aptitude to perform their
duties as commissioned officers. This is espe-
cially true of graduates seeking rated status. A
Candidate Physical Aptitude Examination identi-
fies individuals low in this area.
2. There is a significant positive correlation

between Physical Aptitude Scores and success or
failure to graduate from the Air Force Academy.
3. The Physical Aptitude Examination has been

shown to be a measure of leadership potential at
both the Air Force Academy and the Military
Academy. (L. E. Owens, Memorandum for Record,
"An Air Force Academy Stand on Physical Aptitude
Examination as a Qualifying Factor for Candi-
dates," 3 March 1964)
From the above, it is evident that a need for estab-

lishing a physical aptitude screening test exists. How
effectively has the PAE fulfilled this need?
III. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE PAE?
A. Validity
Validity of a test refers to its integrity; it is
a measure of how well the test accomplishes what it was
designed to accomplish. As far as the PAE is concerned,
it was designed to assess the capacity of a candidate to
acquire physical ability. To determine the PAE's
36
p - -% . •• . • . .
validity, then, requires a correlation between PAE perfor-
mance and some variable which measures the acquisition of
physical ability. The most commonly used variable for
this purpose is physical education success. Since the
inspection of the PAE, however, it has been useful in
other areas; e.g., in predicting leadership and attrition.
1. Physical Education Success
Fourteen studies were found which correlated PAE

performance with physical education success (1, 8, 10, 15,
20, 24, 30, 36, 45, 49, 52, 58, 62, 67). Some of these
studies presented no new data. Ten studies reported
correlations between the PAE composite score and fourth
class physical education grade (See [Table 8]). These
correlations ranged in magnitude from .38 to .74. The
higher correlations are spuriously high as PAE performance
was included as part of the physical education grade for
the first three classes. When taken into consideration,
the aggregate correlation from all the data presented
would probably be around .50. This is not too bad con- r
sidering the fact that there is no other selection vari-
able which predicts its criterion measure any better (30).
Only five studies (15, 45, 49, 58, 62) could be

found which related overall PAE performance to individual
physical education subject success; and, since only the
fourth class year was examined, only four subjects
appeared in the analyses. These findings are presented in
[Table 9]. In general, they show that swimming correlates
the worst with PAE of all subjects. This is not surpris-
ing as it is obvious that many factors in addition to
physical aptitude determine an individual's performance on
a swimming test (e.g.1 availability of swimming facili-
ties, fear, amount of training, etc.)
Individual PAE test items have been correlated

with physical education success both for individual sub-
jects and for overall grade (20, 49, 52, 58, 62, 67). A
summary of the findings is presented in rTable 10]. As
has been pointed out by Owens (24), chin-ups and pull-ups
appear to be the best individual predictors of achievement
in physical education. Some of the items with fair
predictability include the hurdle run and shuttle runs
while the vertical jump and the hop, step, and jump test
are the poorest predictors.
2. Leadership
Measuring leadership at the Air Force Academy has

been accomplished through several means which are all
related. These include Cadet Evaluation Ratings (CER),
Military Order of Merit (MOM), and Aptitude for Commis-
sioned Service (AFCS). These ratings are similar in that
37
each is comprised of an evaluation by peers and superiors
of the individual's potential for leadership.
Ten studies contributed data relating the PAE and

leadership [Table 11]. A review of these studies reveals
that there is a positive correlation between the vari-
ables. The magnitude of the correlations ranges from .13
to .32.
In addition to the correlational analyses, sev-

eral other studies have demonstrated the relationship
between PAE and leadership (10, 36, 45).
3. Attrition
As Richarz (32) points out, emphasis at the Air

Force Academy has shifted from pure academic selection
criteria to a combination of academic and non-academic
criteria in predicting success. This change has greatly
improved the Academy's ability to predict success and
failure.
Attrition, or more correctly, its reciprocal,

ability to graduate, has been used as a measure of success
at the Air Force Academy. Several investigators have
turned to the PAE in an attempt to predict this factor
(34, 5, 16, 32, 53, 57, 61, 63, 64, 66). Their findings
are not as clearcut as is the case for physical education
and leadership. Several studies show a higher attrition
rate for cadets at the low end of the PAE Scale (2, 3, 4,
7, 16, 61, 63) than their classmates. Two studies, how-
ever, suggest that the relationship between these vari-
ables may be curvilinear (64,66) as there is evidence that
the attrition percentage increases at both ends of the PAE
scale.
One investigator came to the conclusion that

there is no direct correlation between PAE scores and
attrition (5). This conclusion, as has been indicated,
may also be premature. Additional investigation is needed
before a position can be taken with confidence.
Before leaving this subject, a word should be

given regarding cut-off scores on the PAE. Originally the
minimal score permissible was 350 (54). This eliminated
approximately the bottom 7%. For the Class of 1967, the
minimum score was raised to 400 (10-15%) and has remained
there ever since. Several studies have been directed at
this problem (2, 17, 40, 41, 54).
38
B. Reliability
Reliability, although not a criterion of Academy

success is extremely critical from a test administration
standpoint. If a test (or test item) is reliable, we know
that it has good reproducibility. In terms of test admin- i-I
istration, this means that the procedures are standardized
to such an extent that every candidate is treated fairly
and no biases are introduced. This idea is emphasized at
all PAE Clinics:
Briefing Guide, PAE Clinic, 1963
Reasons why you are conducting the clinic:
1. PAE is given to about 5,000 candidates at

approximately 62 different Examining Centers.
2. About 8 to 16% of those candidates who score

the least points are disqualified.
3. Of the remaining candidates, the score made

on the PAE will either help or hinder their chances of
selection as a cadet.
4. Since we all want only the best candidates as

cadets and future officers, standardization in the admin-
istration of the PAE is very important. It is of vital
importance that if candidate John Jones on a given day can
perform 5 pull-ups, run the shuttle-run in 62 seconds, and
do 7 feet in the standing broad jump, he would receive
these scores wherever he was tested that day---in Iowa,
Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, et cetera. Faulty measurement,
counting or timing may allow a less qualified candidate to
enter the Air Force Academy over a better qualified young
man.
5. The mere fact that you administer the PAE

consistently is not the answer. Not only must you admin-
ister it consistently, but you must administer each test
item exactly as it is done at 62 other Centers. That is, Z
the medicine ball must weigh exactly 6 pounds, extra
motivation and coaching must not be given, etc.
One study compared the results of a PAE admin-

istered by high school physical education teachers, with
no formal PAE test administration training, with the
standardized PAE administered at Air Force Academy and
Aircrew Examining Centers (29). The results showed that
the high school test introduced considerable variance and,
thereby, reduced its reliability.
In addition to standardized testing procedures,

reliability implies a certain level of consistency within
39
. .
7.%
each test item. In other words, similar results are

obtainable with repeated administrations of the test. If -,"
a test introduces bias or has considerable room for error,

it will not show good reliability.
[Table 12] shows the reliability figures obtained

from three studies (38, 46, 51). Basically, these corre-
lations show that most of the PAE test items are fairly
reliable. One test, however, the 180 yard block shuttle
run, yielded a test-retest coefficient of only .43. This
test would not be a good item to include in a PAE battery.
C. Other Studies
An extensive number of additional studies have

been carried out on the PAE. Many of these have included
intercorrelations between the test items (38, 46, 50, 51,
56, 65, 67). The data they present show what one might
expect; i.e., that running items correlate high with each
other, as do agility and jumping tests. (See [Table 13])
A few studies have attempted to :ompare PAE

performance by cadets with other groups. Owens (21) dis-
covered that from 65% to 75% of the cadets in Classes 61
to 65 scored higher than 500 on the PAE. He reinforced
his belief that the cadet population was above average
physically by means of the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (22).
Although he presented no statistics other than

mean scores, Hawkins (13) showed that USAFA cadets were
superior to USMA cadets on seven out of nine PAE test
items.
A number of studies have compared athletes and

non-athletes in terms of PAE performance (11, 14, 16, 18,
28, 44). The consistent finding that athletes are supe-
rior to non-athletes on the PAE is not surprising. The
exact relationship between these variables in some of the
studies, however, is hidden because of inexplicit assign-
ment of the subjects to the various groups ("who is an
athlete?")
Walter (44), Kardach (14), and Oehrlein and

Eichin (18) compared sports and found that they can be
distinguished from each other on the basis of the PAE.
Harris (12) found that poor swimmers scored

significantly lower on the PAE than did good swimmers.
Numerous attempts have been made to relate the
PAE with academic success (15, 14, 5, 28, 30, 48) but to
no avail. What these investigators have overlooked is the
relationship between these variables at given levels of
intelligence (reference Rogers, Hart and Shay; Doornik;
and Others).
40
I.
*.'- " . -. " . . .. • . , ° . .. - , ,. • • •. .. . • .-. .

~ .. *
Delaino (6) examined PAE pull-up performance of

weak entering cadets to determine what impact, if any, the
Basic Cadet Training program had on improving strength.
He found that 63% of these inable to perform three pull-
ups on the PAE improved their strength during the two-
month BCT; 13% remained the same; 6% did poorer; and 18%
were medically excused.
Walter (46) carried out an interesting comparison

between the PAE, the Cadet PFT (Physical Fitness Test),
and the Aerobics (1.5 Mile run). He obtained correlations
between the PAE and the PFT ranging from .55 to .62.
These are somewhat higher than previously reported but the
test batteries were more identical than they had been in
the past. Walter found little or no correlation between
the PAE and the 1.5 mile run.
In elaborating on his findings, he states:
"There was no apparent relationship between

the 1.5 miles test and pull-ups or push-ups.
Therefore, it was assumed that Cooper's
theory on upper arm strength being commensu-
rate with endurance capacity was not valid.
(H. J. Walter, "A Critical Analysis of the
United States Air Force Academy's Physical
Proficiency Testing Programs," Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana,
1970, pp 89-90)
In an attempt to develop a formula for deriving a PAE

score for a candidate unable to take the test, Wheeler,
Dworaczyk and Wetzler (55) carried out an extensive
regression analysis of all selection variables plus high
school physical educaton grades and certain anthropomet-
ric variables. They ultimately derived a formula based on
athletic index and high school physical education grade
that would yield a fairly reliable PAE score.
IV. HOW CAN IT BE IMPROVED?
A. Summary and Discussion
From the foregoing, it is clear that the PAE is

related to physical education success and to leadership.
The correlations presented, although not sufficiently high
to afford direct prediction are at least as good as those
offered by any other selection variable.
The question of how well the PAE predicts ability to

graduate deserves more attention. A considerable amount
of research energy has been directed at the low end of the
PAE scale. Perhaps an investigation of PAE performance by
reason for discharge" might prove profitable.
41
H.
In spite of the fact that numerous investigators have
shown little or no relationship between the PAE and aca-
demic success, others have discovered a relationship
between physical fitness and academic performance when IQ
or verbal aptitude score were held constant. Should the
same relationship exist between the PAE and GPA, it would
indicate that the level of a person's physical ability for
his level of intelligence will greatly influence how well
he performs in his academic subjects. In other words,
what the other authors are telling us is that for two
people, both with the same mental capacity, the one with
the higher physical ability will perform better in the
classroom.
Another thing that has been brought out by this

review is the fact that most of the PAE items have good
reliability. As long as prudence is exercised in select-
ing the test items, reliability should never present a
problem.
B. Areas Requiring Further Attention
In addition to those things suggested above,

several problem areas need further investigation.
The philosophical problem of whether or not the

PAE should contain "non-practiceable" test items is a
question which needs to be settled once and for all. It
appears to be somewhat ludicrous to keep the test items
veiled in secrecy when the candidate receives his PAE card
in advance of the test and he also has the test items
listed in his catalogue. If this restriction could be
removed from the test, an immense amount of redundancy and
confusion could be eliminated. Moreover, if each candi-
date not only received advanced notification of the test
items but also received encouragement to practice the
items, two benefits would occur. First, the reliability
of the test would increase; and second, we would effect a
higher level of fitness in our incoming class.
Another area requiring attention is the relation-

ship between PAE performance and upper class physical
education success. Nearly all of the studies relating
these two variables have used only the fourth class.
One final note: if the PAE is ever to have better

validity, reliability,and objectivity, additional research
is absolutely essential. New test items which require
little or no equipment and which can be administered in
a hallway or in a doctor's office would revolutionize the
PAE.
We need to keep looking.
42
"-.,
*o".'" .-
.-
-,:." " . -"",~
~ .- . -".
, 4,.. - . .4
.- - -,.-i . ,-4, . . .-.- , - .. . . ... . , .
[Table 8)
Correlations Between PAE Composite and Fourth Class
Physical Education Grade
STUDY CLASS N 40 PE
8 60 -- 74*
8 61 -- .52 to .64*
8, 20, 24, 67 63 35 .51
24, 30 64 577 .54
49 64 118 .61
24, 52 65 667 .47
58 65 639 .46
62 71 759 to 1015 .38
- *These scores are spuriously high as PAE performance was included as part of
*/ physical education grade.
[Table 9)
Correlations Between PAE Composite and Individual
Subject Fourth Class Physical Education Grade :
STUDY CLASS N BX GY SW WR
15 898 .29 .29 13 .21
45 71 714 (Multiple Correlations Only)
49 64 118 .50 .48 .24 .38
58 65 639 .36 .42 .16 .27
62 63 759 to 1015 .29 .41 .11 .30
43
-. a-. ~- - . - .
,'4,
[Table 10]
Correlations Between Individual PAE Test Items and

Fourth Class Physical Education Grade
% . STUDY CLASS N PAE ITEMS PE BX GY SW WR

20--&49 64 118 MBP .4T .4 .32 .21 .20
Chins .48 .07 .57 .32 .28
HR -.34 -.36 -.19 -.11 -.18
VJ .31 .31 .21 .01 .32
300SR -.43 -.40 -.30 -.18 -.24
* 58 65 639 MBP .26 .31 .11 .07 .22
C .39 .13 .49 .17 .17
HR -.34 -.27 -.30 -.13 -.18
VJ .23 .19 .26 .07 .10
300 -.32 -.28 -.25 -.08 -.21
Mod BKB .20
Throw
67 63 85 PU .48
HR -.37
HSJ .20
250 -.40
* . 52 65 160-174 MBP .30 to .38
C .34 to .39
HR -.42 to -.46
Vi .24 to .34
300SR -.25 to -.31
BKB Pass -.28
PU .35
3BJS .36
400SR -.34
S.4
.4.
-ii 44
".-
- .,
[Table 11]
Correlations Between PAE and Leadership -4
PAE Correlation
STUDY CLASS N TEST ITEM W/Leadership
56 59 -- Mod BKBT .20
Pull-Ups .13
HR .30
HSJ .21
250SR .26
8 60 -- Composite .25
61 -- Composite .29
30 64 577 Composite .28
48 62-64 1973 Composite .26 (.19 to .24 for
1st Classmen)
62 71 759-1015 Composite .29
42 59 -- Composite .32
60 -- Composite .25
61 -- Composite .29
62 -- Composite .18
63 -- Composite .22
64 -- Composite .28
65 -- Composite .25
66 -- Composite --
67 -- Composite .30
45
45
..
-" . . . ".:..-
.. ' if - ,-.: - - ., .- , • , . - . . , , . . . _: , i. , - - - • - .. i ". -
[Table 12]
Test-Item Reliabilities
STUDY CLASS N TEST ITEM RELIABILITY

46 73 200 PU .95
HSJ .93 to .94
ZZR .86 to .93
MET .94
SU .86 to .91
300SR .88 to .89
Composite .75 to .95
38 Prep Sch 85 Dips .88
RBJ .81
SMBT .85
DCT .77
SMBP .87
18OBSR .43
51 65 130 to 150 BKB Pass .58
Pul l-Ups .84
3BJ .89
400SR .55
MBP .88
Chins .90
HR .77
VJ .77
300SR .71
. .,. -.
46
.~ . 2
..
[Table 13]
Intercorrelations Between PAE Test Items
STUDY V1V; r STUDY v1 r

38 'Dips Pull1-UPS .76 65 Grip Str MBT .40
SMBT MBP .68 Grip Str vJ .32
RBJ SBJ .62 MBT HR -.46
MBPush MBP .61 MBT 300SR -.52
RBJ HSJ .57 Chins vJ .44
OCT HR .56 HR vJ -.38
18OBSR 300SR .51 HR 300SR .65
OCT 300SR .50 VJ 300SR .41
OCT HSJ -.48 67 HR 250SR .59
46 PAE PFT .55 to .62 HSJ 250SR -.36
PAE 1.5MR -.10 to -.20 Mod BKBT HR -.38
ZZR HSJ -.49 56 Mod BKBT HR -.36
ZZR 300SR .60 HSJ HR -.48
WT MBT .66 250SR HR .68
BSA MBT .62
HT MBT .42
BSA Pull1-UPS -.37
51 WT 3BJ .36
WT MBP .59
WT Chins -.32
50 ZZR 9OBSR .71
HR 9OBSR .78
HR ZZR .79
vJ SBJ .74
SBJ 38J .84
VJ 3Rd .73
47
Harger and Keating, 1973
The following, final section of the report by [larger and Keating (1973;,
summarizes the research-oriented view of the PAE from the early 1970s.
The total picture of the PAE leaves the impression

that the early work of Appleton, McClothlin, Stillman and
Kobes certainly presented an accurate assessment of the
value of the PAE as a selection instrument. Ba.ed on the
ground rules under which they were working the position
was definitely sound. The leadership prediction data and
increased attrition rates of low PAE performers reinforce
their commitment to a physical aptitude index. Likewise,
the unsuccessful attempts to streamline the test for
financial reasons have borne out their insistence on a
reliably administered, well standardized evaluation.
The future direction of candidate selection proce-

dures appears stable, although the retrenchment process
following the Viet Nam war and the present volatile mood
of the nation certainly makes change a possibility.
However, unless there is a drastic change in the Air Force
Academy's mission, the need for physical fitness is an
integral part of the whole man concept. When selecting
cadets, we are dealing with young men's lives, their hopes
and ambitions. A fair process is essential! We must be
careful not to prostitute this procedure based on a need
for cost effectiveness. General Clark, in discussing the
challenge of leadership (62), quotes Admiral Rickover's
comments to Congress in 1967. He said, "Human life is not
'quantifiable' in a cost effectiveness study, and there-
fore cannot be considered."
The immediate state of candidate selection requires a

physical aptitude index and thus, in the interest of all
candidates, it must be valid. The majority of the
research reviewed in this study has dictated that a valid
PAE is based on reliable and standardized administration.
The high school mailout test was an abysmal failure in
this regard. The future plans of the Air Force do contain
limited use of Liaison Officers or test directors. Any
wide expansion of this program would require thorough
training programs for all personnel involved. The West
Point experience with this method has been successful and
therefore it appears to be a means of maintaining a valid
PAE with some cost decrease.
Perhaps the major area of investigation now needed to

further support the PAE's existence is a more sophisti-
cated analysis of its relationship to leadership and over-
all cadet success. There is no doubt that it predicts
which cadets will have physical trouble during BCT or
which cadets will be low performers in physical educa-
tion. However, although several studies have shown the
48
PAE to be one of the best predictors of leadership, this
relationship is not high. The problem of predicting
leadership is one which is being attempted in many fields,
but, as of now, success with the PAE is limited. Thus,
with the initial indications that the PAE is applicable in
this area, it is essential that its value be pursued
extensively.
An article in a recent educational journal exclaims,

"To be able to predict leadership qualities in other
people, then, is central to the functioning of all aspects
of society." (66) Since the military is a microcosm of
our entire society then the comments of Janowitz are
particularly germane here. (65) He said, "After forty
years of research and development of military personnel
selection practices, it is now abundantly clear that there
is no satisfactory and reliable technique for locating
personnel with leadership potentials." (11) The impact
of these two statements on the necessity of continued PAE
leadership research is readily apparent.
The future trend of Basic Cadet Training could predi-

cate changes in the PAE. Specifically, if USAFA were to
move in the direction of the Naval Academy's approach, the
necessity for the PAE would be diminished since physical
fitness is not a major tenet in their program. However,
if attempts to relate PAE to cadet success show positive
results, then a PAE would be desirable on this basis
alone.
In summary, the review supports the need for a valid

PAE, and the present Physical Education Department posi- -
tion is one of military control. The suggested uses of
Liaison Officers and Air National Guard sites is being
pursued. Elimination Aof the PAE seems unlikely unless
there is a drastic revision of the Air Force Academy's
mission or philosop'iy of cadet development. The imminent
need for research concerning the PAE involves its value in
predicting cadet success.
Shadduck and Miller, 1979-81
During the period, 1979-81, the Admissions Liaison Office supported,

through its Ready Reserve program, research concerning physical preparation
for the PAE by candidates. Progress reports were made to the Admissions
Liaison Office (Shadduck, 1979; Miller and Shadduck, 1980). These are
summarized, and the final results of the project are reported here.
The objective of this investigation was to determine whether participa-

tion by USAFA applicants in a one-month long, semi-structured exercise program
would enhance their performance in the PAE. The need for the investigation
was identified by Col A. H. Parks, Liaison Officer Coordinator, Los Angeles,
California (assigned to the Admissions Liaison Office, USAFA), in 1978. Parks
pointed out that the advice to applicants set forth in the Academy catalog, to
49
prepare for the PAE, gave no guidance except to "engage in vigorous physical
activity" and to practice the (illustrated) test items. In the investigation
reported here, various physical activities and the practice of two test items
were assessed with regard to their preparatory value for the PAE in this
investigation.
In addition to the assessment of the preparatory value of various exer-

" cises, the investigation allowed assessments of (a) the practicality of imple-
menting an applicant/candidate/appointee physical preparation program in the
* field and (b) the effectiveness of only one month's self-initiated physical
conditioning on physical test performance. The results of the investigation,
* then, may be generalizable to the problem of assuring physical fitness in
*appointees when they arrive at USAFA to begin Basic Cadet Training.
Methods--The investigation was performed in three phases, during the

1978-777-1979-80, and 1980-81 admissions cycles (October through April) at the
Los Angeles PAE test center. During the first phase, intercorrelations of
test scores among the four PAE tasks were examined for 74 male applicants and
* a kinesiological summary of the four PAE events was prepared. The results of
the first phase were reported by Shadduck (1979). During the second phase, a
research protocol was prepared, submitted to the USAF Surgeon General, and
approved with slight revisions (SGO file no. R-79-11). Thirteen male appli-
cants took part in phase 2. The results were reported by Miller and Shadduck
(1980). During the third phase, data were collected from 24 male applicants,
bringing the subject sample size up to 37. Participants were solicited, by
* letter, from those applicants scheduled by the USAFA Admissions Office to take
the PAE. Volunteers for the investigation signed consent forms, prepared in
accord with AFR 169-3. After participation in their first PAE, the partici-
pants were briefed about the nature of the investigation and about the prepa-
ration exercises and warm-ups. They received an 11- x 17-inch form, printed
on heavy paper stock, on which to record daily exercise repetitions for
approximately one month. Instructions and cautions for the conduct of each
exercise were printed on the back of the form. The following exercises were
* examined:
Arm curls--Hold dumbbells with palms of hands facing away from body.
Increase weight, as required, to allow at least 8, but no more than 12
repetitions in each series.
Modified pull-up--PAE-type pull-up, palms facing away from body, starting

with feet on floor.
Low bar pull-up--Starting with feet on floor and elbows partially flexed.
Difficult pull-up--PAE-type pull-up with weights attached to waist or

ankles.
Pull-downs--Pull down bar attached to weights via pulley (required gymna-
sium equipment).
Skipping rope--Standard form, with rope passing under feet at alternate

jumps.
Advanced skipping--Rope passes under feet at each jump.
50
.
Leg presses--Leg lift bar attached to table and weights (required gymna-
sium equipment)
Bicycling (miles per day)--actual or on gymnasium equipment.
Handball court throw--throw from kneeling position against outdoor hand-

ball court wall {or other wall), gradually increasing distance.
Partner catch--As above, but with partner rather than wall.
Medicine ball throw--PAE-type basketball throw performed with heavier

ball (usually available in a gymnasium).
Softball catch--normal game of catch, with softball, using greatest

distance practical.
Deceleration turn--practice decelerating from fast run and reversing
direction.
Shuttle run--practice the PAE task.
The data collected from the 37 participants were examined in several

ways. Comparisons of first to second PAE performances were made using the
paired t-test. For improved PAE performance, median splits of participants
using a given exercise, using first PAE performance on the relevant event as
the split criterion, were used to allow us to examine the effects of prior
physical competence on the relationships between improvements, and numbers of
exercise repetitions. The relationships of exercise repetitions (for the sub-
*group of participants that reported using each exercise) to PAE event score
changes were examined using Pearson product-moment correlation values, as were
the relationships of participant height and weight to PAE performances.
Height and/or weight effects were to be partialled out of the former relation-
ships in those cases where the latter relationships showed statistically non-
zero interactions between height and/or weight and PAE event performance.
Results--Overall, the 37 participants displayed a 20% increase in pull-up

performance and a 4% increase in basketball throw performance from the first
to the second PAF. Long jump and shuttle run performances did not change.
The event performance values for the first and second PAEs are shown in
Table 14. (These data do not allow a consideration of the effects of height,
weight, or prior physical competence.) The test-retest reliability of these
scores (by Pearson r) was as follows: pull-ups, .864; long-jump, .864;
basketball throw, .901; and shuttle-run time, .872.
TABLE 14. FIRST AND SECOND PAE PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR 37 MALE USAFA
APPLI CANTS
Mean t S.D.
Event First PAE Second PAE t
P--F-ups (number) 1U.T54.0 5_33*
Long-jump (feet) 7.55t.50 7.62t.54 1.39
Basketba throw (feet) 62.3+10.4 65.4+9.0 3.51*
Shuttle run (sec) 60.48t2.37 60.33t2.15 -.78
-V.TT--(-paired--a-T- t-s, one-tail)

51
Each participant did not use every suggested exercise, thus subgroups of
participants (n<37) were considered when exercise repetitions were compared to
changes in PAE performance. Table 15 shows the numbers of participants who
reported repetitions of exercises and the numbers of repetitions.
TABLE 15. REPORTED NUMBERS OF REPETITIONS OF EXERCISES
Exercise N Minimum Mean Maximum

Arm curls 28 41 341 1090
Modified pull-up 25 5 103 256
Low-bar pull-up 23 5 122 320
Difficult pull-up 24 12 115 296
Pull-downs 12 40 246 666
Skipping rope 26 10 1687 5411
Advanced skipping 14 50 1263 3284
Leg presses 16 45 301 1081
Bicycling (miles) 12 8 .66 128
Handball court throw 18 30 417 1355
Partner catch 13 4 291 830
Medicine ball throw (none reported)
Softball catch 11 8 259 769
Deceleration turn 24 2 85 293
Shuttle run exercise 27 1 11 42
We noted at the end of phase two of this project that no strong relation-
ships between exercise repetitions and PAE performance change were apparent.
We surmised that too few repetitions were being completed to cause a training
effect. The average numbers of exercise repetitions were calculated for phase
two (n = 13), rounded off, and suggested as minimums for those subjects par-
ticipating in phase three (n = 24). (The minimums were printed on the form
supplied to the subjects.) To examine the effect of this strategy, the ratios
of mean repetitions to minimums were calculated. These are shown in Table
16. Repetition means exceeded minimums in six of eight cases for arm exer-
cises and in two of five cases, with one tie, for leg exercises.
TABLE 16. REPETITION MINIMUMS AND RATIOS OF MEAN REPORTED REPETITIONS

TO GOALS
Exercise Repetition Minimum Mean + Minimum

Arm curls 300 1.14
Modified pull-up 100 1.03
Low-bar pull-up 100 1.22
Difficult pull-up 140 .82
Pull-downs 275 .89
Skipping rope 1600 1.05
Advanced rope skipping 1800 .70
Leg presses 300 1.00
Bicycling - -
Handball court throw 330 1.26
Partner catch 250 1.16
Medicine ball throw - -
Softball catch 200 1.30
Deceleration turn 70 1.21
Shuttle run exercise 14 .79
52
The relationships among the improved PAE events, both requiring arm
strength, and the arm exercises are shown in Table 17. There were no signifi-
cant differences in correlation (t test) within the median-split subgroups
(split with regard to first PAE performance on the respective event), so only
the values for the full subgroups are shown here. Additionally, there were no
significant correlation differences with the leg-associated median-split sub-
groups (Table 18).
TABLE 17. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ARM EXERCISE REPETITIONS AND PAE EVENT
PERFORMANCE CHANGES
Pearson r
Exercise (n) Pull-ups Basketball throw
Arm curls 28) -.080 -.347
Modified pull-ups (25) -.014 .008
Low-bar pull-ups (23) .518* .269
Difficult pull-ups (24) .326 -.002
Pull-downs (12) .233 .103
Handball court throw (18) .258 .277
Partner catch (13) -.102 -.319
Softball catch (11) .244 .537
*p < .05
TABLE 18. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEG EXERCISE REPETITIONS AND PAE EVENT *
PERFORMANCE CHANGES A
Pearson r
Exercise (n) Long-jump Shuttle run time
Skipping rope (26) .263 .124
Advanced skipping (14) .398 .439
Leg presses (16) .232 -.378
Bicycling (12) -.333 .080
Deceleration turn (24) -.068 -.128
Shuttle run exercise (27) -.027 -.325
53
The 37 subjects ranged in weight from 122 to 207.5 lb (mean, 154.5 lb),
and in height from 64 to 74 in. (mean, 70.2 in.). We examined the effects of
weight on PAE pull-up performance. (Weight changes from the first to second
PAEs did not appear to affect any of the results reported in this paper.) We 4
found a unique effect of body weight (height held constant) on pull-up perfor-
- mance (partial r = -.402, Table 19).
TABLE 19. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG HEIGHT, WEIGHT, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF EVENTS
AT THE FIRST PAE (n = 37)
Pull-ups Long-jump B.B. throw Shuttle run time

Pearson r
Weight -.496* -.124 .434* -.151
Height -.317 .099 .180 -.101
(r = .6351
Partial r
Weight -.402* -.243 .421* -.113
Height -.003 .232 -.137 -.007
*p - .05
Intercorrelations among PAE pull-up performance improvement, exercise

repetitions, and weight for the subgroups reporting the first five exercises
listed in Table 17 were all insignificant, except for the relationship of low-
bar pull-up repetitions to the 2.5-pull-up increase for that subgroup
(r = .518). The partialling of weight out of that relationship had virtually
no effect (partial r = .521), nor did the partialling-out of weight elevate
any of the other Four exercise-performance relationships to reliable levels.
L?
Discussion--With the exception of one event, the 37 USAFA applicants

appeared to improve their performance little from one PAE to the next, using
the numbers of exercise repetitions they reported. The exception was the 20%
improvement in pull-up performance. A consideration of the results, reported
above, sheds some light on this situation.
The relative usefulness of an exercise may be indexed by the numbers of

persons attempting it. Arm curl/pull-up, rope skipping, and running exercises
were attempted the most (Table 15). Of these exercises, low-bar pull-ups, the
deceleration turn exercise, and arm curls reflected the greatest mean-
repetition-to-minimum ratios, in diminishing order (Table 16). These two sets
of information allow the suggestion that low-bar pull-ups should have had a
substantial training effect, compared to most of the other exercises examined:
Many subjects tried the low-bar pull-up, and they generally exceeded a not-
completely-arbitrary repetition minimun in doing so.
54
54
• .- •..-•. . ... -
Often, persons who are more physically fit improve relatively less in
performance after a given amount of practice than do those who are less fit.
We examined the effects of prior physical competence on PAE-to-PAE improvement
by splitting the exercise subgroups around the first-PAE event performance
median score. We found that correlations between repetitions and PAE perform-
ance changes did not differ as a function of being above or below the median
performance level for the respective event at the first PAE. The failure to
*i find this effect may be due to small sample sizes and high intersubject vari-
abilities. Alternatively, the numbers of repetitions may have been too low to
- produce the effect. This latter suggestion is supported by the lack of gen-
eral PAE performance improvement noted.
The search for clues that would reveal reasons for changes in PAE perfor-
mance relied heavily on showing correlations between changes and exercise
repetitions. While "correlation does not show causation," it was felt that
the study design would allow limited statements of causation to be made. The
single reliable relationship observed (that between low-bar pull-ups and PAE
pull-up performance improvement, Table 17) comes as no surprise in view of the
earlier discussion concerning exercise usefulness. The failure to find other
reliable relationships supports, again, the suggestion that too few repeti-
tions were accomplished to provide a training effect.
The results discussed here reveal some information about the process by
which young male adults may prepare for tests on the events examined here.
Most obvious, about 122 low-bar pull-ups may result in a 2.5-pull-up improve-
. ment in pull-up performance. This statement must be heavily tempered by the
fact that this exercise accounted for only 27% of the variance in PAE pull-up
performance change; other factors, unaccounted for in this investigation,
provided the other 73% variance. However, the low-bar pull-up is probably a
beneficial training exercise.
More generally, we concluded that too few repetitions were performed to

cause a training effect. This may have been due to inadequate effort on the
part of the subjects. This suggestion is supported by the relatively low
repetitions-to-minimums ratios observed. Alternatively, too little time (ca.
one month) may have been allowed for training effects to take place at the
reported repetition rates. The exercises, selected with regard to a kinesio-
logically based review of the natures of the PAE events (Shadduck, 1979), were
probably capable of inducing appropriate training effects, given adequate time
and repetitions. Perhaps sequentially graded minimums, spread out over a per-
* iod of time greater than one month, would be appropriate for future investiga-
tions.
The investigation allowed the development of a reasonably practical way

of assisting USAFA applicants/candidates/appointees with their physical prepa-
ration for entry into USAFA and Basic Cadet Training. A briefing, the distri-
bution of printed guidance as to the types of warm-ups and exercises, and the
recommendation of numbers of exercise repetitions may be useful techniques to
use in preparing future students for the physical rigors of Cadet life.
55
* * * -*.-~* .- ~.,.'~'* .
The investigation also pointed out the fact that as little as one-nonth' s
physical preparation can make a difference in physical competence on some
tests. Greater time should be used in physical preparation for USAFA, but
this result indicates that some positive effects of physical training for
USAFA should be measurable after one month of effort. This idea may be
encouraging to applicants who need extensive physical preparation.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF CADET AND OFFICER LIFE
Few objective data describe the physical demands of USAFA Cadet or USAF
active duty officer life styles. This is unfortunate, since the knowledge of
such demands would allow a quantitative rather than qualitative approach to
the specification of candidate, cadet, and officer physical fitness testing
procedures. A recent assessment of IJSAFA physical demands is reported in this
section.
Estimated Energy Demand of Basic Cadet Training (BCT)

Lt Kory Cornum
December 1981
The caloric expenditure required to complete BCT is estimated in this
discussion for an average male Basic Cadet:
18 years of age.
71.8 kg (158 lb), 178 cm (70 in),
Published energy expenditure tables for various types of
1
work were used to provide individual task caloric demand estimates. The tasks
were those listed on the BCT master schedule.I
Basic Cadet Training is a 42-day (1008-h) program. For the purpose of
this discussion, BCT was divided into sleeping, inactive, and active periods,
and energy expenditures were calculated for each period. Specific information
about running, the obstacle course, and the Valley Sweepstakes is also presen-
ted.
The metabolic rate during sleep is approximately 1 kcal/rnin. The BCT
schedule allows 8 h/day for sleep, and an estimate of 480 kcal/day was
accepted for this portion of BCT.
The inactive portion of BCT accounts for 395 h. It is composed primarily
of sedentary tasks such as lectures and meals. A metabolic rate of 3 kcal/min
was estimated for this period, resulting in an average expenditure of 1693
* kcal/day. A small portion of the inactive period is spent running to and from
activities. The additional energy expenditure for this running is discussed
below.
Active awake time was broken down into individual activities and the
number of hours spent at each activity, as listed on the BCT master schedule.
The activities are listed in Table 20, grouped as extreme (greater than 15
kcal/min), heavy (10-15 kcal/min), moderate (5-10 kcal/min), and light (less
than 5 kcal/min) tasks. Active time accounts for 277 h of RCT, of which 18 h
are spent in extreme work, 62 h in heavy work, 153 h in moderate work, and
44 h in light work. The 144,000 kcal active-time total represents an average
3,429 kcal/day energy expenditure.
56
TABLE 20. CALORIC DEMAND OF TASKS DURING BCT ACTIVE PERIODS
Total Kcal
Activity Group Kcal/min hours required
PFT Ex 20 1 1200
Obstacle Course Ex 20 6 7200
Assault Course Ex 18 8 8640
Valley Sweepstakes Ex 15 3 2700
Physical Conditioning H 10 15 9000
Sports/Intramural H 13 22 17160
Leadership Reaction Course H 10 8 3840
Element Competition H 12 4 2880
Confidence Course H 10 4 1920
Field Day H 13 8 6240
Swimming H 11 1 660
Drill M 10 37 22200
* Squadron Training M 6 70 25200
Valley Teardown M 7 2 840
Valley Set-up M 7 5 2100
Road March M 8 5 2400
Recondo M 9 10 5400
. Moving into Squadrons M 7 4 1680
Marching to Meal M 20 10 12000
In processing L 5 8 2400
Appointments L 4 10 2400
First Aid L 5 5 1500
IRI L 3 3 540
SAMI L 3 3 540
Parade L 4 4 960
Weapons L 5 8 2400
TOTAL 144,000 kcal
t 42 days =3429
kcal/day
5I
57
oo %
- °" .'
% . " ° .."°o...
, ". ' ° o . . . .
Runnin--Planned runs and the distances run to and from all formations,
classes, an other activities during BCT were summed, revealing that Basics
run 116 miles during the active and inactive periods of the 42 days. The mean
daily distance is 2.8 miles, ranging from 0.2 to 7.0 miles, with a standard
* deviation of 1.8 miles (i.e., two-thirds of the days require 1.0 to 4.6 miles
of running, while a couple of days may require as little as 0.2 miles or as
much as 7.0 miles). The values suggested that running is an important part of
BCT. Assuming 300 kcal to be expended during a 2.8-mile run, an average of 9%
of each day's energy expenditure is devoted to running.
The proportion of distances run during the inactive periods was 31.2
miles for the 42 days, averaging 0.7 mi/day, or 80 kcal/day. This expenditure
must be added to the sleeping, inactive, and active values presented above.
The remaining 220 kcal/day expenditure is included in the active state calcu-
lations.
Total Daily Expenditure--The sum of the values presented is shown in

Table 21. The average energy demand during BCT is 5682 kcal/day. This value
is not corrected for the effect of altitude on oxygen uptake. At 2100m (7,000
ft), average maximum aerobic capacity is diminished to 80% of average sea
level values. The correction, 5682t.80, suggests that 7102 kcal/day may be
required on an average BCT day. The cadet nutritional allowance is 5800
kcal/day*. Basic Cadets who are within body weight tolerances should probably
be allowed a greater caloric input during BCT.
TABLE 21. SUM OF ESTIMATED DAILY AVERAGE ENERGY EXPENDITURE RATES
BCT Energy Expenditure

period Hours Rate (kcal/day)
Sleep 336 480
Inactive 395 1693
Running - 80
Active 277 3429
TOTALS 1008 h 5682 kcal/day
The Obstacle Course--The O-Course is an event of peak physical demand

during BCT. It is primarily an anaerobic task; its obstacles are laid out
over a course that covers a distance of about one-half mile. There are 15
obstacles, of which 7 require bicep use, 2 require triceps, and 9 require leg
strength. Although all of the obstacles test coordination and agility, three
were designed with these primarily in mind: over-under log, log balance, and
zig-zag. Only three obstacles require that the body weight be entirely sup-
ported by the arms (two hanging, 1 pushing), and none of these require push-
up-type or pull-up-type motions; the body weight is simply supported in a
static state.
The Valley Sweepstakes--The Sweepstakes represents a peak aerobic phys-

ical demand on the Basic Cadet. It is a 4.5-mile cross-country run, performed
in fatigues and combat boots carrying a 4.5 kg (10 lb) rifle.
*Personal communication, USAFA/CWLH (D. Saito), 1981.
58
CONCLUDING NOTES
This technical report is but a brief summary of readily available docu-

ments and data concerning physical fitness testing at USAFA. The text and the
bibliography following these notes are meant to be used as a source document
for the continuing development of USAFA physical fitness testing procedures.
A step has been taken toward updating USAFA-candidate physical fitness
testing procedures (the "PAE"). The notes of the workshop at which that step
was planned are appended (Appendix B).
As this report goes to press, increased efforts by the U.S. Air Force to
improve the physical fitness and appearance of all active duty personnel are
being publicized. The specific strength requirements of several USAF tasks
are also being examined (Appendix C). Additionally, a new USAF Advisory Coun-
cil on physical fitness has met for the first time, under the sponsorship of
MPC/ASD. USAFA will, no doubt, lead the U.S. Air Force in applying the best
available techniques to physical fitness testing, working in conjunction with
the Council.
I- A
i.-1
.°,
- . . . .
59.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography is split into four sections. The first section

includes references from the original text of this Technical Report. The
second through fourth sections are reproductions of the references from Walter
(1970), Sampson (1971), and Harger and Keating (1973), respectively. Though
some redundancy is introduced here, the reader will be able to trace numbered
references in the text quoted from these papers by using these reproduced
bibliographies.
References from Original Text
1. Harger, B. S., and J. H. Keating, Jr. A Critical Analysis of the PAE,

1955-1972: Development, Evaluation, and Innovation Report to USAFA/AH,
Dec 1973.
2. Miller, J. C., and R. D. Shadduck. Report of Pilot Phase, PAE Research
Project: "Preparation Exercises for a PAE." Report to USAFA/RRV,
November 1980.
3. Sampson, 0. A Synthesis of Air Force Academy Physical Aptitude Examina-

tion Research. Report to USAFA/AHP, May 1971.
. 4. Shadduck, R. D. Research Material for "Preparation Exercises for a

PAE." Report to USAFA/RRV, Aug 1979.
5. Walter, H. J. A Critical Analysis of the USAF Academy's Physical Profi-

ciency Testing Programs. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University,
1970.
Walter, 1970
1. Ad Hoc Panel (Physical Aptitude Examination),

"Minutes of Initial Meeting of Ad Hoc Panel
Members for Joint Study of Physical Aptitude
Examination Methods," The Panel, Washington, D.C.,
10 February 1964, 4 pp., typed.
2. American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, Youth Fitness Test Manual. The
Association, Wash-{ngton, D.C.. 1- 55-'
pp.
3. American Association for Health, Physical Education,

and Recreation, Research Methods Applied to
Health, Physical E ucat-in, and Recreation, T e
7s's'ocation, Washington, D.C.,-1159, 535 pp.
4. Appleton, Lloyd 0. The Relationship Between Physical
A t and Success at the United States Military
Academy. Upubl ishsed dotor--dissertation,
School of Education, New York University, New
York, 1949, 138 pp.
60
5. Appleton, Lloyd 0. Physical Fitness Newsletter,
University of Oregon, Eugene, Series XI, No. 8,
April, 1965, p. 1.
6. Barritt, L. Spencer, Clinton I. Chase and Glenn H.

Ludlow. The Prediction and Analysis of Grade
Achievement Behavior, Indiana Studies in Predic-
tion No. 3., Bureau of Education Studies and
Testing, Indiana University, Bloomington, August,
1964, 38 pp.
7. Barrow, Harold M. and Rosemary McGee. A Practical

Approach to Measurement in Physical Education, Lea
and Febiger, PhiladelphiT 1M6, 566 pp.
8. Baumgartner, Ted A. "Estimating Reliability When

All Test Trials Are Administered on the Same Day,"
Research Quarterly, 41:10-14, March 1970.
9. Baumgartner, Ted A. "Stability of Physical Perfor-

mance Test Scores," Research Quarterly, 40:257-
261, May, 1969.
10. Baumgartner, Ted A., and Jackson, Andrew S. "Meas-

urement Schedules for Tests of Motor Performance,"
Research Quarterly, 41:10-14, March, 1970.
11. Berger, Richard A., and Arthur B. Sweney. "Variance

and Correlation Coefficients," Research Quarterly,
36:368-370, October, 1965.
12. Bowerman, William J. and W. E. Harris. Jogging,

Grossett and Duplap, New York, 1967, 128 pp.
13. Burroughs Corporation, Burroughs Advanced Statistical

Inquiry System (BASIS), Burroughs Corporation,
Detroit, Michigan, 1969, 147 pp.
14. California Test Bureau, A Glossary of Measurement

Terms, The Bureau, Monterey, 1954, 16 pp.
15. Chase, Clinton I., et al. Predicting Success for

University Freshmen, Indiana Studies in Prediction
No. 1, Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing,
Indiana University, Bloomington, 1963, 47 pp.
16. Clarke, H. Harrison. Application of Measurement of

Health and Physical Education, Prentice-HallI,
-g-eoo-FM iffsU17n5, 58 pp.
17. Clarke, H. Harrison. Muscular Strength and Endurance

in Man, Prentice-Hall, Englewood ClifTs- 1966, 211
PP.
61
-~1
18. Cooper, Kenneth H. The Proposed United States Air

Force Physical Fitness Program. Aerospace Medical
Labora y (Clinical), Wilford Hall USAF Hospital,
Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC), Lackland AFR,
undated, 22 pp., mimeographed.
19. Cooper, Kenneth H. Aerobics, M. Evans and Company, ,

Inc., New York, 1968, 182 pp.
20. Department of the Air Force, USAF Aerobics Physical

Fitness Program (Male), Air Force Pamphlet 50-56,
Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.,
November, 1969, 75 pp.
21. Dixon, W. J., Editor. Biomedical Computer Programs,

Health Sciences Computing Facility, Department of
Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University
of California, Los Angeles, 1965, 620 pp.
22. Dugdale, Kathleen. A Manual of Form for Thesis and

Term Reports. Thke author, Bloomington, 1962, 58
pp.
23. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychologi-
cal Research, Holt Rinehar and Winston, New York,
1968, 455 pp.
24. Feldt, Leonard S. and Mary Ellen McKee. "Estimation

of the Reliability of Skill Tests," Research
Quarterly, 29:279-293, October, 1958.
25. Fleishman, Edwin A., et al. The Dimension of

Physical Fitness - A Factor AnaTyis of Stren t
Tests, Technical Repo t 2, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Yale University, New Haven, August, 1961, 40
pp.
26. Fleishman, Edwin A. The Dimension of Physical
Fitness - The NationalN-ormative and Developmental
Study of -'c-Te sts, Technical Report 4, Depart-
ment oT Psychoogy, Yale University, New Haven,
August, 1962, 45 pp.
27. Fleishman, Edwin A. The Structure and Measurement of

Physical Fitness,Wrentice-HalTi-nc., Englewood
Cliffs, 1964, 207 pp.
28. Fritts, Richard L. "Relationship of Somatotypes to

Physical Performance," Unpublished study, U.S. Air
Force Academy, 1964, 17 pp.
62
I% • .- ,.
29. Fritts, Richard L. An Evaluation of the Air Force
Academy Candidate Fhysical Aptifude ia-mTnation,
Unpublished master's thesis, School of Physical
Education, University of Denver, Denver, 1964, 51
pp.
30. Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and
Education, David McKay Company, Inc., New York,
1962, 478 pp.
31. Good, Carter V., Editor. Dictionary of Education,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1959,
676 pp.
32. Greene, F. M. Lt Colonel. "A Procedure for Measuring
the Physical Aptitude of Candidates for the United
States Military Academy," Unpublished paper,
United States Military Academy, West Point, July,
1946, 53 pp., mimeographed.
33. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology

and Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New
York, 1965, 605 pp.
34. Haggard, Ernest A. Intraclass Correlation and the

Analysis of Variance, The Dryden Press, Inc., New
York, 1958, 171 pp.
35. Harris, Chester W., Editor. Encyclopedia Cf Educa-

tional Research, The MacMilan Company, New York,
1960, 1564 pp.
36. Henry, Franklin M. and Kleeberger, Frank L. "The

Validity of the Pulse-Ratio Test of Cardiac Effi-
ciency," Research Quarterly, 9:32-46, March, 1938.
37. Henry, Franklin M. "Reliability, Measurement Error

and Intra-Individual Error," Research Quarterly,
30:21-24, March, 1959.
38. Henry, Franklin M. "Best Versus Average Individual

Scores," Research Quarterly, 38:217-320, May,
1967.
39. Howerton, James L. West Point Generals of the War-
time Army - Their Performance While Cadets at the
United States Militar Academy, Unpublished
master's thesis, Schoo of Education, George
Washington University, Washington, f.C., 1945, 34
pp., typed.
63 -1
-j
[
40. Jackson, Andrew Stonewall. A Factor Analysis of

Tests of Muscular Strength Endurance and Gross
Motor Patterns That Involve Projecting the Body,
Tpubished doctor's thesis, School of Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, 1969, [No.] pp., typed.
41. Kardach, John V. Physical Aptitude and Academic

Performance of Athletes and Non-Athletes at the
United States Air Force Unpub-71-s'hed-
pAcadem,
master's thesis, Department of Physical Education,
University of Colorado, Boulder, 1967, 57 pp.,
typed.
42. Klesius, Stephan E. "Reliability of the AAHPER Youth

Fitness Test Items and Relative Efficiency of the
Performance Measures," Research Quarterly,
39:809-811, October, 1968.
43. Kroll, Walter. "A Note on the Coefficient of Intra-

cases Correlation as an Estimate of Reliability,"
Research Quarterly, 33:313-316, May, 1962.
44. Kroll, Walter. "Reliability Theory and Research

Decision in Selection of a Criterion Score,"
Research Quarterly, 38:212-219, October, 1967.
45. Krumboltz, John D. and Raymond E. Christal. Predic-

tive Validities for First-Year Criteria at the Air
Fce Academy, 9T7 Force Personnel ancTr--a-nig
Research Center, AFPTRC-TN-57-59, Lackland AFB,
July, 1957, 20 pp.
46. Liba, Marie. "A Trend Test as a Preliminary to

Reliability Estimation," Research Quarterly,
33:241-248, May, 1962.
47. Lindquist, Everett Franklin. Design and Analysis of

Experiments in Psychology and Educatici, Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, 1953, 393 pp.
48. Malina, Robert M. "Reliability of Different Methods

of Scoring Throwing Accuracy," Research Quarterly,
39:149-160, March, 1968.
49. Marmis, Gary, et al. "Reliability of the Multi-Trial

Items of the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test," Research
Quarterly, 40:240-245, March, 1969.
50. Matthews, Donald K. "Comparison of Testers and

Subjects in Administering Physical Fitness Index
Tests," Research Quarterly, 24:442-445, December,
1953.
64
51. Matthews, Donald K. Measurement in Physical Educa-
1
tion, W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1968,
F-p p.
52. McCloy, Charles Harold and Norma Dorothy Young.

Tests and Measurements in Health and Physical
Education, Appleton-Cenftury-Crofts, Inc., New
York, 1954, 497 pp.
53. McCraw, Lynn W. and Tolbert, J. W. "Reliability of

Different Methods of Scoring Physical Ability
Tests," Research Quarterly, 23:73-81, March, 1952.
54. McCraw, Lynn W. and Bryon N. McClenney. "Reliability

of Fitness Strength Tests," Research Quarterly,
36:289-295, October, 1965.
55. McHargue, Patrick Henry. The Relationships Between

Nine Selected Variables Affecting the United
States Air Force Academy Class o 1 Un pub--
lished masteFs thesis, School of Physical Educa-
tion, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, 1967, 84 pp., typed.
56. Melleby, Alexander and Bill Burrus. Jogging Away...

from Heart Disease and Toward a New and Better
Life, Volitant Paper ck Books, New York, 1 6
126 pp.
57. Mountcastle, Vernon B. Medical Physiology, Volume I,

The C. V. Mosby Company, St Louis, 1968, 1054 pp.
58. Nicks, Delmar C. and Edwin A. Fleishman. What do

Physical Fitness Tests Measure? - - A Review of
Factor Analytic Studies, Technical Report 1,
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New
Haven, July, 1960, 39 pp.
59. Owens, Laurence E. "The Physical Fitness of a Class

upon Entry at the Air Force Academy," Unpublished
paper, Department of Physical Education, U.S. Air
Force Academy, 1961, 8 pp., typed.
60. Owens, Laurence E. "The Relationship Between

Achievement on Several Physical Tests and Physical
Education Grades," Unpublished paper, U.S. Air
Force Academy, 1962, 9 pp., mimeographed.
61. Ponthieux, N. A. and D. G. Baker. "An Analysis of

the AAHPER Youth Fitness Tests," Research Quar-
terly, 34:525-526, December, 1963.
65
7_7.
62. Price, John. An Investigation of Nonacademic Selec-

tion Variabes in Predictin Success in U.S.
MMT-ar Service-cademies with Special Re-ere
-"
to the Air Force Academy, Unpublished as'ter's
thesis, Department of Education, Colorado College,
Colorado Springs, 1962, 60 pp., typed.
63. Richarz, Wilbur H. The Relationshi of Performance
in the Basic Ph ical Conditioning Program to
T-rst-Year L-eadership and Academic Performance at
the Air Force Academy-, Unpublished master'
thesis, Schoo of Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1966, 50
pp., typed.
64. Scott, M. Galdys and Ester French. Measurement and
Evaluation in Ph sical Education, Wm. C. Brown
Company Publ1'shers, Dubuque, 7T69, 493 pp.
65. Stein, Julian U. "Reliability of Youth Fitness
Test," Research Quarterly, 35:328-329, October,
1964. *
66. The Royal Canadian Air Force. The 5BX Plan for
Physical Fitness, Roger Dirhamel, F.R.S.C. Queen s-
Printer and Comptroller of Stationary, Ottawa,
1963, 32 pp.
67. Thomas, James C. "Physical Fitness at the Air Force
Academy 1967," Unpublished study, Department of
Physical Education, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1967,
12 pp., typed.
68. U.S. Air Force Academy. Unpublished Statistical Data

- Classes of 1965, 1966, and 1967, Office of Cadet
Registrar, U.S. Air Force Academy, undated, 3 pp.,
typed.
69. U.S. Air Force Academy. "Some Correlates of the

Physical Aptitude Examination," Unpublished data
from the Research Division, Evaluation Director-
ate, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1960, 2 pp., mimeo-
graphed.
70. U.S. Air Force Academy. "Progress Report on the
PFT," Unpublished report, Department of Physical
Education, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1966, 8 pp.,
mimeographed.
71. U.S. Air Force Academy. Administration Handbook --
PFT, Department of Physical Education, U.S. Air
Force Academy, January, 1967, 56 pp.
66
PFT," Unpublished report, Department of Ph'sical
mimeographed.
73. U.S. Air Force Academy. USAF Academy Candidate

Physical Aptitude Examination Handbook, U.S. Air
Force Academy, September, 1967, 9Fpp.

typed.
75. U.S. Air Force Academy. United States Air Force

Academy 1968-1969 Catalog, Numbeff, 1FS.Air
Force Academy, May, 1968, 207 pp.
76. U.S. Air Force Academy. "Progress Report on the .,

typed.
77. U.S. Air Force Academy. Physical Education Syllabus,

Office of the Director of Cadet athletics, U.S.
Air Force Academy, August, 1969, 119 pp.
78. U.S. Military Academy. "The Predictive Efficiency of

the Physical Aptitude Examination of Candidates
for the U.S. Military Academy," Unpublished paper,
Office of Physical Education, U.S. Military
Academy, West Point, October, 1948, 3 pp., mimeo-
graphed.
79. U.S. Military Academy. "Committee Report on Test

Revision," Unpublished Committee report, Office of
Physical Education, U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, 9 February 1955, 4 pp., typed.
80. U.S. Military Academy. "The Validity of Possible

Passing Scores on the Physical Aptitude Entrance
Examination in Predicting Cadet Leadership Ratings
at the U.S. Military Academy," Unpublished paper,
Department of Physical Education, U.S. Military
Academy, West Point, 1955, 11 pp., mimeographed.
81. U.S. Military Academy. "Completed Research in

Physical Education 1968-1969," Office of Physical
Education, U.S. Military Academy, West Point,
1969, 64 pp.
67
82. Watson, Marion R. An Investigation of Physical
Aptitude Examination Scores as a Criterion for the
Successful Selection Candidates for Appointment
to the Air Force Acaemy. Unpub]-Ised master's
tess -c-hoo-T-of Physical Education, Sacramento
State College, Sacramento, 1965, 57 pp., typed.
83. Walker, Helen and Joseph Lev. Statistical Inference,

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1953, 510
pp.
.7 84. Whitley, J. D. and L. E. Smith. "Larger Correlations
Obtained by Using 'Average' Rather than 'Best'
Strength Scores," Research Quarterly, 34:248-249,
May, 1963.
Sampson, 1971
1. Arata, P. F., C. Baldwin, and 0. Sampson. "Compari-

son of Success in Physical Education with Success
in Other Areas," Group Research Project.
2. Arata, n. F. and W. E. Delaino. "Physical Aptitude

Examination and Its Relationship to Attrition as
Measured in Percentages," Undated.
3. Arata, P. F. and R. J. Harnsberger. "A Study

Involving the Class of 1972 and the PAE" Group
Research Project, 1 Nov 68.
4. Arata, P. F. and R. Tosti. "Follow-up on Thirty-One

Selected Cadets," Group Research Project.
5. Blomquist, S. J. "The Validity of Academy Selection

Criteria as Measured by Cadet Performance,"
September 1970.
6. Delaino, G. T. "PAE/PFT Pull-Up Comparison," Memo

for the Record 10 Aug 1970.
7. Delaino, W. E. "Statistical Data on Cadets Separated

from 1 July 1966 to 1 February 1967, Classes of
1967-1970," Individual Research Project.
8. Frakes, J. F. "Comparative Predictive Values," Ltr,

18 Aug 80.
9. Frakes, J. F. "Revision of Standard Score for Pull-

Up and Chin-Up," Memo for the Record, 29 Aug 60.
10. Fritts, R. L. "An Evaluation of the Air Force

Academy Candidates Physical Aptitude Examination,"
Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Denver,
1964.
68
'1
11. Fritts, R. L. "Comparison of Cadet Varsity Athletes
with Cadet Non-Athletes as Measured by the USAF
Academy Physical Aptitude Examination," 1964.
12. Harris, D. I. "A Comparison of Poor Swimmers and

Their Classmates on Selected Variables," December
1970.
13. Hawkins, R. C. "Comparison of Mean Scores, Ltr,

USAFA and USMA," 14 May 1965.
14. Kardach, J. V. "Physical Aptitude and Academic

Performance of Athletes and Non-Athletes of the
United States Air Force Academy," Unpublished
Master's Thesis, University of Colorado, 1967.
15. McHargue, P. H. "The Relationships Between Nine

Selected Variables Affecting the United States Air
Force Academy Class of 1968," Unpublished Master's
Thesis, University of Southern California.
16. Medley, C. L. "A Comparison of Athletes, Attrited

Athletes, and Attrited Non-Athletes Through the
Medium of the Physical Aptitude Examination,"
December 1970.
17. Moody, P. R. "Selection of Candidates" and Attach-

ment "Selection Procedures for Class of 1965," 29
Apr 60.
18. Oehrlein, W. H. and H. J. Eichin. "A Comparison of

Intercollegiate Sports in Terms of Physical
Aptitude Examination Scores," December 1970.
19. Owens, L. E. "Selection of Candidates," Ltr, 22 Jul

60.
20. Owens, L. E. "Physical Aptitude Examination for
Classes of 1966-67," Ltr, 1 Jan 61.
21. Owens, L. E. "Distribution of PAE Scores by

Classes," Ltr, 29 Aug 61.
22. Owens, L. E. "The Physical Fitness of a Class Upon

Entry at the Air Force Academy," Undated (Circa
1961-62).
23. Owens, L. E. "Monitoring the Physical Aptitude

Examination," Ltr to DAPE (Lt Col Frakes).
24. Owens, L. E. "The Relationship Between Achievement

on Several Physical Tests and Physical Education
Grades," Departmental Study, 1962.
69
.%
25. Owens, L. E. "PAE at USAFA," Ltr, 18 Nov 63.
26. Owens, L. E. "Air Force Academy Stand on Physical

Aptitude Examination as a Qualifying Factor for
Candidates," 3 Mar 64.
27. Merritt, Frank. "Research Projects, "Letters dated

23 Jan 69 and 25 Feb 69 to SUPT.
28. Pichette, K. J. and K. A. Stowers. "A Comparison of

Intercollegiate Athletes and Non-Athletes on the
Physical Aptitude Examination, the Physical
Fitness Test, Physical Education Performance and
Academics," December 1970.
29. Porter, G. V. "Four Event PAE Study," RRE 1970.
30. Price, J. N. "An Investigation of Nonacademic Selec-

tion Variables in Predicting Success in U.S.
Military Service Academies with Special Reference
to the Air Force Academy," Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Colorado College, 1962.
31. Rafalko, E. A. Letter, "Physical Aptitude Examina-

tion Program," 22 Sep 65.
32. Richarz, W. H. 1967. "Literature Relating to the

Importance of Non-Academic Criteria, such as the
Air Force Academy's Physical Aptitude Test, for
Predicting Success at College," unpublished paper,
15 pp.
33. Richarz, W. H. 1969. "The Relationship of Physical

Performance at the United States Air Force Academy
to Subsequent Officer Performance," Unpublished
Ed. D., dissertation, University of Oregon.
34. Robison, J. E. "A Comparison of Intercollegiate

Athletes by Sport and Position Through the Medium
of the Physical Fitness Test," December 1970.
35. Sampson, 0. Staff Study, "Administrative Costs of

the Physical Aptitude Examination," 14 Oct 66.
36. Sampson, 0. Physical Aptitude Examination Analysis
-- Test Battery Selection, 28 Jul 67.
37. Sampson, 0. "Attention and Learning Selected Motor

Skills," Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Oregon, 1967.
38. Sampson, 0. Letters, "Experimental Physical Aptitude

Examination," 8 Sep 67 to 13 Mar 68.
70
-
-i
39. Stillman, R. M. Memorandum for Record and folder,
"Physical Aptitude Examinations for Candidates to
the Air Force Academy," 22 Aug 55.
40. Stillman, R. M. Memorandum for record and folder,

"Physical Aptitude as a Selection Criteria,"
18 Dec 55.
41. Thomas, J. C., and Delaino, G. T. "PAE Waivers in

the Class of 1973," 2 reports, 23 Sep 69 and
16 Jun 70.
42. Thompson, C. A. Letter, "Physical Aptitude Examina-

tion," 16 Sep 64.
43. Thompson, C. A., Jr. "Possible Change in the Physical

Aptitude Examination," 7 Sep 66.
44. Walter, H. J. "PAE Mean Scores of Varsity Letter

Winners: Classes 1961-1965," undated (can't find
study).
45. Walter, H. J., and 0. Sampson. 19 Mar 69. "An
Analysis of the Air Force Academy Physical
Aptitude Examination."
46. Walter, H. J. "A Critical Analysis of the USAF

Academy's Physical Proficiency Testing Programs,"
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Indiana, 1970.
47. Warren, R. H. Letter regarding justification of

Physical Aptitude Examination, 4 Sep 64.
48. Watson, M. R. 1964. "An Investigation of Physical

Aptitude Examination Scores as a Criterion for the
Successful Selection of Candidates for Appointment
to the Air Force Academy," unpublished master's
thesis, Sacramento State College, 1964, 57 pp.
49. Westen, R. J. Letter, "Request for Statistical

Computations," 1 Feb 61, and memorandum, "The
Candidate Physical Aptitude Examination as a
Predictor of Physical Education Grades," 10 Feb
61.
50. Westen, R. J. Letter, "Data Analysis Report,"

11 May 61.
51. Westen, R. J. Letter, "Statistical Analyses of

Physical Aptitude Test Items," 5 Feb 62.
71
52. Westen, R. J. Letters, "Correlational Statistics"
9 Apr 62, and "Validity of Physical Aptitude
Items," 10 May 62.
53. Westen, R. J. Mimeographed memorandum, "Duplication

of the West Point Study on Physical Aptitude Test
Results," 25 Jun 65.
54. Westen, R. J. Personal Communication, 22 Jan 69.
55. Wheeler, G. R., Jr.,, J. F. Dworaczyk, and H. P.

Wetzler. "An Analysis of Selected Variables Used
to Predict PAE Scores," Dec 1970.
REPORTS WITHOUT AUTHOR ..
56. "Intercorrelation of Spring PAE," 1956.
57. "Air Force Academy Physical Ability Tests," 87 pp,

1957.
58. "Class of 1965 -- PAE, P.E. 101"
59. Briefing Guide, "Physical Aptitude Examination Clinic

(1963)."
Reasons why you are conducting the clinic.
1. PAE is given to about 5,000 candidates at approxi-

mately 62 different Examining Centers.
2. About 8 to 16% of those candidates who score the

least points are disqualified.
3. Of the remaining candidates, the score made on the

PAE will either help or hinder their chances of selection
as a cadet.
4. Since we all want only the best candidate as cadets

and future officers, standardization in the administration
of the PAE is very important. It is of vital importance
that candidate John Jones on a given day can perform 5
pull-ups, run the shuttle-run in 62 seconds, and do 7 feet
in the standing broad jump, he would receive these scores
wherever he was tested that day ---- in Iowa, Alaska,
Hawaii, Nebraska, et cetera. Faulty measurement, counting
or time may allow a less qualified candidate to enter the
Air Force Academy over a better qualified young man.
5. The mere fact that you administer the PAE consistent-

ly is not the answer. Not only must you administer it
consistently, but you must administer each test item
exactly as it is done at 62 other Centers. That is, the
medicine ball must weigh exactly 6 pounds, extra motiva-
tion and coaching must not be given, etc.
72
". . . . " ,' '-., -" ,' . o . ' "-. "- '- " .. . " .." -. -"
60. "PAE Mean Comparisons," undated (Circa 1964).
61. Department of Physical Education paper on the PAE

966-67).
62. PAE - Class of 1971 Departmental Study, 1969.
63. "Attrition of Low PAE Entrants," undated.
64. "Analysis: Comparison of Fourth Class Summer PAE

Scores to Discharged Cadets, Class of 1959 (cover-
ing the Four Year Period at the Academy), undated
departmental study.
65. "Selection PAE - Sample - Class 1964," undated.
66. "Relationship of Physical Aptitude Examination to

Discharges and Resignations of Classes 1961, 1962,
and 1963," undated.
67. "Finished Correlations," undated.
68. Folder, "Superintendents' Conference", undated.
Harger and Keating, 1973
1. Benson, G. C. S. "Standardization of Forms and Pro-

cedures for Applications to the Military Acade-
mies," Letter, 30 Mar 71.
2. Cillo, A. R. "Standardization of Forms and Proce-

dures for Application to the Military Academies,"
Letter, 13 Apr q.
3. Cillo, A. R. "Suggested Agenda Items for the Mili-

tary Academies' Research Committee Meeting,"
Letter, 28 May 71.
4. Dworaczyk, J. F. "Initial Report of PAE Scores for

Class '77," Letter, 2 Jan 73.
5. Geffen, C. Giffen, Jr. "Elimination of USNA Midship-

men for Physical Education Failure," Letter,
7 July 55.
6. Goode, J. R. "Standardization of Forms and Proce-

dures for Application to the Military Academies,"
Letter, 1 Mar 71.
7. Harger, B. "PAE Waiver Analysis," AHP Report, 14 Dec

71.
73
......................................
., *.4
>,-7
8. Harger, B. and W. Delaino. "An Analysis of Cadets in

the Class of 1975 That Received Estimated PAE
Scores Based on the Athletic Index Regression
Formula," AHP Report, Mar 72.
9. Harger, B. "PAE Waiver - Class 1976 Update,"

Letter, 20 Nov 72.
10. Harger, B. "High School PAE Intercorrelations,"

Letter, 14 Feb 73.
11. Harger, B. "Report on the Second Military Academies

Physical Education Research Committee Meeting,"
Letter, 23 Mar 73.
12. Harger, B. "High School PAE Re-Test," AHP Report,

Nov 73.
13. Harmon, H. R. "Physical Aptitude Examination for

Candidates to the Air Force Academy," Letter, Aug
1955.
14. Harmon, H. R. "Candidate Physical Aptitude Examina-

tion," Unclassified Air Force Message, Sep 1955.
15. Houchin, G. R. "Initial Combined Service Academies

P. E. Research Committee Meeting," Meeting Agenda,
U.S. Naval Academy, 13 July 71.
16. Jarrell, W. R. "Evaluation of High School PAE,"

Letter, 13 Feb 73.
17. Kelley, R. T. "Standardization of Forms and Proce-

dures for Applications to Military Academies for
ROTC Scholarships," Letter, 3 Nov 1970.
18. Kobes, F. J. "Low Physical Education Performers,

19 Apr 55.
19. Kobes, F. J. "Report of Ad Hoc Panel Members for

Joint Study of Physical Aptitude Examination
Methods," Report to Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Feb 1964.
20. Kobes, F. J. "Tri-Service Academies Physical Educa-
tion Research Committee Meeting," Letter, 16 June
1971.
21. Kobes, F. J. "Tri-Service Academies Physical Educa-

tion Research Committee Meeting," Letter, 17 June
1971.
474
q'
i - .>..: > .: i > - : . .. -, :. > : .- - - -. . . i , . . - -~ .
, . _. . ..
22. Kobes, F. J. "Minutes of Tri-Service Meeting in
Regard to Standardization and Simplification of
the Physical Aptitude Examination," Committee
Minutes, 23 July 1971.
23. R. Applications
duresN. for
Lucia, "Standardization
to Military and Proce-
of Forms Academies," i-
Letter, 4 Feb 71.
24. McGlothlin, W. C. "West Point Visitation to Discuss

Candidate PAE," Letter, 30 Aug 54.
25. McGlothlin, W. C. "Elimination of Cadets for
Physical Inaptitude," Letter, 22 Jun 55.
26. McGlothlin, W. C. "USNA P.E. Information," Informal

Memo, 12 Jul 55.
27. McGlothlin, W. C. "Air Force Academy Physical

Aptitude Examination," Report for the Commandant
of Cadets, Aug 55.
28. McGlothlin, W. C. "The Physical Aptitude Examination

as a Part of the Selection Criteria for Candidates
to the United States Air Force Academy," Depart-
ment Report, 1957.
29. Medley, C. L. "A Comparison of Athletes, Attrited
Athletes, and Attrited Non-Athletes Through the
Medium of the Physical Aptitude Examination," AHP
Report, December 1970.
30. Norby, W. A. "Standardization of Forms and Proce-

dures for Applications to the Military Academies,"
Letter, 19 Mar 71.
31. O'Donnell, E. "Candidate Physical Aptitude Examina-

tion," Letter, 27 Sep 1955.
32. O'Donnell, E. "Authority to Commence PAE Testing,"

Unclassified Air Force Message, 5 Oct 1955.
33. Oehrlein, W. H. and H. J. Eichin. "A Comparison of

Intercollegiate Sports in Terms of Physical
Aptitude Examination Scores," AHP Report, December
1970.
34. Oliver, C. W. ""edical and PAE Testing Capabili-

ties," Letter, 5 Jan 1972.
35. Oliver, C. W. "High School PAE Administration,"

Letter, 21 Feb 73.
75
36. Owens, L. E. "Request for PAE Correlations," Letter,
Feb 61.
37. Owens, L. E. "Physical Aptitude Examination for

Classes of 1966-67," AHP Report, 17 Jan 1961.
38. Owens, L. E. "Air Force Academy Stand on Physical

Aptitude Examinations as a Qualifying Factor for
Candidates," Letter, 3 March 1964.
39. Paul, Harmon S. "Admission Standards at the Service
Academies," Letter, January 1964.
40. Porter, P. V. "Four Event PAE Study," RRE Study,

1970.
41. Rafalko, E. A. "Physical Aptitude Examination

Program," Letter, 22 Sep 1965.
• 42. Sampson, 0. "Administrative Costs of the Physical

Aptitude Examination," AHP Study, 14 Oct 1966.
43. Sampson, 0. "Experimental Physical Aptitude Examina-

tion," Letter 19 fec 1967.
44. Sampson, 0. "Experimental Physical Aptitude Examina-
tion," Letter 13 Mar 1968.
45. Sampson, 0. "PAE Syntheses," AHP Report, Apr 1971.
46. Simons, D. W. "Minutes Initial Meeting of Research

Committee for Joint Study of Physical Aptitude
Examination Procedures," Letter, Jul 1971.
47. Sparks, J. S. "Duplication of the West Point Study
on Physical Aptitude Test Results," 26 Jun 1965.
48. "Standardization of Tri-Service Selection Proce-
dures," Minutes of Meeting, 28 Jan 1971.
49. Stillman, R. M. "Physical Aptitude Testing,"

Informal Memo, 2 Mar 1955.
50. Stillman, R. M. "Physical Aptitude," Memo, DD Form

96, 6 Apr 1955.
51. Stillman, R. M. "Physical Aptitude," Handwritten

Memo, 25 Apr 1955.
52. Stillman, R. M. "Minimum Physical Qualifications,"

Informal Memo, 14 Jul 1955.
76
53. Stillman, R. M. "Physical Aptitude Examinations for
Candidates to the Air Force Academy," Letter,
22 Aug 1955.
54. Stowers, K. A. and K. J. Pichette. "A Comparison of

Intercollegiate Athletes and Non-Athletes on the
Physical Aptitude Examination, and Physical Fit-
ness Test, Physical Education Perlormance and
Academics," AHP Report, Dec 1970.
55. Superintendents Conference, "The Physical Aptitude

Examination (PAE)," Final Report, Jun 1972.
56. Thomas, J. C. "Report on the First Military Acade-

mies' Physical Education Research Committee Meet-
ing," Letter, 16 Jul 1971.
57. Thompson, C. A. "Possible Change in the Physical

Aptitude Examination," Letter, 7 Sep 1966.
58. Warren, R. "Physical Aptitude Examination," First

General Session Report, Ad Hoc Committee on
Admissions Standards at the Service Academies, Jan
1964.
59. Western, R. S. "The Candidate Physical Aptitude

Examination as a Predictor of Physical Education
Grades," Letter, 10 Feb 1961.
60. Wheeler, G. R., Jr., J. F. Dworaczyk, and H. P.

Wetzler. "An Analysis of Selected Variables Used
to Predict PAE Scores," AHP Report, Dec 1970.
61. Appleton, L. 0. "'"The Relationship Between Physical

Ability and Success at the United States Military
Academy, Doctoral Dissertation, School of Educa-
tion, New York University, New York, 1949, 138 pp.
62. Clark, A. P. "Motivation - A Challenge to Leader-

ship," AFRP 190-2, Supplement to the Air Force
Policy Letter for Commanders, Jan 1971.
63. Creager, .1. A. and R. E. Miller. "Predicting

Achievement of Cadets in Their First Yea- at the
Air Force Academy, Class of 1961," WADD-TN-60-42,
Personnel Laboratory, Air Research and Developmc:,t
Command, Mar 1960.
64. Fritts, R. L. "An Evaluation of the Air Force

Academy Candidate Physical Aptitude Examination,"
Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Denver,
Denver, Colorado, 1964.
77
65. Janowitz, M. The Professional Soldier. New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1964.
66. Johnson, B. B. "Practical Preparation for the 21st

Century," Kappan, 54(8):518-521, Apr 1973.
67. Kardach, J. V. "Physical Aptitude and Academic

Performance of Athletes and Non-Athletes of the
United States Air Force Academy," Unpublished
Master's Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado, 1967.
68. McHargue, P. H. "The Relationship Between Nine

Selected Variables Affecting the United States Air
Force Academy Class of 1968," Unpublished Master's
Thesis, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California, 1967.
69. Miller, R. E. "Predicting Achievement of Cadets in

Their First Year at the Air Force Academy, Class
of 1963," ASD-TN-61-45, Personnel Laboratory, Air
Force Systems Command, May 1961.
70. USAF Academy Candidate Physical Aptitude Examination

Handbook, United States Air Force Academy,
Sep 1973.
71. Walter, H. J. "A Critical Analysis of the USAF

Academy's Physical Proficiency Testing Programs,"
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Indiana,
Bloomington, Indiana, 1970.
72. Watson, M. R. "An Investigation of Physical Aptitude

Examination Scores as a Criterion for the Success-
ful Selection of Candidates for Appointment to the
Air Force Academy," Unpublished Master's Thesis, . -
Sacramento State College, Sacramento, California,

1964.
78
APPENDIX A
A NOTE ABOUT T-SCORE CONVERSIONS
The T-score scale is a linear transform of standard deviation units, also

called z-scores, in which the mean of a normal distribution (z=O) is set at
•* T=50. Each standard deviation unit above and below the mean is represented by
a T increment of 10. Thus, T=30 is two standard deviations below the mean
(z=-2.0). With the aid of a table of z-scores, one can identify the propor-
tion of a group that is cut-off below a given T-score criterion. For
*instance, using a criterion of T=30, 2.3% of the group will probably fall
below the criterion. The proportions falling below the criterion in the range
T=25 to 45 (0.5 to 2 standard deviations below the mean) are shown in Table
A-i.
TABLE A-i. T-SCORES, Z-SCORES, AND THE PROPORTION BELOW THE T-SCORE. (Note
that T-score x 10 gives the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) type of score used
* in calculating USAFA admissions composites.)
Percent
T-score Z-score below score
45 -.5 30.85
44 -.6 27.43
43 -.7 24.20
42 -.8 21.19
41 -.9 18.41
40 -1.0 15.87
39 -1.1 13.57
38 -1.2 11.51
37 -1.3 9.68
36 -1.4 8.08
35 -1.5 6.68
34 -1.6 5.48
33 -1.7 4.46
32 -1.8 3.59
31 -1.9 2.87
30 -2.0 2.28
29 -2.1 1.79
28 -2.2 1.39
27 -2.3 1.07 -
26 -2.4 .82
25 -2.5 .62
79
...
. . .. . ..
. . . . . .
APPENDIX B
REPORT OF WORKSHOP ON USAFA
PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING
February 1982
J. C. Miller
During the summer and fall of 1981, a number of doubts about the adequacy
of Cadet and candidate physical fitness testing were identified by the USAF
* Academy Directorates of Admissions (RR) and Athletics (AH). A workshop,
attended by academic and Air Force specialists in physical fitness and admis-
sions requirements, was convened at USAFA, 17-18 February 1982, under the
sponsorship of RR and AH. The participants considered the adequacies of the
current Physical Aptitude Examination (PAE) for candidates and the Physical
* - Fitness Test (PFT) for Cadets, discussed the demands of Cadet and active-duty
officer physical activities, and drafted guidelines for future USAFA physical
fitness testing. The workshop discussions are summarized in this report, and
*S a work plan for implementing the guidelines is presented.
The workshop participants are listed in Attachment I to this report. The

- two academic specialists who attended are highly qualified to advise USAFA on
physical fitness tests. Dr Steven M. Horvath is recognized as one of the
world's leading authorities on the effects of exercise, heat, cold, altitude,
air pollution, and aging on human function. In 1977, an international sympo-
sium, "Environmental Stress: Individual Human Adaptations," was held in honor
of Dr Horvath. In the preface to the book which documents that symposium, it
was noted that Dr Horvath, "throughout his long and productive career has made
and continues to make extensive contributions to our knowledge of man's adapt-
ability to environmental stress." Dr James E. Wilkerson, recognized for his
outstanding research contributions in physical fitness and muscle biochemis-
try, is a member of the U.S. Olympic Track and Field Development Committee and
serves as the Chairman of its Scientific Sub-committee.
The Director of the Office of Admissions and USAFA Registrar, Col

Warren L. Simmons, participated in the workshop. His office was also repre-
sented by Capt William J. Strickland, from the Directorate of Institutional
Research (RRE). Capt Strickland holds a doctorate in Psychological Test and
Evaluation, and is responsible for investigating, among other things, rela-
tionships among physical fitness, indices of success at USAFA, and Cadet
retention. Capt Robert D. Shadduck represented the Admissions Liaison Office
(RRV). Capt Shadduck is one of many hundreds of USAF Reserve Admissions Liai-
son Officers, who represent USAFA and AFROTC in the nation's high schools and
communities. He also directs the Los Angeles, CA PAE Testing Center and has
directed an investigation of the effects of physical training on PAE perform-
ance.
The Head of the Physical Education Division (AHP), Col Richelieu N.

Johnsorn, participated in the workshop, as did two members of his staff. Maj
P. Richard Elliott and Capt Richard W. Cotd hold doctorates in Physiology and
bear the ultimate burden at USAFA of assuring the technical adequacy of the
PAE and PFT.
80
4 "
Finally, the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine was represented by Dr
Loren G. Myhre. Dr Myhre has performed many investigations that involve mea-
suring the fitness of USAF personnel. He is presently assisting the adminis-
trative office* responsible for the testing of the physical fitness of all
USAF personnel in an effort to bring state-of-the art techniques to such
assessments. The workshop was convened and chaired by Dr James C. Miller, a
research physiologist at USAFSAM and a USAF Reserve Liaison Officer Coordi-
nator for RRV.
Col Simmons, the Director of Admissions, in his opening remarks,

expressed several concerns about physical fitness testing of candidates.
First, he pointed out the high failure rate on the PFT among appointees begin-
ning Basic Cadet Training (BCT). It would be preferable if appointees were
physically prepared, through training or selection, to pass this first PFT.
There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that a greater likelihood of appointee
retention in BCT is associated with greater physical strength and endurance.
Col Simons noted the need to consider the fitness needs of officers and
Cadets in designing fitness testing techniques and criteria for candidates.
The need for fairness in determining a whole-person fitness score was men-
tioned with regard to "equal scores for equal efforts" when male and female
candidates are compared. He noted the need for the coordination of changes in
physical fitness testing procedures at USAFA with West Point and Annapolis.
Finally, after briefing the meeting participants on the role of the PAE in the
admissions process, he pointed out that heights and weights of candidates have ...
not been used as covariates in the consideration of PAE scores, and pointed . -
out the need for the participants to consider carefully the setting of per-
formance minima for upper body strength and for running endurance.
Col Johnson's remarks outlined AH's needs with respect to physical fit-
ness testing. He pointed out that USAF active-duty requirements for physical
fitness take precedence over USAFA, but that AH needs a test that will iden-
tify candidates who can withstand physical stress and who can present a good
l physical image. Although the oaverage level of physical fitness of USAFA
appointees, when they arrive for BCT, is at about the 70th percentile of the
national distribution of high school students, 2 to 3 percent of the Basic
- Cadets cannot pass the PFT at the end of BCT. Some of these are at the top of
their allowed weight range, some are female. Last year, two Cadets were dis-
enrolled for repeated failures of the PFT. USAFA should be able to screen out
such individuals prior to appointment to USAFA, and must have a defendable,
state-of-the-art fitness test upon which to base disenrollment decisions,
should the occasion arise. Col Johnson pointed out that the Cadets not only
must undergo BCT upon arrival at USAFA, but then continue a vigorous sports
and physical education program during their Cadet years. He underscored the
need for a candidate physical fitness test that predicts at least physical
success at USAFA and screens out applicants who cannot handle the physical
stresses at USAFA. The test must be reliable, and ease of administration is
needed. He expressed interest in the inclusion of estimates of body comnposi-
tion in the applicant test.
The discussion that followed the opening remarks by Cols Simmons and
Johnson was initiated by Dr Horvath, who asked if the physical demands of
active duty officers had been documented. Drs Myhre and Miller agreed that
*Appearance and Standards, (AFMPC/ASD), Randolph AFB TX 78148, (512) 652-3415
81
* ~-~.- -..---,-
.-.--- -- -- " ---.--... . *--" . ---
. .
such documentation did not exist, but that a few USAF-pilot-oriented programs
were currently under way at USAFSAM and AFAMRL that might shed some light on
such demands. Maj Elliott cited a survey of USAFA graduates which indicated
that, five years after graduation, they continued to accumulate an average of
60 Aerobics points per week and had gained an average of five pounds. Thus,
many graduates apparently try to maintain fitness after graduation. Dr
Wilkerson suggested a testable hypothesis based upon the collection of USAFA-
graduate morbidity and mortality data: if the USAFA physical education pro-
gram does change Cadet life-styles with regard to fitness maintenance, then
such data might correlate with the Cadets' last physical fitness scores before
graduation; if not, then such data might correlate with the Cadets' pre-BCT
physical fitness scores instead. Dr Wilkerson also pointed out the usefulness
of longitudinal (life-lorg) body :omposition data on graduates in order to
test this hypothesis. Finally, Col Simmons pointed out that the meeting par-
ticipants need not be overly concerned with the impact of active-duty-officer
physical fitness needs, since it is appropriate that USAFA take the lead for
USAF in helping to determine such matters.
Capt Shadduck presented a briefing on the administration of the PAE.

Much of the material he presented is available in the PAE Test Director's
Handbook, published by RR, and will not be repeated here. However, several
points of emphasis and some data are appropriate for this report. First, the
difficulty of maintaining floor markings, or repeatedly marking the floor, for L
the basketball throw and the standing long jump, in the field (AFB or high
school gymnasiums) was pointed out. Second, the control of the PAE (i.e.,
instructions are read word-for-word and no additional instructions are given,
the four test items are given in the same order to all candidates, etc) was
emphasized. However, in discussion, Col Simmons noted that the elapsed time
between test items in the PAE was not held constant as it is in the PFT (i.e.,
when 30 candidates show up for one of the eight PAE tests given each year at
the 150 PAE test sites, there is a longer elapsed time between test items than
when only 2 candidates show up). Dr Horvath noted that audio-taped or video-
taped instructions would reduce test-site differences in the presentabon of
PAE information to candidates. Finally, Capt Shadduck presented data concern-
ing Los Angeles test-site male candidates first-administration* performance on
each of the PAE test items. These data are included as Tables B-1 through ..-
B-4, and agree with the RR data presented in Figure 1 in the body of this
Technical Report.
Dr Myhre summarized his observations of physical fitness and tests there-

of in the active duty Air Force. He has seen or heard of the 1 1/2-mile run
being administered poorly in the field: self-counted numbers of laps may not
be accurately reported by test participants, and excessive corner-cutting may
take place when laps are run indoors on gymnasium floors. The 1 1/2-mile run
suffers from a low frequency of administration: once per year. This results
in useless and dangerous last-minute, instead of continuous, training by many
USAF personnel. Finally, the standards for passing the 1 1/2-mile run or the
3-mile walk are set so low that very little aerobic power is required to pass
these tests. Dr Myhre has measured aerobic power in enlisted personnel per-
forming Rapid Runway Repair at Eglin AFB FL and recorded alarmingly low levels
of fitness, e.g., a 17-year-old man with the fitness of a 70-year-old man. Dr
Myhre will sample the aerobic power of active-duty personnel at Minot AFB ND
*Some candidates returned for second PAEs on another test date.
82
. . . . .
TABLE B-1. USAF ACADEMY PAE MALE PULL-UP SUMMARY

(LOS ANGELES TESTING CENTER, 1978-1981). NUMBER OF PULL-UPS.
CYCLE N MEAN MODE MEDIAN RANGE SD
78-79 74 9.6 11.0 9.9 1-23 4.3

79-80 69 9.6 10.0 9.6 0-18 4.2
80-81 86 10.1 10.0 9.9 2-18 3.8
TABLE B-2. USAF ACADEMY PAE MALE STANDING LONG JUMP SUMMARY
(LOS ANGELES TESTING CENTER, 1978-1981). IN FEET.
78-79 74 7.88 8.0 8.0 6.40-9.20 .58

79-80 69 7.78 Bii 7.8 6.08-9.00 .57
80-81 86 7.70 BI 7.7 6.33-9.00 .54
TABLE B-3. USAF ACADEMY PAE MALE BASKETBALL THROW SUMMARY

(LOS ANGELES TESTING CENTER, 1978-1981). IN FEET.
78-79 74 68.2 76.0 67.8 42-94 10.9

79-80 69 68.4 67.0 67.8 51-92 9.5
80-81 86 65.5 MULTI 65.3 44-99 10.2
T B-4.USAF ACADEMY PAE MALE 300-YD SHUTTLE RUN SUMMARY

(LOS ANGELES TESTING CENTER, 1978-1981). IN SECONDS.
78-79 74 59.76 59.4 59.6 55.0-66.2 2.48

79-80 69 59.91 60.5 59.6 55.8-67.6 2.63
80-81 86 60.26 BI 59.6 55.5-70.8 2.80
1
Bimodal
2
Multimodal
83
and Carswell AFB TX this winter and spring. He is designing an adaptive sub-
maximal protocol for the bicycle ergoineter that will allow individuals with
'" low aerobic power to at least complete the test, and suggests a criterion of
40 to 45 ml/min/kg oxygen uptake (V0 2 ) as a standard of aerobic fitness. Dr
Horvath remarked that he had measured aerobic power in aluminum-smelter
workers in Texas and found an average 30 ml/min/kg V02 . Many of these workers
were obese. He also mentioned the ca. 10% error of the method in bicycle
ergometry, but pointed out that it was the best field-deployable device avail-
* able for the estimation of aerobic power. He and Dr Myhre agreed that the ad-
justment of V0 2 by body weight (ml/min~kg) sharply separates obese individuals
*from non-obese, fit individuals.
Capt Cotd described the new educational program constructed for the
* Morale, Welfare and Recreation administrators at the Manpower and Personnel
Center.* USAFA/AHPA is providing technical education in fitness training
techniques and in cardiovascular disease for the MWR specialists who run Air
Force gymnasiums around the world. Some of these specialists are involved in
the administration of PAEs and USAF 1 1/2-mile-run/3-mile-walk tests. Dr
Miller suggested that the educational program be handed-off to the School of
Aerospace Medicine Education Division (USAFSAM/ED), and that the USAFSAM
-, Physiological Training Officer (PTO) program be expanded to incorporate PTOs
into the USAF-wide physical fitness training and testing community. Dr
Horvath remarked that research performed by the Amy at Ft Dix, concerning
* physical fitness, was one of the triggers for a Dept of Defense Symposium on
physical fitness that was held at the Pentagon in the summer of 1980. The
recommendations of our USAFA workshop, reported below, may be regarded as a
part of the USAFA response to the call for enhanced physical fitness and
enhanced physical fitness testing techniques heard at the DoD Symposium.
Some eight hours of discussion by the workshop participants followed the

information presented above and resulted in the numbered conclusions and
* recommendations presented below. It should be noted that the workshop
.. represented an application of a large amount of the highest-quality basic
physiological research, much of which was supported over the years by the AF
Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). Additionally, many of the participants
noted that the degree of consensus reached among themselves, regarding their
conclusions and recommendations, was remarkable. This consensus may reflect
the ubiquity among physiologists of the recognition of the need for the
enhancement of physical fitness testing procedures in operational environ-
ments.
1. With respect to the relationship of the future course of USAFA

physical fitness requirements and testing methods to USAF needs for officer
physical fitness, the following conclusions were reached: (a) that USAF is in
a state of transition as a result of the 1980 DoD Symposium recommendations;
(b) that USAF (specifically, AFMPC/ASD) must be kept advised of USAFA
*AFMPC/MWR, Randolph AFB TX 78148
84
84
-7 7 7. 1 7- 7-77. 7. 7 77 711 -... .-
advances; and (c) that USAFA should not hesitate to take the lead in prescrib-
ing physical fitness criteria. Dr Miller suggested that USAFA or USAFSAM
might take the lead in introducing some form of executive fitness training to
the Air Staff in view of these conclusions.
2. The objective of the workshop participants' recommendations was: to

measure four characteristics of USAFA candidate physical fitness. If these
characteristics are measured appropriately, they should provide far better
than existing predictions of success in performing the Cadet PFT, the Cadet 1
1/2-mile run, physical education grades, and, perhaps, the Cadet Military
Performance Average. A probable result of the pass-fail criteria suggested by
the participants is the general enhancement of Cadet physical fitness, or at
leas, a truncating of the low end of the fitness distribution of entering
appointees.
3. The Cadet PFT will not be radically changed in the next several
years. There are two reasons for this recommendation. First, enhanced Cadet
PFT performance may serve as a rough measure of the degree to which the
candidate physical fitness screening process will be improved by the imple-
mentation of the recommendations set forth here. Second, PFT performance by
Cadets is reasonably predictive of success in physical education courses.
USAFA/AH will allow the successful implementation of candidate testing changes
to drive changes to the PFT, as appropriate. The least useful test items in
the PFT, it was decided, are the standing long-jump and the 600-yd run.
4. The idea of "physical aptitude" testing of candidates was labelled

inappropriate. In the 40 years since the development of the PAE, investiga-
tors have found that "physical aptitude" is highly task specific. That is, to
identify an aptitude for swimming, one must test an individual's swimming
skills rather than something more abstract, such as his kneeling basketball-
J throw distance. The participants agreed that the present PAE does not suffi-
ciently discriminate physical aptitude nor physical fitness. Additionally,
they agreed that USAFA should emphasize candidate physical fitness testing
over candidate physical aptitude testing. Thus, the participants recommended
an end to the "PAE" and a move t6ward state-of-the-art testing of the physical
fitness of USAFA candidates.
5. An interim Candidate Physical Fitness Test (CPFT)* was outlined. The

use of the term "interim" here is meant to show that USAFA is committed to the
use of state-of-the-art measurement techniques in testing muscular strength,
coordination, aerobic power, and body composition, but that not all of the
techniques are field deployable by USAFA at this time. More primitive
techniques will be used temporarily, and will be replaced by state-of-the-art 2<
techniques as permitted by logistics, funding, training, normative data
acquisition, and test procedure development. The measurements of the four
fitness characteristics are discussed in the following subparagraphs.
*The name of the test was left open for further consideration. Capt Cotd
pointed out the appropriateness of the name, Candidate Fitness Test (CFT), and
it was agreed that the term "physical" causes some candidates to confuse the
PAE with the medical examination administered by the Department of Defense
Medical Evaluation and Review Board (DOMERB) for the several Academies.
However, the "CPFT" designation was that used during the workshop.
85
a. Muscular Strength. Tests of the static and dynamic strengths of
specific muscle groups, using strain gauge devices, should be developed. The
strain gauge devices should be purchased, test procedures should be estab-
lished, and testing officer training should be accomplished after the appro-
priate tests have been identified. The particular strength requirements of
USAF may become more clear as a result of current investigations by AFAMRL.
Cadet strength requirements need to be quantified. In the interim, more prim-
itive measures of upper body strength, those of the PFT, will be used: pull-
ups, push-ups, and sit-ups, administered in that order, using existing PFT
guidelines.
An item of great interest to both RR and AH was the method of

scoring these tests of strength. The participants recommended the following
scoring guidelines. First, a candidate must have non-zero scores on all three
test items. In other words, to pass the CPFT, a candidate must be abe to do
at least one pull-up, at least one push-up, and at least one sit-up. Second,
a minimum combined score for the three testtems should be established. Dr
Wilkerson recommended, and the other participants concurred, that the sum of
the 20th percentiles of the Cadet T-score distributions for the three test
items be used as the candidate criterion. There are obvious discontinuities
in the Cadet norms for each test item at the 20th percentile. This approach
will tend initially, to improve the average level of push-up-pull-up-sit-up
(p-p-s) performance in the Cadet Wing, thus the Cadet Wing scores on p-p-s
should be re-normed and the absolute average level of Cadet wing p-p-s
performance re-examined, prior to each admissions cycle, to set candidate
p-p-s performance criteria. Using the current PFT T-score conversions (see
Technical Report, Tables 1 and 2), the following combined minimum level
(sumned 20th percentiles) would be required of candidates.
Men Women
Pull-ups 5 2
Push-ups 28 7
Sit-ups 52 46
TOTAL T 55
A woman candidate who could accomplish one pull-up and two push-ups would pass
the test by performing 52 sit-ups, bringing her total score to 55. There may
be limitations to this method, imposed by the maximum scores possible (99th
percentile) on each test item. All methods of communication, including the
Pre-Candidate Questionnaire (PCQ) Kit and the Admissions Liaison Officer (ALO) L
force, should be used to inform USAFA candidates of the nature and criteria of
the strength test and of the need to train for it.
b. Coordination. There are a few, if any, generally acceptable mea-

sures of whole-body coordination. The participants concluded that the 300-
yard shuttle run is adequate for use as an interim test, with the caveat that
this test item should be studied with the intention of improving it. Dr
Wilkerson will accomplish some of that work at Indiana University during
investigations already in the planning stage. The recommended procedures for
shuttle-run testing are those set forth for the current PAE. The criterion
level for passing the test should be set at two standard deviations (sd) below
the mean of the existing distribution for candidates (to be reconsidered and/
or re-normed prior to each admissions cycle). The 2-sd criterion eliminates
the lower 2.3 percent of individuals in a given distribution.
86
W 6.:
c. Aerobic Power. As facilities, equipment, and trained personnel

become available, subma al testing of aerobic power, using bicycle ergo-
meters, should be implemented in the field. The submaximal bicycle test was
identified by the workshop participants as being the most reliable and mean-
ingful field deployable technique for aerobic power determination. -he sim-
plicity, reliability, and ruggedness of the Monark brand bicycle ergometer
*.*were recommended as criteria by which to judge an acceptable ergometer for
eventual purchase. No reliable, interim test for aerobic power was found to
be acceptable, though the original version of the Harvard Step Test (carrying
individualized amounts of extra weight in a backpack) was considered, as was
the 1 1/2-mile run. The former was labelled as unreliable (much greater
random error variation than the bicycle test), and the latter was thought to
be impractical for indoor testing. In lieu of an interim test of aerobic
power, bicycle ergometry will be conducted during the 1982-83 admissions cycle
at four of the current (PAE) testing sites: USAFA, supported by AHPAR (Capt
Cotd); Randolph AFB, supported by USAFSAM/VN (Drs Myhre and Miller); Los
Angeles, supported by the UC Institute of Environmental Stress as part of
ongoing AFOSR contracts (Dr Horvath working with Capt Shadduck); and
Bloomington IN, supported by Indiana University (Dr Wilkerson working with the
(PAE) testing officer for Bloomington). The protocol to be used in these
feasibility tests will be that developed by Dr Myhre, mentioned above.
d. Body Composition. The currently accepted criterion measurement

for body composition is body density determination (also known as underwater
. weighing). The field deployment of this method is not practical at this time
(future implementation by DODMERB during medical examinations would be
admirable). One of the best predictors of density-determined body composition
is an algorithm that uses height, weight, triceps skin fold, and knee
diameter. Capt Cotd has access to this algorithm and will make it available
for use in the CPFT. Two kinds of calipers will be required for these meas-
urements: Drs Myhre and Miller will explore purchase/construction options for
them. The training of 1982-83 test site directors in the use of the calipers
will be initiated by letter and followed up at RRV area meetings (this will
require training the five RRV Area Officers). A calibration method for the
calipers in the field is yet to be worked out. The criterion values for the
allowable proportion of fat in the body should be the national college mean,
as determined by underwater weighing (Dr Horvath has most of those data). In
other words, candidates' percent body fat must be less than the national
college mean in order to qualify for appointment. The criterion means must be
specific to the applicants' sex and race. Marginal candidates could be
.: directed by RR to high-quality underwater weighing sites.
6. The exact nature of the 1982-83 CPFT should be determined by a USAFA

' project officer in March-April 1982. Several guidelines were recommended.
First, a constant time interval for the tests should be used, as for the PFT:
in the PFT, three minutes each are allowed for pull-ups, long-jump, push-ups,
sit-ups, and the start of the 600-yard run. Second, current waiver and retest
, policies should not be revised at this time. Finally, it was agreed that
H warming-up" has little effect on physical performance. Instead of the
structured PAE warm-up, a standard amount of time should be given to the
candidates to "stretch" and "limber up."
87
?:,
,",-. ',-.'-v -. " -." ---. -", , ,-* * , -. " . " - . , .- . * .. ,.. . . * , •.-
In summary, the workshop participants recommended three actions. First,
discard the idea of measuring candidate physical aptitude in favor of measur-
ing candidate physical fitness. Second, pursue the highest level of comnpe-
tency in physical fitness testing. This should be accomplished by implement-
ing measurements of static and dynamic muscular strength, whole-body
coordination, aerobic power, and body composition that are both practical and
reliable. Three, implement the recommended CPFT as the first in a severaT-
- year series of steps toward the desired level of competency.
" .
,'-' 8" -.
Work Plan
March-April 1982 -A project officer, preferably Capt Shadduck, should pull

together a new CPFT Testing Officer's Handbook and design the needed mark-
sense reporting forms for the 1982-83 testing dates. He should also prepare a
letter for dispatch in May to Test Site Directors informing them of the advent
of the CPFT. Dr Miller will prepare a one-page description of the CPFT to be
sent out in the PCQ and to ALOs. Drs Myhre and Miller will identify calipers
to be purchased and/or constructed and get those efforts under way. Dr Myhre
will distribute his bicycle ergometer submaximal test protocol to Drs
Wilkerson and Horvath and to Capt Cotd. Capt Cot will give RRE (Capt
Strickland) the body composition algorithm that will be used in 1982-83, and
prepare instructional materials for the five RRV Area Officers concerning use
of the calipers.
October-November 1982. The first CPFTs will be conducted. Bicycle ergometry

will be conducted at four test sites.
November-December 1982. The workshop participants will reassemble to consider

the results of bicycle ergometry and the adequacy of CPFT procedures.
February-March 1983. Additional bicycle ergometry will be conducted at the

four test sites. CPFT procedures for the 1983-84 admissions cycle will be
formalized by the Project Officer.
89
...- --.. -!I

List of Participants
USAFA Physical Fitness Testing Workshop
1. James C. Miller, Ph.D. (Convener)

Research Physiologist, Crew Performance Branch (VNE),
USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB TX 78235,
and Admissions Liaison Officer Coordinator (USAFR), USAFA/RRV
(512) 536-3464. AUTOVON 240-3464.
2. Steven M. Horvath, Ph.D.

Director and Professor, Institute of Environmental Stress,
University of California, Santa Barbara CA 93106
(805) 961-2350 or 2361.
" 3. James E. Wilkerson, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Department of Physical Education,
Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405
(812) 335-0673 or 1637.
4. Loren G. Myhre, Ph.D.
Research Physiologist, Crew Protection Branch (VNB),
USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB TX 78235
(512) 536-3814. AUTOVON 240-3814.
5. Capt Robert D. Shadduck

Admissions Liaison Officer (USAFR) and PAE Test Director,
Admissions Liaison Office (RRV), USAF Academy
2939 Cardiff Ave., Los Angeles CA 90034
(213) 837-9777 (H). (213) 535-5290 (W).
6. Col Warren L. Simmons
Director of Admissions and Registrar (RR),
USAF Academy CO 80840
(303) 472-2640. AUTOVON 259-2640.
7. Col Richelieu N. Johnson

Head, Physical Education Div~sion (AHP),
(303) 472-2798. AUTOVON 259-2798.
8. Maj William J. Strickland

Directorate of Institutional Research (RRE),
(303) 472-3225. AUTOVON 259-3225.
I
9. Maj P. Richard Elliott
Associate Professor and Chief, Analysis Division
Athletic Department (AHPA),
(303) 472-2282. AUTOVON 259-2282.
10. Capt Richard W. Cotd

Associate Professor and Director, Human Performance Laboratory,
Athletics Department (AHPAR),
(303) 472-3428. AUTOVON 259-3429.
90
APPENDIX C
RELATED PROJECTS
Strength and Stamina Standards Raised*
The Air Force has noted increasing complaints by unit commanders and
supervisors that their people lack adequate strength or stamina to perform
tasks called for by their jobs. A special effort is under way to establish
better entry criteria for heavy work specialties. The Air Force Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratory (AFAMRL), the Air Force Surgeon General, and per-
sonnel specialists are working to improve the matching of individual capabili-
ties with physical demands.
The AFAMRL-directed effort includes on-site measurements of job require-

ments (tasks, tools, equipment, etc.), development of and advanced Strength
Aptitude Test Battery (SATB), and new recommendations for strength and stamina
criteria for each job. This large-scale research effort is expected to be
completed late this year.
Meanwhile, pending a new SATB, changes are being made for known strength-
. problem skills. Specifically, heavy work skills (those categorized as X-1)
' now require an individual to demonstrate the ability to lift 100 pounds to a
height of six feet, compared to a previous weight requirement of seventy
pounds. The lifting of seventy pounds to a six-foot height criteria is now
tagged to skills requiring moderate strength (X-2). The criteria for standard
light-duty specialties (X-3) is now forty pounds to elbow height vs. the pre-
* vious twenty-pound requirement. This is now the minimum strength level
": required for enlistment.
The specialties to which the new X-1 criteria are currently being applied
cover several AFSCs (see Table C-i). Changes will be made to X-Factor stan-
dards for other AFSCs as the AFAMRL review data become available.
TABLE C-i. X-FACTOR-ONE SPECIALTIES

(100 POUNDS TO HEIGHT OF SIX FEET)
Survival Training
Missile Systems Maintenance
Electronic Warfare Systems
Cable and Antenna Systems
Installation/Maintenance
Aircrew Egress Systems
Helicopter Mechanic/Technician
Missile Maintenance
Electric Power Line
Refrigeration and Cryogenics
Heating Systems
Pavements Maintenance
Construction Equipment
Fire Protection
*Air Force MRgazine, April 1982.
91
* - -* ~* .- . .. * .**.. .-. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pilot Strength Screening Program* o1
Gen Davis, ATC Commander, formally endorsed the AFA4RL Pilot Strength
Screening Program. This occurred as a result of T-37 flight tests at Kelly
AFB which showed that aft stick force requirements exceed 60 pounds for level
flight and 110 pounds for a dive recovery in a run-away trim condition. A
fatal accident is believed to have been caused by a combination run-away trim
and the pilot having insufficient strength to control the aircraft under that
condition. These facts, together with a recommendation to establish physical
. standards and a strength screening program for aircrew members, were presented
in a staff summary sheet to Gen Davis on 15 Jul 80. Gen Davis endorsed the
recommendations. The recommendation and the T-37 flight test were forwarded
.. to Dr. Joe McDaniel (HEG) by ATC/IGFF. Another incident was reported to Lt
Col Lofberg (HEG) by Maj Sietmann of HQ SAC/DOBT on 20 Jul 81. A female pilot
. flying a KC-135 recently scraped a wing pod on landing due to insufficient
strength to operate a yoke and throttle simultaneously. It is expected that
SAC will provide additional strong endorsement for our pilot strength screen-
ing program, especially since Gen Davis will be the new SAC commander. Maj
Sietmann requested that we add the B-52 to the list of aircraft for which
strength is a limiting factor. In making this recommendation, he was refer-
ring to male pilots, since female pilots are excluded from B-52s.
922
*Monthly Activity Report, AF Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-

Patterson AFB OH, July 1981.
92.

Fitness Testing by The U.S. Air Force Academy, 1955-1981

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fitness Testing by The U.S. Air Force Academy, 1955-1981

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fitness Testing by The U.S. Air Force Academy, 1955-1981

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report USAFSAM.TR.

SPHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING BY THE

James C.Mier, Ph.D.

USAF SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE

This final report was submitted by personnel of the Crew Performance

.1 supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be

JASJ C. MILLER, Ph.D. WILLIAM F. STORM, Ph.D.

ROYCE MOSER, Jr.

S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

7. AUTHOR(e) a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

James C. Miller, Ph.D 4 Robert D. Shadduck, Captair,

16. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thu Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Physical Fitness Candidates Testing

D FOP 1473 --EDITION OF I NOV 65 ISOBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED .

* ** *b. .- *- --. *~b . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .- .]

PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (PFT) . .... . 3

AEROBICS TEST .................... ............ 22

PHYSICAL APTITUDE EXAMINATION (PAE).................................... 24

PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF CADET AND OFFICER LIFE ............................. 56 .1o

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................. .................... .........

APPENDIX A: A NOTE ABOUT T-SCORE CONVERSIONS .......................... 79

APPENDIX B: REPORT OF WORKSHOP ON USAFA PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING ...... 80

APPENDIX C: RELATED PROJECTS.......................................... 91

1. Illustration of PAE events ...................................... 28

1. Women's PFT conversion chart, July 1979 .......................... 6

2. Men's PFT conversion chart, July 1979 ............................ 7

3. BCT PFT results, 1978 - 1981 ...................................... 20

5. USAF weight standards (as of Nov 1, 1981) ........................ 22

6. Aerobics test (1.5-mile run) distribution and standard scores .... 25

....... o..........° o . . ................ .. . .'

7.* Test item analysis .............................................. 26

9. Correlations between PAE composite and individual subject

10. Correlations between individual PAE test items and

11. Correlations between PAE and leadership ......................... 45

19. Relationships among height, weight, and the performance of

20. Caloric demand of tasks during BCT active periods ................ 57

In October 1961, the Director of Athletics became

a. Require First Classmen to take a physical fitness

1. Require each cadet who fails to achieve a total

c. Require each cadet who fails to achieve a total

Each First Classmen would be required to meet the

The Academy Board thoroughly discussed the recommen-

By 1968 the PFT had undergone minor changes in its

Pull- Push- Sit-

4th Class (Freshmen) 1st Sem NONE ESTABLISHED

For 1981 these minimums are:

4th Class (Freshmen) 1st Sem

4th Class (Freshmen) 1st Sem

standard 0 to 100 point scale was established for each

The 0 to 100 point scale chosen was the T-scale,

The T-scale was chosen instead of the percentile

PULL-UPS LONG JUMP PUSH-UPS SIT-UPS 600-YD RUN _

85 100 113 100

*Denotes 4' - 1st Semester

* ,.. . ... ,,.. . ,~ . ..........

PULL-UPS LONG JUMP PUSH-UPS SIT-UPS 600-YD RUN

* ** b. .- - --. *~b . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .- .]

, :"v . '- - . - . .-.