Senior Fitness Test Manual

Second Edition
Roberta E. Rikli,
PhD
California State University, Fullerton
C. Jessie Jones, PhD
California State University, Fullerton

Human Kinetics
ISBN-13: 978-1-4504-1118-9 (print)
ISBN-13: 978-1-4504-5718-7 (Kindle Enhanced Edition)
ISBN-13: 978-1-4504-5719-4 (B&N Enhanced Edition)
ISBN-13: 978-1-4504-3204-7 (iBooks Enhanced Edition)
Copyright 2013, 2001 by Roberta E. Rikli and C. Jessie
Jones
All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, the reproduction or
utilization of this work in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography,
photocopying, and recording, and in any information storage and
retrieval system, is forbidden without the written permission of the
publisher.
Permission notices for material reprinted in this book from other sources
can be found on page xiii.
The web addresses cited in this text were current as of July 2012, unless
otherwise noted.
Acquisitions Editor: Amy Tocco
Developmental Editor: Katherine Maurer
Assistant Editors: Kali Cox, Brendan Shea, PhD, Jan Feeney, and Susi
Huls
Copyeditor: Patricia MacDonald
Indexer: Katy Balcer
Permissions Manager: Dalene Reeder
Graphic Designer: Nancy Rasmus
Graphic Artist: Yvonne Griffith
Cover Designer: Keith Blomberg
Photographer (cover and interior): Neil Bernstein
Photo Asset Manager: Laura Fitch
Visual Production Assistant: Joyce Brumfield
Photo Production Manager: Jason Allen
Art Manager: Kelly Hendren
Associate Art Manager: Alan L. Wilbom
Illustrations: Human Kinetics unless otherwise noted
We thank California State University, Fullerton, for assistance in
providing the location for the photo shoot for this book.
The video content in this product is licensed for educational public
performance for viewing by a traditional (live) audience, via closed
circuit television, or via computerized local area networks within a
single building or geographically unified campus. To request a license
to broadcast these contents to a wider audience-for example,
throughout a school district or state, or on a television station—please
contact your sales representative
(www.HumanKinetics.com/SalesRepresentatives).
Human Kinetics
Website: www.HumanKinetics.com
United States: Human Kinetics
P.O. Box 5076
Champaign, IL 61825-5076
800-747-4457
e-mail: [email protected]
Canada: Human Kinetics

475 Devonshire Road Unit 100

Windsor, ON N8Y 2L5
800-465-7301 (in Canada
only) e-mail:
[email protected] Europe:
Human Kinetics
107 Bradford Road
Stanningley
Leeds LS28 6AT, United Kingdom
+44 (0) 113 255 5665
e-mail: [email protected]
Australia: Human Kinetics
57A Price Avenue
Lower Mitcham, South Australia
5062 08 8372 0999
e-mail: [email protected]
New Zealand: Human Kinetics
P.O. Box 80
Torrens Park, South Australia 5062
0800 222 062
e-mail: [email protected]
E5775
 Contents
Preface
How to Use This Manual
lAankn
Credits
Fi ne Te in L er Ye
Im f Fi Fi in in L rY
rD in FT
ni li FT
FT
Hi FT—A D

Chapter 2: The Senior Fitness Test

Concentual Background
Functional Fitness Parameters
Test Selection Criteria
Overview of Test Items

Chapter 3: Test Validity, Reliability, Percentile Norms, and

Criterion-Referenced Performance Standards
liii
R i ili
Percentile Norms
Criterion-Referenced Functional Fitness Standards

Chapter 4: Test Administration

Pretest Procedures and Considerations
 Administering the Tests
Guidelines for GrouD Testinq

h e Te Re
I In in T
Methods of Providing Feedback to Participants
Usine Test Results to Motivate Participants

Chapter 6: Exercise Recommendations for Older

Adults Phvsical Activity and Exercise Guidelines for
Older Adults Lif I Ex i
Guidelines for Structured Exercises to Imnrove SFT Scores
Exercises to Imnrove Strength, Flexibility. Ability, and
Balance

Informed Consent and Assumption of Liability

Medical Clearance Form
iPon i i n In r B f A n
Accident Report Form
BMI Conversion Chart
PAi n il N
lPan n A i i P n
Measurement Conversions
References
About the Authors
 Preface
The purpose of the first edition of this manual was to introduce and
describe the newly developed Senior Fitness Test, which had been
designed out of a need for simple, easy-to-use tools to assess physical
fitness in older adults. Although physical fitness has traditionally been
associated more with younger age groups than with older people, it is
now recognized as being even more crucial during the later (senior)
years. Maintaining adequate strength, endurance, flexibility, agility, and
balance is critical whether our later-life interests are playing golf,
climbing mountains, or performing simple everyday tasks such as
climbing stairs or getting out of a chair or bathtub without assistance. In
fact, studies suggest that much of the physical frailty commonly
associated with aging could be reduced if we paid more attention to our
physical activity level and fitness as we age, especially if evolving
weaknesses could be detected and treated early on.

Our goal in developing the Senior Fitness Test (SFT) was to come up
with a battery of test items that covered the major components of
fitness for older adults (lower- and upper-body strength, aerobic
endurance, lower- and upper-body flexibility, agility, and balance) and
was capable of measuring older people across a wide range of age and
ability levels. The SFT described in this manual provides a simple,
economical method for assessing mobility-related fitness parameters in
older adults aged 60 to 90-plus. Specifically, the test measures the
physical attributes (strength, endurance, flexibility, agility, and
balance) needed to perform everyday activities in later life. In
addition to being easy to administer and score, the test is safe and
enjoyable for older adults, meets scientific standards for reliability and
validity, and has accompanying performance standards based on more
than 7,000 men and women aged 60 to 94.

What is new in this second edition? Whereas the first edition of the
SFT manual included normative percentile tables that made it possible
to compare individual scores on each test item with those of other
people of the same age and sex, what was not included was information
about the clinical relevance, or meaningfulness, of the test scores with
respect to the level of fitness needed to support functional mobility and
physical
independence. As the SFT has become increasingly popular throughout
the United States and a number of other countries, we have received
numerous inquiries about the clinical importance of the test scores.
Program leaders, clinicians, and older adults themselves are curious
about the level of performance (test scores) needed at various ages to
be confident of having a sufficient level of fitness to remain
physically independent until late in life.
Therefore, important additions to this second edition of the SFT
manual are criterion-referenced, clinically relevant fitness standards that
indicate the level of fitness needed on a given attribute (such as lower-
body strength) in order to maintain functional mobility and physical
independence until late in life. Standards of this type that provide a
specific criterion, or cut-point score, associated with meeting a
specific goal, such as having the physical capacity for independent
functioning, are called criterion-referenced standards because they are
referenced to a particular goal. Chapters 1 and 3 have been revised to
include information about the purpose and process of developing
criterion- referenced standards. Chapter 5 has been updated to include a
section on interpreting criterion-referenced scores and setting fitness goals
for older adults. The performance charts in chapter 5 ( and M)
have been modified to reflect the new criterion standards for each age
group.
Also in response to requests from users of the SFT, chapter 4 contains
expanded information and examples on how to modify test protocols
for special populations. The SFT has been used to assess physical
capacity in many different special populations, with questions raised
about how to best modify the protocols for participants who are not
able to do the tests according to published instructions. The SFT has
been used, for example, in populations with osteoporosis, obesity,
Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, fibromyalgia, heart conditions, multiple
sclerosis, hip and knee replacements, chronic renal failure, COPD, and
osteoarthritis as well as with stroke patients, amputees, and blind and
low-vision participants.
Thus, chapter 4 contains additional examples on how test protocols
might be modified for special populations.
Another change in the second edition of the manual is the addition of a
new chapter, chapter 6, on exercises recommended for older adults.
Chapter 5 of the first edition includes a limited amount of information on
recommended exercises; however, at the request of users, this
information has been expanded and is presented in a separate chapter.
Also included are updated references and statistics throughout much
of the book as well as referral information on national physical
guidelines that have been recently developed in the United States, in
Canada, in the United Kingdom, and by the World Health
Organization.

The SFT has proven to be a valuable resource for health and fitness
professionals looking to obtain information about the physical status
of older adults, either for research purposes or for practical application.
The test's minimal requirements with respect to equipment, space, and
technical expertise make it feasible for use in common clinical and
community settings as well as in the home environment. Also, the test
is safe to administer to most older adults without physician approval.
The test's multiple uses include providing research data for studies on
aging and exercise, assisting health practitioners in identifying
weaknesses that may be the cause of mobility problems, and helping
fitness and rehabilitation specialists plan appropriate exercise
programs for their clients and evaluate their progress over time. The
SFT is also suitable for self-administration with the aid of a partner.

The SFT battery has been widely used and referenced in the United
States and many other countries, with materials translated into several
languages. In fact, as of this printing, the entire manual has been
reproduced and published in Danish, Korean, and Portuguese.
Clearly, the SFT appears to address an important need in the health
and fitness fields—that of providing a valid, reliable, and user-
friendly means of evaluating physical capacity in the growing
population of older adults. Physical activity and exercise programs are
becoming more popular in senior centers, health and wellness clinics,
and retirement living complexes throughout the world, and program
leaders understand the importance of accountability and of
evaluating the progress of their clients and the effectiveness of their
programs.
The content of the various chapters in this test manual is discussed in
the section How to Use This Manual. The Senior Fitness Test
Software 2.0, now web based, can be accessed at
http://sft.humankinetics.com. If you do not already have a key code to
access the software, you can visit this site and click on the link to
purchase a subscription. The Senior Fitness
Test Software 2.0 can be used to enter and analyze test scores, to provide
personalized reports, and to group statistics showing program outcomes.
Reference elements throughout the text refer you to features of the
software. The software has been fully upgraded and greatly improved
since the first edition; a new mobile version allows users to input test
results directly from their smart phones. Data stored in the software are
fully downloadable into Microsoft Excel. Also, the personalized reports
are much more streamlined and efficient than in the first version and
include attractive, user-friendly graphs for helping to interpret
performance.
lThe Senior Fitness Test was called the Fullenon Functional Fitness Test when it was originally
published with its supponing reliability and validity documentation and normative standards
(Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b). As a result, it is sometimes referred to as such in earlier
publications.
 How to Use This Manual
Senior Fitness Test Manual, Second Edition, presents the information
needed to understand the purpose of the Senior Fitness Test (SFT),
tells how it was scientifically validated, cites references where the
SFT has been used in research and in practice, and explains the
procedures for administering the test and interpreting and using the test
scores. For a full understanding of the test rationale and procedures, we
encourage you to read all the chapters in the order presented.
Realizing, however, that some users may have a greater interest is
some portions of the material than others, we will summarize the main
content of each of the chapters.
Chapters 1 and 2 provide the background information for the test and a
brief overview of the test's content. Specifically, chapter 1 introduces
the test and explains why fitness is just as important, if not more so, for
older people as for younger people. The unique features of the SFT, along
with suggested ways of using the test, are also discussed. At the end of
chapter 1 is a brief history of how the test has been used and grown in
popularity since it was first published.
Chapter 2 establishes the conceptual background for the test by
explaining how it relates to traditional theories and models describing
physical decline in later years. You will see that the test can be used to
assess the major physiological components of functional capacity so that
emerging physical weaknesses can be detected and treated before they
cause serious functional limitations. Included in the chapter is a
discussion of the physical parameters that are important for functional
mobility (strength, endurance, flexibility, agility, balance, and body
composition) and a list of the criteria used in selecting test items to assess
each of these parameters. The overriding goal in developing the test
was to select test protocols that meet acceptable scientific standards but at
the same time are economical and easy to administer in the community
(nonlaboratory) setting. At the end of chapter 2 you will find a brief
overview of each of the test items in the SFT battery.
Chapter 3 contains the scientific documentation for the test's validity,
reliability, percentile norms, and criterion-referenced fitness standards.
Our preestablished ground rules for including a test item as part of the
SFT battery were that it had to meet the criteria for at least two of
three types of validity (i.e., content, criterion, or construct) and have a test
— retest reliability of .80 or greater. Also described in this chapter is
the nationwide study of more than 7,000 older adults (aged 60 to 94)
that provided the data for both norm-referenced and criterion-
referenced performance standards. Normative standards (percentile tables)
provide a basis for comparing a person's scores with those of others of
the same age and sex. Criterion-referenced standards, new to this
edition, suggest the fitness (cut-point) scores needed to perform the
common everyday activities required for independent living
Whereas chapters 1 through 3 provide the rationale and scientific
documentation for the SFT, chapters 4 through 6 contain the essential
instructions for test users—how to get ready to administer the tests, how
to give the tests, how to interpret and use the test results, guidelines
for helping seniors create fitness programs, and what exercises to
recommend for improving SFT scores.
Included in chapter 4 is a list of procedures and issues that need to be
addressed before test day, along with sample instruction sheets, forms,
and equipment lists to use as you plan for the test. Also included are
instructions for warming up the participants on test day and descriptions
of the official testing and scoring protocols for each of the SFT items,
with instructions on how to adapt the protocols for special
populations. For those planning to administer the test to classes or
groups, the section Guidelines for Group Testing at the end of the
chapter should be especially useful. Included are suggestions for test-
station setup, tips for group organization and management, and
information on selecting and training volunteers to help with testing.
Chapter 5 explains how to interpret the test results and how to use the
information to motivate participants to increase their activity level and
improve their performance. Included are various performance tables and
charts that can help people see how they scored compared with others
of their same age and sex and compared with the threshold scores
needed to maintain good functional mobility. Also included in chapter
5 is a discussion of ways you can use test results to help your clients
set goals and plan effective programs to improve their physical
condition.
Chapter 6, an added chapter at the request of SFT users, contains an
expanded discussion of exercise recommendations, with a focus on
improving SFT performance. Included in the chapter is a discussion of
recently published physical activity and exercise guidelines, as well as
recommendations for improving fitness levels through both lifestyle
exercise and structured exercise programs. Also included are instructions
for exercises that can be used to improve SFT scores.
The appendixes in the back of the book contain sample forms, tables,
and charts. Conversion charts are also privided that can be used to
convert measurements found in this book from English to metric units.
 Acknowledgments
We have many people to thank for their contributions to the second
edition of the Senior Fitness Test Manual and its companion DVD and
software. First and foremost, we want to recognize Jeana Miller, director
of operations for the Center for Successful Aging at California State
University at Fullerton (CSUF), who was an invaluable resource
throughout many phases of the project. She served as coauthor of
chapter 6, which features exercise recommendations for older adults;
provided critical feedback in updating various materials, including the
software; and took the lead in soliciting and organizing the volunteers
who served as models to demonstrate test and exercise protocols for
the manuscript and DVD. Our heartfelt thanks also go to the program
participants who donated their time, talents, and considerable patience
in posing for the required photo shoots: Hal and Judy Anderson, Lou
Arnwine, Kay Barnard, Hank and Patti Chikahisa, Ben and Harriet
Dolgin, Loren Duffy, Michael Jones, Patrick and Sharon McDonald,
Miyo Sakai, Ann Siebert, Eula Thomas, and Andy Washington. Last
but not least, thanks to Liz White, the talented exercise leader and
testing technician who is featured in the DVD.
Special appreciation is extended to an advisory panel of experts, both
scientists and practitioners, who provided valuable input during the
development of the new criterion-referenced fitness standards for the
Senior Fitness Test, as described in chapter 3. Members of the
scientific review panel were Wojtek Chodzko-Zajko, professor and
head of the department of kinesiology and community health at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Matthew Mahar, professor
of kinesiology at East Carolina University at Greenville; Miriam
Morey, professor of medicine at Duke University; James R. Morrow
Jr., regents professor of kinesiology at the University of North Texas at
Denton; Naoko Muramatsu, associate professor of community health
sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Donald Paterson,
research director of the Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging at the
University of Western Ontario; Debra Rose, director of the Center for
Successful Aging at CSUF; and Dawn Skelton, professor of aging
and health at Glasgow Caledonian University.
Members of the program leader and practitioner panel were Jordan
Aquino, assistant director of the Pain Management Center at CSUF;
Jeana Miller, operations manager of CSUF Center for Successful
Aging; Jan Montague, president of Whole Person Wellness Solutions
in Cincinnati; and Karen Schlieter, assistant director of FallProof
balance and mobility instructor certificate program at CSUF.
Also new to the second edition of the Senior Fitness Test Manual are
the test protocol adaptations described in chapter 4 that can be used
with special populations. We appreciate the contributions of Carol
Buller, clinical nurse practitioner at Lakeview Village Senior Housing
in Lenexa, Kansas; Christel Cousine, director of Life Opportunities in
Twin Towers, Ohio; Jackie Halbin, living well manager at Lakeview
Village in Lenexa, Kansas; Sarah Manhardt, coordinator of Campbell
County Senior Wellness Center in Highland Heights, Kentucky; Jan
Montague, president of Whole Person Wellness Solutions in Cincinnati;
and Miriam Morey, associate director of geriatric research at Durham
VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at Duke University
School of
Medicine.
Finally, our sincerest appreciation to the staff at Human Kinetics for
their friendliness and outstanding support throughout the development
of the manual, video, and software. Most important, we thank our
developmental editor, Kate Maurer, for her keen insight and great
patience during all phases of the project. We are fortunate to have had
the opportunity to work with Kate and cannot thank her enough for
her attention to detail and her valuable input. Among the many others
at HK who helped enhance the quality of the SFT materials and who
were a pleasure to work with were Amy Tocco, acquisitions editor;
Julie Johnson, software project leader; Joe Seeley, software usability
architect; Gregg Henness, video producer; and Neil Bernstein,
photographer.
 Credits
Figures 2.1 and 2.2. Reprinted, by permission, from R.E. Rikli and
C.J. Jones, 1999, “Development and validation of a functional fitness test
for community-residing older adults,” Journal o[Aging and Physical
Activity 7: 129-161.
Table 3.2. Reprinted, by permission, from R.E. Rikli and C.J.
Jones, 1999, “Development and validation of a functional fitness test
for community-residing older adults,” Journal o[Aging and
Physical Activity 7: 129-161.
Table 3.3, figure 3.1, and table 5.1. Reprinted, by permission, from
R.E. Rikli and C.J. Jones, 1999, “Functional fitness normative scores
for community-residing adults, ages 60-94,” Journal of Aging and
Physical Activity 7(2): 162-181.
Figure 3.3 and tables 3.5, 3.6, and 5.5. Reprinted, by permission, from
R.E. Rikli and C.J. Jones, 2012, “Development and validation of
criterion-referenced, clinically relevant fitness standards for
maintaining physical independence in later years,” The Gerontologist
13(3): 239-248.
Table 6.1. Adapted from NSCA, 2012, NSCA's essentials of personal
training, 2nd ed. (Champaign: Human Kinetics), 395.
 Chapter 1
Fitness Testing in Later Years
Recognizing Unique Needs of Older
Although physical fitness traditionally has been thought of more as the
concern of young people than of older people, this attitude has been
changing rapidly. Because average life expectancy is increasing, our
ability to enjoy an active and independent lifestyle well into the later
years will depend to a large degree on how well we maintain our
personal fitness levels. Whereas health promotion and the prevention of
lifestyle diseases (e.g., heart disease, obesity, diabetes) are the major
goals of most youth fitness tests, for older adults whose chronic health
status generally has already been established, the focus tends to shift
from disease prevention to maintaining functional mobility—to being
able to continue doing the things one wants and needs to do to stay
strong, active, and independent.
The Senior Fitness Test (SFT) described in this manual is a battery of
test items that measure the physical capacity of older adults to
perform normal everyday activities. The test is considered a functional
fitness test because of its purpose in assessing the physical
characteristics needed for functional mobility in later years.
Specifically, functional fitness is defined as having the physical
capacity to perform normal everyday activities safely and
independently without undue fatigue. As we age, we want to have the
strength, endurance, flexibility, and mobility to remain active and
independent so we can take care of our own personal and household
needs; do our own shopping; and participate in active social,
recreational, and sport activities, if that's our choice. The SFT is for
professionals in the fields of health, fitness, and aging who need an
economical, easy-to-use assessment tool for measuring the fitness of
older adults in the clinical or community setting. The test assesses
independently living older adults, aged 60 to 90-plus, across a wide
range of ability levels, from the borderline frail to the highly fit.
Chapter 1 overviews fitness testing relative to the unique needs of older
adults and introduces the SFT. Specific topics include the following:
• Importance of fitness and fitness testing in later years
• Rationale for developing the SFT
• Unique qualities of the SFT
• Uses of the SFT
• History of the SFT's use

Importance of Fitness and Fitness Testing

in Later Years
Most of us would agree that quality of life in later years depends to a
large degree on being able to do the things we want to do, without
pain,
for as long as possible. Because we are living longer, it is
becoming increasingly important to pay attention to our physical
condition.
Ironically, the numerous technological advances in recent years have had
mixed benefits for people relative to quantity and quality of life. Whereas
medical technology has contributed to a longer life expectancy, computer
technology and greater automation are contributing to increasingly
sedentary lifestyles and to an increased risk for chronic health and
mobility problems. Statistics suggest that in the United States, the health
care cost associated with technology-induced inactivity approaches $1
trillion per year (Booth, Gordon, Carlson, & Hamilton, 2000). Very few
jobs or household activities these days provide enough energy
expenditure to meet people's physical activity needs. Pushing a button to
open the garage door, rolling a trash can out to the curb, or driving
through an automated car wash, for example, contributes little to our
physical strength, health, and functional mobility.
Several recent publications describing national and international physical
activity guidelines (e.g., Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines, 2011;
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2008; Start Active, Stay
Active, published by the UK Department of Health, Physical Activity,
Health Improvement and Protection, 2011; and the World Health
Organization's Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for
Health, 2010) provide excellent overviews of the benefits of exercise
for older adults as well as the relationship between sedentary lifestyles
and the onset of a number of chronic conditions that can lead to frailty
and disability in later years. Unfortunately, statistics suggest that most
older adults do not get the amount of exercise they need and that 42
percent of those over 65 are experiencing functional limitation in common
everyday activities, statistics that have not improved over the past
decade (Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2010).
As a result, although average life expectancy continues to increase, so
too does the possibility of living more years with physical limitations.
Many older adults, often because of their sedentary lifestyles, are
functioning dangerously close to their maximum ability during normal
activities of daily living. Climbing stairs or getting out of a chair, for
example, often requires near-maximal efforts for older people who are
not very physically active. Any further decline or small physical
setback could easily cause them to move from independent to disabled
status in which assistance is needed for daily activities.
The good news, though, is that much of the usual age-related decline in
physical fitness is preventable and even reversible through proper
attention to our physical activity and exercise levels. Especially
important is the early detection of physical weaknesses and appropriate
changes in physical activity habits. The SFT, therefore, was developed
specifically to evaluate and monitor the physical status of older adults
so that evolving weaknesses might be identified and treated before
resulting in overt functional limitations.
“There is strong scientific evidence that regular physical
activity produces major and extensive health benefits in
older adults.... In addition, physical activity is associated
with higher levels of functional health, a lower risk of
falling, and better cognitive function.”
World Health Organization, 2010

Rationale for Developing the SFT

With the rapid growth of the older population, finding ways to extend
active life expectancy and reduce disability has become the goal of
government agencies, gerontology researchers, and health practitioners
throughout the world. Physical frailty in later years is costly both in
terms of the resources spent on medical care and the diminished quality
of life for these people.
Figures show that it costs the United States $54 billion a year to care
for people who have lost their independence, and these figures are
expected to increase drastically as the size of the older population
continues to grow unless the proportion of those with disabilities is
reduced (National Institutes of Health, 2012). The annual health care
cost per person jumps drastically as an older adult progresses from
independent to dependent status.
Although a number of conditions (e.g., mental confusion, visual loss) can
rob people of their independence, problems with physical mobility rank
at the top of the list (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1999). Luckily, studies suggest that physical function is
preserved at a much higher level for those who are active and physically
fit, with improvements possible at any age, even for many of those with
chronic health conditions (American College of Sports Medicine
[ACSM], 2009; Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee,
2008). Research clearly shows that it is never too late to improve one's
physical fitness and functional ability; even people in their 90s have
experienced dramatic benefits from beginning a physical exercise
program (Fiatarone Singh, 2002).
In earlier years, because of the lack of available fitness tests for older
adults, health professionals were limited in their ability to evaluate
clients and make recommendations based on objective data. Instead,
program leaders generally had to rely on their own subjective
judgment in evaluating older people's physical condition and in
planning exercise programs. The SFT was developed to address the
need for improved ways of assessing fitness in older adults.
Specifically, it was designed to assess the physical capacity of the
large proportion of older adults who are still living independently
within the community, but because of their declining fitness levels may
soon be at risk for losing their functional independence.
As indicated in the physical function continuum presented in fieure 1 1,
approximately 65 percent of the older adult population fits into this
independent but generally low-fit category. At the high end of the
continuum are approximately 5 percent of older adults who are
considered to be at a high-fit or elite level, such as those athletic older
people who continue to engage in strenuous exercise or perhaps still
participate in athletic competitions. At the lower end are those people
(representing about 30 percent of the older population) who already
have progressed into the physically frail and dependent categories and
need assistance with common activities of daily living. Although the test
items are suitable for use with most frail older adults at the low end of
the continuum, they were primarily designed to evaluate fitness in the
larger midsection of independent-living adults so that any evolving
weaknesses could be detected and treated before causing loss of
function and frailty. Cost savings in health care expenses and in
diminished quality of life would be substantial if we could prevent, or at
least delay, older adults' progression from the independent to the frail
and dependent category.
Figure 1.1 Percentage of older adults (65 years of age and up) classified
at various points along a continuum of physical ability (Spirduso,
Francis, & MacRae, 2005). ADLs refer to the basic activities of daily
living such as eating, bathing, and dressing. IADLs are instrumental
activities of daily living (i.e., activities required for independent living
such as housework, stair climbing, and shopping).

30 / 65% 5‹y

Unique Qualities of the

SFT
The SFT was designed to assess physical fitness in older adults across a
wide range of age groups and ability levels. Although a limited number
of other test batteries have been developed to assess physiological
capacity in older adults, the SFT has several unique qualities that
distinguish it from others, qualities that have made it popular for use
throughout the United States and in many other countries.
• The SFT is comprehensive. The test items within the SFT reflect
a cross section of the major fitness components associated with
independent functioning in later years, whereas other test batteries
focus only on selected aspects of fitness. For example, the Shon
Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) includes tests of lower-body
functioning (leg strength, balance, and walking speed) but
contains no measures reflecting upper-body function or flexibility
(Guralnik et al., 1994, 2000). The SFT, on the other hand, includes
measures of all key physiological parameters needed for
performing
 common everyday activities: upper- and lower-body strength,
aerobic endurance, upper- and lower-body flexibility, agility, and
dynamic balance. Chapter 2 includes a discussion of relevant
fitness parameters for older adults.
• The SFT provides continuous-scale measures. Another unique
and especially important feature of the SFT is that it produces
continuous-scale scores on all test items across a broad range of
ability levels, from the borderline frail to the highly fit. A
common limitation in other tests is that some items tend to be
either too easy or too difficult for a large portion of community-
residing older adults, resulting in “ceiling” or “floor” effects in
the measurement data. A ceiling effect occurs when a test is too
easy for much of the population of interest, resulting in a large
number of perfect scores. Conversely, a floor effect occurs when
a test is too difficult for the population of interest, meaning that a
large number of participants cannot do the test (and therefore
score at the floor level). In several large-scale studies using the
SPPB, certain items have been found to be too easy (side-by-
side balance test) or too difficult (tandem balance and five-times
chair stand test) to be good discriminators for 20 to 80 percent
of the participants (Giuliani et al., 2008; Guralnik et al., 1994;
Seeman et a1., 1994). All testing protocols for the SFT were
designed to minimize such ceiling and floor effects. The SFT
uses a time-based scoring system, for example, for its walking
test (i.e., how far a person can walk in 6 minutes), as opposed to
a distance-based scoring system that measures how long it takes
to walk a prescribed distance, such as half a mile, a quarter of a
mile, or 400 meters, distances that cannot be reached by as
much as 40 percent of the over-65 population (National
Institutes of Health, 2012). Thus, in the SFT protocol it is
possible for all participants to obtain a score regardless of how
far they can walk. Scores can be obtained for frail people who
can walk only a few feet in 6 minutes, as well as for highly fit
older adults who can
cover several hundred yards within that time. Similarly, on the
SFT 30-second chair stand test, participant scores are based on
how many stands they can do in 30 seconds rather than on how
long it takes them to do a prescribed number of chair stands,
such as five stands, as is commonly required in other test
protocols. On the SFT chair stand test, where the protocol
involves a prescribed number
of seconds rather than a prescribed number of stands, all people
 can receive a score even though the score may be zero or one in
extreme cases.
• The SFT is usable in the community setting. Because the
items in the SFT have minimal equipment and space
requirements, the entire test battery can be administered in most
clinical and community (nonlaboratory) settings as well as in
people's homes. For the one SFT item that does require a sizable
space (the 6- minute walk test), there is an alternative 2-minute
step-in-place test that has minimal space requirements.
• The SFT has accompanying percentile norms and criterion-
referenced fitness standards. Another unique feature of the SFT
is that it has accompanying performance standards for use in
evaluating test results, both normative standards and criterion-
referenced standards. Specifically, the SFT has 5-year age-group
percentile norms for men and women, aged 60 to 94, on all test
items, thus making it possible for people to compare their scores
to others of their same age and sex. Data for the norms were
obtained in a nationwide study involving more than 7,000 older
Americans from 267 test sites in 21 U.S. states. The tables and
charts presented in chapter 5 indicate the percentile scores for
each test item, along with scoring ranges that would be
considered above normal, normal, or below normal. In addition,
criterion-referenced, clinically relevant standards have been
developed for the SFT, standards that indicate for each test item
the recommended cut- point score associated with the fitness level
needed for independent functioning well into later life. See
chapter 3 for further discussion of the processes involved in
establishing both the normative and the criterion-referenced
standards and chapter 5 for the actual performance charts.

Uses of the SFT

The SFT is appropriate for use by health and fitness professionals
looking to collect data either for research purposes or for practical
application. Specific examples of how the test might be used are
discussed here.
• Conducting research. Because the SFT has documented
reliability and validity for each test item, it can be used to
provide dependable data in a variety of settings: It can provide
baseline scores for longitudinal or prospective studies, posttest
measures for evaluating intervention effects, and accurate
measures for correlation analyses in cross-sectional studies.
Also, because the test battery does not require extensive
equipment, time, space, or technical expertise, it should be
especially useful to researchers needing to collect physical
performance data within the community (nonlaboratory) setting
or even in people's homes. In addition, the continuous-scale
scoring ability of the SFT can provide researchers with a richer
set of data than would tests using dichotomous or categorical
scoring systems, such as those requiring only yes or no
responses or something similar.
Evaluating participants and identifying risk factors. The SFT
can tell people whether their physical capacity on each item
ranks in the above-normal, normal, or below-normal categories
compared with others of their same age and sex. Test results can
also tell participants whether they have the recommended fitness
levels for their age to remain functionally independent until late
in life. Also, by taking the test on multiple occasions and
tracking their scores over time, people can monitor changes in
performance. They will know if they are improving or declining
—and if declining, whether at a slower or faster rate than other
people of their age and sex. Individual assessment can help
identify specific areas of physical weakness that will need
attention if declines leading to functional limitations are to be
prevented or reduced.
Planning programs. Group or individualized exercise programs
designed to improve functional mobility should be based on as
much information as possible to maximize program effectiveness
and participant safety. The SFT provides information on physical
strengths and weaknesses, thus providing the background
information needed to develop fitness programs that target the
specific needs of individuals or groups. In fact, program leaders
already using the SFT tell us that the inclusion of testing has
added quality and substance to their programs as well as helped
recruit additional participants.

The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 can be set up by an

 organization to allow multiple instructors to enter data
and assign participants to groups and testing sessions. To
learn more, visit http://sft.humankinetics.com.

“The SFT is an important part of our StrongWomen

Program where we have trained over 2,600 community
leaders in 48 states to conduct fitness programs for midlife
and older women. Our leaders use the SFT for various
outcomes assessment ... plus the SFT performance
standards are helpful in giving participants a sense of where
they're at, what goals to shoot for, and a sense of
accomplishment when their scores improve.”
Miriam Nelson, PhD, founder and director, Strong Women Program, and
professor of nutrition science, Tufts University
Educating and setting goals. Providing careful interpretation
of the test results to participants can help them better understand
how their fitness scores relate to their functional mobility. Poor
scores on the 30-second chair stand, for example, generally
indicate a weakness in lower-body strength that could eventually
lead to the inability to climb stairs or to get in and out of a chair,
tub, or automobile. Instructors and therapists can explain to their
clients that reduced strength in the lower body is associated with
functional limitations such as walking and an increased risk of
falling. Test results can also provide a meaningful basis for
developing a person's short- and long-term goals. An example of
a short-term goal is to improve performance by 20 percent by the
end of a 12-week program, or perhaps to move from the 25th
percentile in one's age group to the 50th percentile. An example
of a more long-term goal is to be able to comfortably walk a full
mile (1.6 km) without stopping by the following summer—a goal
that could be especially relevant to someone who is planning an
overseas trip and needs more confidence in his ability to keep up
with the tour group. Participant goals should always play a major
role in planning exercise programs for older people. For most
people, setting personal goals tends to increase motivation and
improve exercise compliance. See chapter 5 for additional
 information on goal setting.
• Evaluating programs. Increasingly, exercise leaders are being
asked to provide evidence of outcome measures to document a
program's effectiveness. The following are examples of possible
outcome objectives for a 12-week exercise class.
1. At least 75 percent of the participants will improve
their fitness and mobility.
2. The average SFT scores of class participants will improve
by 20 percent.
3. More than 50 percent of the participants will report
feeling better and having more energy for performing
everyday activities.
An example of a more long-term outcome measure might be
evidence showing that over a 3-year period, exercise participants
either improved or maintained their SFT scores compared with
nonexercisers who experienced the usual age-related declines in
physical ability.
“We have been using the SFT as the basis of our Senior
Fitness Health Check program offered to various older adult
groups in Glasgow, including at the 8th World Congress on
Active Ageing where over 400 seniors were in attendance-
it is a valuable resource when tailoring an action plan of
activities to address personal needs.”
Dawn Skelton, PhD, professor, ageing and health, Glasgow Caledonian
University, UK
Motivating clients. Most people are inherently curious about their
physical abilities and how they compare with those of others of
their same age and sex. The performance tables and charts in
chapter 5 make it possible for participants to compare their
scores with other people their age, to track their physical changes
over time, and to compare their scores with the recommended
standards of performance for maintaining lifelong physical
independence.
Other participants, especially the more competitive people, may be
motivated to try to score at the top of the scale in their age groups
on all test items. Again, the normative tables provide the
 information needed for evaluating one's performance compared
with others, while the criterion standards provide information
about the level of fitness needed to do the kinds of activities
associated with being physically independent.
• Improving public relations. The U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (2011) has set as a national goal for
Healthy People 2020 that of reducing the proportion o[older
adults who have moderate i2nd severe {unctional limitations.
SFT results obtained at regular intervals can be used to evaluate
the progress of individuals or programs toward attaining such
goals, particularly relative to improving those fitness parameters
that support functional ability. Such results can provide the
basis for a press release focusing on a program's success in
serving local community needs or in addressing a particular
political agenda. Positive media coverage is not only good
public relations but also very helpful in attracting resources for
programs and for recruiting additional participants.

History of the SFT—A Decade of Use

Since the SFT was first described in the 2001 edition of Senior
Fitness Test Manual (originally published as the Fullerton Functional
Fitness Test, Rikli & Jones, 1999a), it has been widely used as an
assessment tool in research studies and in numerous clinical and
community health and fitness programs for older adults. A review of
the literature indicates that SFT test items have been utilized in
hundreds of studies focusing on a wide range of topics and
participants. Studies utilizing the SFT have evaluated the effects of
physical activity and exercise interventions on participants ranging
from healthy, community-residing older adults to frail older adults
living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and to both older
and younger adults with a variety of conditions including Alzheimer's,
diabetes, cardiorespiratoiy disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, and chronic
renal failure as well as cancer survivors, hip- replacement patients,
and lower-limb amputees with prostheses.
The SFT is also being used as an integral part of many types of
health and fitness programs for older adults, including small programs
at local senior centers, state-sponsored programs such as the California
Active
Aging community programs (Hooker & Cirill, 2006), and the Center
for Positive Aging sponsored by the Georgia Division of Aging
Services (centerforpositiveaging.org). In addition, the SFT has also
been used as a measurement tool in several nationally funded projects,
such as a study looking at exercise effects on colon cancer survivors,
funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (Courneya et a1.,
2008); a National Institutes of Health study on the effects of diet and
exercise interventions on breast and prostate cancers survivors, led by
researchers at Duke University (Demark et al., 2003); and studies
funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, such as the Active
for Life initiative looking at various intervention effects on changes in
physical function (Baruth et al., 2010).
In addition, several long-standing university-based programs focusing
on the study of older adults have incorporated the SFT into their
programming (such as the Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging,
housed at the University of Western Ontario and the Center for
Successful Aging at California State University, Fullerton). The SFT is
also being used as part of several large-scale health and well-being
software assessment programs, such as Interactive Health Partner
(www.interactivehea1thpartner.com) and as part of a number of well-
known community and clinical programs, such as AREUFIT Health
Services (www.areufithealthservices.com), the StrongWomen Program
(www.strongwomen.com), ElderFit (www.elderfitpt.com), and the Sit
and Be Fit award-winning television series (www.sitandbefit.org).

Summary
Personal fitness level is important at any age. As we get older,
however, the focus tends to shift from health promotion and disease
prevention to maintaining functional mobility and independence.
Functional fitness is defined as having the physical capacity to
perform normal everyday activities safely and independently without
undue fatigue. The SFT provides a simple, economical method for
assessing functional fitness in older adults aged 60 to 90-plus. The
SFT distinguishes itself from other tests in that it
• is comprehensive,
 provides continuous-scale measures,
• is usable in both the laboratory and community setting, and
• has both normative and criterion-referenced performance
standards.
Health and fitness professionals will find many uses for the tests,
including the following:
• Conducting research
• Evaluating participants and identifying risk factors
• Planning programs
• Educating and setting goals
• Evaluating programs
Motivating clients
Improving public
relations
Since the SFT was first published, it has become increasingly popular
for use in many settings—research, university outreach and
community- based programs, clinical rehabilitation, and various health
and wellness software assessment programs. In the next chapter we
describe the procedures used to identify the relevant parameters of
functional fitness as well as the criteria for selecting the specific test
items to assess those parameters. Also included in the chapter is a
brief overview of the test items and their scoring protocols.
 Chapter 2
The Senior Fitness Test
Defining functional fitness
Parameters

For a fitness test to be appropriate for older adults, it must reflect the
major physical parameters associated with functional mobility and be
safe and feasible for use in the field (nonlaboratory) setting, where
most assessment of older adults takes place. To ensure that the Senior
Fitness Test (SFT) met these intended criteria, the test was developed
based on a thorough review of the scientific literature on functional
fitness, a series of pilot studies to test the reliability and validity of the
test items, and input from a panel of experts with extensive experience
in studying or working with older adults.
This chapter contains a brief summary of the background knowledge
and rationale used in developing the SFT. See Rikli and Jones (1999a)
for additional details. Included in the chapter is information on
• the conceptual background for the test development;
• a functional fitness framework illustrating the relationships
among fitness parameters, functional behaviors, and activity
goals;
• the criteria used in selecting test items to assess each of the
fitness parameters; and
• a brief overview of the test items and their scoring protocols.

Conceptual Background
An initial step in developing the SFT was to consider the role of
physical activity and fitness within the disability process. The
traditional models explaining the process (Nagi, 1965, 1991) describe
four main stages in the progression to disability: (1) disease or
pathology, (2) physiological impairment, (3) functional limitation, and
(4) disability. More specifically, the model ( ) suggests that
pathology leads to physiological impairment (a decline in body
systems, such as muscular, cardiovascular, neurological); physiological
impairment leads to functional limitations (restrictions in physical
behaviors such as rising from a chair, lifting, or climbing stairs); and
functional limitations lead to disability (the inability to perform normal
daily activities such as bathing oneself, housework, or shopping).
 Figure 2.1 {a) Nagi's 1991 model of the progression leading to
disability; {b) an amended version suggesting that an inactive
lifestyle can have comparable effects on the disabling process.

Jew zeaaal

Reprinted by permission from Rikli and Jones 1999a.

Although it once was thought that all disability originated from disease
or pathology, we now know that a physically inactive lifestyle can
also be a primary cause of frailty in later years, especially for people
living into their 80s and 90s, and that the model should be amended as
shown in figure 2 lb. In fact, data suggest that all older adults, with or
without chronic disease, will benefit from an increase in physical
activity and experience a higher level of functional mobility in later
years (ACSM, 2009; Fiatarone Singh, 2002; Paterson, Jones, & Rice,
2007).
More relevant to the importance of fitness testing, however, is
evidence that physical decline, whether due to disease, pathology, or
disuse, is modifiable through proper assessment and activity
intervention. Research reviews show that increased physical activity,
even when begun late in life, results in improved physical fitness (e.g.,
strength, endurance) as well as improved functional ability (e.g.,
walking, stair climbing) (ACSM, 2009; Fiatarone Singh, 2002;
Paterson, Jones, & Rice, 2007; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2008).
Understanding both the contributing causes of physical decline (e.g.,
disease, injury, or inactivity) and the subsequent stages leading to
frailty is helpful in planning effective prevention and treatment
strategies and in
designing appropriate measurement tools. The SFT was designed
specifically to assess performance at the physiological stage (e.g.,
muscular, cardiovascular) so that performance in these critical
supporting parameters might be evaluated and monitored, thus
curtailing declines that might lead to additional losses, especially losses
that progress to the point of affecting everyday functioning.
“The ability of older persons to function independently in the
community is dependent largely on the maintenance of
sufficient aerobic capacity and strength to perform daily
activities.”
Findings from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (Fleg et
al., 2005)

Functional Fitness Parameters

The functional ability framework described in fieure 2.2 may be used
as a guide for understanding the relationship between the Senior
Fitness Test items and functional mobility. Consistent with research on
physical activity and fitness in older adults, the framework illustrates
the progressive relationships among physical parameters, functional
abilities, and activity goals. The common activities in the far-right
column in figure 2 2 (e.g., taking care of personal needs, household
chores, shopping, and traveling) require the ability to perform the
functions listed in column 2 (e.g., walking, stair climbing, lifting, and
reaching). These functions, in turn, require an adequate reserve in the
physical parameters identified in column l—muscular strength, aerobic
endurance, flexibility, agility, and balance-as well as an optimal, or at
least manageable, body mass index (relationship of height to weight).
 Figure 2.2 The functional ability framework indicates the physiological
parameters associated with functions required for basic and advanced
everyday activities.

Physical impairment Functional limitation -••-•-h Reduced abiIity/disabit'tty

Reprinted by permission from Rikli and Jones 1999a.

Based on the functional fitness framework in figure 2 2 and the

supponing research, the following physical parameters were identified
as being the relevant components of functional fitness:
• Muscular strength (lower and upper body)
• Aerobic endurance
• Flexibility (lower and upper body)
• Agility and dynamic balance
• Body mass index
A brief discussion of these parameters and their relevance to functional
mobility is presented in the following sections.

Muscular Strength
According to fitness expens, maintaining muscular strength should be a
major concern of older adults. A decline in muscular strength, which
averages about 15 to 20 percent per decade after the age of 50
(Vandervoon, 2002), can have devastating effects on people's ability to
perform normal everyday activities. Lower-body strength is needed for
activities such as climbing stairs, walking distances, and getting out of
a chair or bathtub. Upper-body strength is important for carrying
groceries, lifting a suitcase, picking up a grandchild or a pet, and many
other common tasks. Statistics indicate that many older people,
because of their declining strength, begin losing their ability to
perform these functions fairly early in the aging process. In a
nationwide sample of
more than 6,000 community-residing adults over 70, 26 percent could
not climb even one set of stairs without stopping, 31 percent had
difficulty lifting 10 pounds (5 kg; a bag of groceries), and 36 percent
reported having trouble walking several blocks (Stump, Clark,
Johnson, & Wolinsky, 1997). Although both lower- and upper-body
strength impairments are associated with the inability to perform
activities of
daily living, a decline in lower-body strength is an especially powerful
predictor of the onset of disability in later years (Guralnik et al., 2000).
Maintaining strength and muscle function is also important because of
the role strength plays in reducing the risks for falls and fall-related
injuries and because of its positive effect on a number of age-related
health conditions. Muscular strength can help reduce bone loss,
improve glucose utilization, maintain lean body tissue, and prevent
obesity (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2008;
Warburton, Gledhill, & Quinney, 2001).
Although the decline in muscle mass and strength can be attributed to
multiple factors such as genetics, disease, and nutrition, the most
important variable related to muscle loss in older adults is physical
inactivity. Fortunately, research now shows that through increased
exercise it is possible for people of any age to regain some portion of
their lost strength and muscle mass, and as a result, experience
improved functional mobility (Fiatarone Singh, 2002; Macaluso & De
Vito, 2004). Because of the significance of maintaining muscular
strength during aging, its measurement (both lower and upper body)
is an important aspect of fitness evaluation and program planning for
older adults.
“Not being able to manage the activities of daily living is
one of the most common reasons people enter nursing
homes. And physical frailty is often what keeps people
from these activities and robs them of their
independence.”
 National Institutes of Health, 2012

Aerobic Endurance
An adequate level of aerobic endurance (the ability to sustain large-
muscle activity over time) is necessary to perform many everyday
activities such as walking, shopping, sightseeing while on vacation, and
participating in recreational or sport activities. How much work our
bodies can do and how much energy we feel are related to how much
oxygen we can take in and use. Although it has been estimated that a
V 02' ax (a common measure of oxygen consumption, or aerobic
capacity) of at least 15 ml/kg/min is necessary to maintain
independent living status, declines associated with inactive lifestyles
often progress below this point before age 80 (Paterson et al., 2007;
Spirduso, Francis, & MacRae, 2005).
Although aerobic capacity tends to decline at the rate of 5 to 15
percent per decade after the age of 30, resulting in as much as a 50
percent loss by the age of 70, studies indicate that physically active
people can retain a sufficient reserve of aerobic fitness to maintain
functional ability throughout their later years (Jackson et a1., 2009;
Paterson & Warburton, 2010). Maintaining an adequate level of
aerobic endurance has both a direct effect on a person's functional
mobility and an indirect effect through its role in reducing the risk for
such medical conditions as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity,
high blood pressure, and some forms of cancer (Paterson et al., 2007;
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2008).
Clearly, aerobic endurance is an important fitness component for older
adults. And as is true of muscular strength, research also shows that
increased exercise can lead to substantial improvements in aerobic
endurance in older adults. In fact, data show that endurance exercise
training in older adults can lead to a similar amount of improvement as
that found in young adults (ACSM, 2009).

Flexibility
The importance of flexibility as a component of fitness increases with
age. Loss of flexibility (i.e., loss of range of motion around a joint)
impairs most functions needed for good mobility, including bending,
stooping, lifting, reaching, walking, and stair climbing (Holland,
Tanaka, Shigematsu, & Nakagaichi, 2002). Maintaining lower-body
flexibility, especially in the hip joint and hamstrings, is also important
because of its role in preventing low-back pain, musculoskeletal injury,
and gait abnormalities and in reducing the risk of falling (Brown &
Rose, 2005).
In the upper body (shoulder area), adequate range of motion is needed
for a number of specific functions such as combing one's hair, zipping
a back zipper, putting on or removing over-the-head garments,
removing a wallet from a back pocket, and reaching for a seat belt.
Reduced range of motion in the shoulder girdle can also result in pain
and postural instability (Brown & Rose, 2005) and has been found to
cause significant disability in as much as 30 percent of the healthy
adult population over 65 (Chakravarty & Webley, 1993). Both lower-
and upper-body flexibility, both of which decline with age but can be
improved through exercise (Brown et al., 2000; Holland et al., 2002),
are important aspects of functional fitness for older adults.

Agility and Dynamic Balance

Agility (ability to move the body and change direction quickly) and
dynamic balance (maintaining postural stability while moving) are
important for a number of common mobility tasks that require quick
maneuvering such as getting on and off a bus in a timely manner;
moving out of the way to avoid getting hit by a car or other object; and
getting up quickly to answer a phone call, go to the bathroom, or tend
to something in the kitchen. Also, adequate agility and dynamic balance
are needed for safe participation in many recreational games and
sports.
Although some might argue that agility and dynamic balance
represent two different physical traits and should be evaluated
separately, we are treating them as one composite measure since both
must work together for the successful performance of many everyday
activities, such as the ones just mentioned. Studies indicate that
performance on combined agility and dynamic balance tasks is related
to gait speed, other measures
of balance, and a composite index reflecting activities of daily living
and is a predictor of recurrent falling (Judge 2003; Podsiadlo &
Richardson, 1991; Rose, Jones, & Lucchese, 2002). Data from our
study to establish norms for the SFT indicate that the rate of decline
on the agility and dynamic balance task is similar to that of other
fitness variables and that physical exercise is an important factor in
maintaining good agility and balance (Rikli & Jones, 1999b).

Body Mass Index

The composition of a person's body, particularly the ratio of fat to
lean tissue, can have a marked impact on health and functional
mobility.
People with excessive body fat relative to their muscle mass are
usually unable to function (e.g., climb stairs or walk long distances) as
well as people with normal ratios of fat and muscle. Starting around
age 30, people on average begin gaining weight at the rate of 1 pound
(.5 kg) per year until about age 50 (for men) or 60 (for women), after
which there usually is a weight stabilization for a few years and then a
gradual decline in weight. Unfortunately, for most people the weight
decline in later years usually is due not to a loss in fat but to a loss in
lean body tissue (muscle mass and bone). Although body mass index
(BMI), which measures the ratio of weight to height, is not a direct
reflection of body composition, it is more highly correlated with body
weight than with body height and, therefore, has been used for years
as a general indication of healthy weight management (ACSM, 2010).
We recommend that BMI be included as part of the SFT because of the
role it plays in maintaining functional mobility. Studies indicate that
people who are overweight (typically because of excess body fat) are
more likely to be disabled in later years than are people with normal
body mass ratings (Bouchard, Beliaeff, Dionne, & Brochu, 2007;
Sternfeld, Ngo, Satariano, & Tager, 2002). Further, a combination of
both excess body weight and low muscular strength puts people at an
even greater risk for disability than either of these alone (Bouchard &
Janssen, 2010). Researchers are also finding that people with very low
weight can be at increased risk for health and mobility problems,
possibly due to an associated loss in muscle mass, bone tissue, or both
(Arnold, Newman, Cushman, Ding, & Kritchevsky, 2010; Losonczy et
al., 1995).
Body mass index can be determined by multiplying weight in pounds
by 703 and dividing by height in inches squared [BMI = (lb •
703)/in.2] or by dividing weight in kilograms by height in meters
squared (BMI kg/m2). BMI can also be estimated by referring to the
BMI conversion chan. Although the optimal BMI range for older
adults has not been determined, values between 19 and 25 are
generally considered to be in the healthy range, with BMIs higher or
lower associated with increased risk for health and mobility problems
in later years (ACSM, 2010; Losonczy et al., 1995; Shephard,
1997).
In summary, research suggests that the following physiological
parameters are especially important in supporting functional mobility in
later years: muscular strength (lower and upper body), aerobic
endurance, flexibility (lower and upper body), agility and dynamic
balance, and body composition. The importance of these variables
relative to the physical health and mobility of older adults has also been
documented in a number of major reviews and reports (ACSM, 2009;
Fiatarone Singh, 2002; Morey, Pieper, & Cornoni-Huntley, 1998;
Paterson & Warburton, 2010; Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2008).
In evaluating fitness in older adults, it is important to select test items
that reflect these critical physical components related to functional
mobility, as well as tests that meet other criteria such as being valid,
reliable, and easy to use in a field (nonlaboratory) setting. Following is
a list of the criteria that we established to serve as guidelines in
selecting the test items.

Test Selection Criteria

In selecting the test items for the SFT, consideration was given to two
overriding goals: (1) the development of test protocols that meet
acceptable scientific standards with respect to test reliability and
validity; and (2) the development of tests that would be easy to
administer and feasible for use in common clinical, community, and
home settings where the majority of older adult assessment is likely to
take place. More
specifically, the following criteria (the same as those used in
developing the SFT) can be used as a checklist in determining
appropriate fitness tests for seniors. Test items should have the
following characteristics:
• Represent a cross section of the major functional fitness
components (i.e., key physiological parameters associated
with functional mobility).
• Have acceptable test—retest reliability (E.80) (Safrit & Wood,
1995).
• Have acceptable validity, with documentation to support at least
two of the following: content, criterion, and construct
(discriminant) validity. For acceptable criterion validity,
correlations between the test item and the criterion measure
were to be at least .70, preferably above .80 (Safrit & Wood,
1995). For construct (discriminant) validity, relevant group
differences were to be significant beyond the .01 level
(Baumgartner, Jackson, Mahar, & Rowe, 2007). Content
(logical) validity was to be established through literature review
and through the subjective judgment of expert reviewers.
• Reflect usual age-related changes in physical performance.
• Be able to detect physical changes due to training or exercise.
• Be able to assess performance on a continuous scale across a
wide range of functional abilities from the low fit and borderline
frail to the high fit. The goal, as discussed in chapter 1, is to
avoid ceiling and floor effects so that all, or most, participants
could receive a score.
• Be easy to administer and score.
Require minimum equipment and space so they can be
administered in typical clinical and community settings as well as
in the home.
• Be safe to perform without medical release for the majority
of community-residing older adults.
• Be socially acceptable, meaningful, and motivating to
older people.
• Be reasonably quick to administer, with individual testing
time requiring no more than 40 minutes, and with groups of
up to 24 people being able to complete the test within a 90-
minute period, using six or seven trained volunteer assistants.
Ensuring that the SFT items met these criteria required extensive
trial- and-error pilot testing during development, with the main focus
being on adapting and refining test protocols to meet the standards for
reliability and validity while at the same time being careful that
equipment, space, and time requirements were reasonable. Ultimately,
the following seven test items and one alternative were selected for
inclusion in the SFT.

Overview of Test Items

Following is an overview of each of the test items included in the
SFT. The purpose of each item is given, along with a brief description
of the test protocol. Additional rationale for each test item is
presented in chapter 3 as part of the discussion on test validity.
Detailed descriptions of the test protocols can be found in chapter 4.

30-Second Chair Stand Test

Purpose

To assess lower-body strength needed for numerous tasks such as

climbing stairs; walking; and getting out of a chair, tub, or car
(increased ability in performing this exercise may reduce the chance
of falling)
Description

Number of full stands from a seated position that can be completed in 30

seconds with arms folded across chest

30-Second Arm Curl Test

Purpose

To assess upper-body strength needed for performing household and

other activities involving lifting and carrying things such as groceries,
suitcases, and grandchildren
Description

Number of biceps curls that can be completed in 30 seconds holding

a hand weight—5 pounds (2.3 kg) for women, 8 pounds (3.6 kg) for
men

6-Minute Walk Test

Purpose

To assess aerobic endurance—important for walking distances,

climbing stairs, shopping, sightseeing while on vacation, and so on

Description

Number of yards (or meters) that can be walked in 6 minutes around

a 50-yard (45.7 m) course. See chapter 4 for a diagram of the
course layout.

2-Minute Step Test

Purpose

Alternative aerobic endurance test for use when time restraints, space
limitations, or weather prohibits giving the 6-minute walk test
Description

Number of full steps completed in 2 minutes, raising each knee to a point

midway between the patella (kneecap) and iliac crest (top hip bone); the
score is the number of times the right knee reaches the required height

Chair Sit-and-Reach Test

Purpose

To assess lower-body flexibility, which is important for good posture,

normal gait patterns, and various mobility tasks such as getting in and
out of a bathtub or car
Description

From a sitting position at the front of a chair, with leg extended and
hands reaching toward toes, the number of inches (centimeters) (plus or
minus) between the extended fingers and the tip of the toe

Back Scratch Test

Purpose

To assess upper-body (shoulder) flexibility, which is important in tasks

such as combing one's hair, putting on overhead garments, and
reaching for a seat belt
Description

With one hand reaching over the shoulder and one up the middle of the
back, the number of inches (centimeters) between the extended middle
fingers (plus or minus)

8-Foot Up-and-Go Test

Purpose

To assess the agility and dynamic balance important in tasks that

require quick maneuvering such as getting off a bus in time, getting up
to attend to something in the kitchen, going to the bathroom, or
answering the
phone

Description

Number of seconds required to get up from a seated position, walk 8 feet

(2.4 meters), turn, and return to the seated position

Height and Weight

Purpose

To assess body weight relative to body height, because of the importance

of weight management for functional mobility
Description

Involves measuring height and weight, then using a conversion table to

determine body mass index

Summary
The SFT was developed to reflect the critical physical parameters needed
for maintaining functional ability. According to disability models,
physical impairment (loss of strength, endurance, and so on) resulting
from either pathology or disuse is the initial stage in a progression to
disability. Physical impairment, in turn, can lead to functional limitation
(restriction in physical behaviors such as rising from a chair or climbing
stairs), which eventually can lead to disability (loss of ability to take
care of oneself) unless there is an intervention to prevent or reduce
further decline.
The following are considered to be the physiological parameters required
for maintaining functional ability in older adults and preventing or
delaying the progression to disability:
• Muscular strength (lower and upper body)
• Aerobic endurance
Flexibility (lower and upper body)
Agility and dynamic balance
• Body mass index
After we identified the general components of functional fitness, the next
step was to develop testing protocols to assess each fitness parameter.
To meet the goals of the SFT, it was important that the test items
• be reliable and valid;
 • be sensitive enough to detect expected changes in performance due
to aging or to exercise intervention;
• be able to assess a wide range of performance levels,
from borderline frail to highly fit;
• be easy to administer and score and have minimal
requirements with respect to equipment, time, space, and
training; and
• be socially acceptable and motivating to older people.
After considerable trial-and-error pilot testing to develop protocols to
meet the previously cited criteria, we selected the following test items for
inclusion in the SFT battery:
• 30-second chair stand test (lower-body strength)
• 30-second arm curl test (upper-body strength)
• 6-minute walk test (aerobic endurance)
• 2-minute step test (an alternative measure of aerobic endurance)
• Chair sit-and-reach test (lower-body flexibility)
• Back scratch test (upper-body flexibility)
• 8-foot up-and-go test (agility and dynamic balance)
• Height and weight (body composition)
In the next chapter we describe the procedures followed to ensure these
test items meet the standards of quality required for an effective test.
Specifically, we discuss the procedures used for establishing test validity
and reliability and for developing norm-referenced and criterion-
referenced performance standards for the SFT.
 Chapter 3
Test Validity, Reliability,
Percentile Norms, and Criterion-
Referenced Performance
Standards
tdenti[ying Relevant fi•itness Measures
for Older AdulM
For a test to be of value, whether for research purposes or for practical
application, it must be valid and reliable (American Psychological
Association [APA], 1985). A valid test is one that measures what it is
intended to measure. A newly developed field test to measure biceps
strength, for example, would be considered valid if it can be shown to
correlate well with previously proven measures of biceps strength. A
reliable test is one that results in consistent, dependable, and repeatable
test scores free of measurement error. A test is considered reliable if it
produces the same scores when given on different occasions, such as
from one day to the next, assuming no change in the ability level of the
test takers.
According to APA guidelines, published tests should also have
accompanying performance standards or scales that can help users
interpret test results. Common types of performance standards are norm
referenced and criterion referenced. Norm-referenced standards (norms),
usually presented as percentile tables, can be used to evaluate people's
performance in relation to peers of their same age and sex. Criterion-
referenced standards, on the other hand, are those that reflect a level of
performance that is needed to achieve a particular goal such as being
healthy or being physically independent. The purpose of the criterion
standards developed for the SFT is to provide information on the level
of fitness needed to perform common everyday activities that are
important for independent living, such as rising from a chair, climbing
stairs, and being able to walk far enough to do one's own shopping and
errands. To address each of these types of assessment, we have
developed both normative and criterion standards for the SFT based on
data collected nationwide from more than 7,000 older adults aged 60 to
90-plus.
This chapter describes the processes involved in establishing the validity
and reliability of the SFT (called the Fullerton Functional Fitness Test in
some earlier publications) as well as the procedures followed in
developing the performance standards. The topics include the following:
• Validity
Types of validity evidence
Validity evidence for the SFT items
Reliability
Procedures for estimating reliability
Reliability of SFT items
Percentile norms
Normative study procedures
Study results and participant characteristics
• Criterion-referenced functional fitness standards
 Functional abilities needed for physical independence
Identifying criterion fitness scores
Determining the validity and reliability of the criterion-
referenced standards

Validity
The single most important characteristic of any test is its validity.
Because a valid test measures what it is intended to measure, its validity
must always be determined relative to its purpose. For example, if the
purpose of a particular test item is to measure lower-body strength, then
one way of evaluating its validity is to compare scores from that test
with scores on an already proven test of lower-body strength. A high
correlation between the two sets of scores would indicate good test
validity relative to the criterion measure. However, if the test's purpose
is also to detect change in fitness level as people age or improve after
joining an exercise program, then further evidence of the test's validity
would be data showing the ability of the test item to detect expected
differences between age groups and differences between people who
exercise and those who do not. Ideally, tests should be validated using
as many sources of evidence as possible.

Types of Validity Evidence

The major sources of evidence for establishing test validity are content
related, criterion related, and construct related (APA, 1985). Each of
these methods was used in validating the SFT.

Content-deleted Validity

Content validity (or logical validity, as it is often called when referring

to physical performance measures) is the degree to which a test reflects
a defined universe or domain of content, such as functional fitness in the
case of the SFT. Support for content validity can come from a literature
review showing the relevance of the various test components, as well as
from the subjective judgment of experts in the field. The content
relevance (or logical validity) of the SFT was largely addressed in
chapter 2 in the section Functional Fitness Parameters. In that section, we
document the importance of various fitness parameters relative to
maintaining functional mobility in later years, specifically, lower-body
strength, upper-body strength, aerobic endurance, lower-body
flexibility, upper-body flexibility, agility and dynamic balance, and
body composition.
In addition, a 24-person expert advisory panel consisting of noted
scientists in the field of gerontology and exercise science, as well as
practitioners with extensive hands-on experience in working with older
adults, provided further support of the content validity of the SFT. The
advisory panel, described in an earlier publication (Rikli & Jones,
1999a), provided feedback and consultation during key phases of the
test development.

Criterion-Jtelnted Validity

Criterion-related validity is the degree to which a test correlates with a

criterion measure that is already known to be valid; this type of measure
is sometimes referred to as a gold standard of performance. Criterion
validity is typically estimated by calculating the correlation coefficient
(Pearson's r) between scores on the test being validated and scores on
the comparison measure of performance. Evidence supporting the
criterion validity of the SFT items comes from a combination of
previously published data on measures similar to the SFT items and
from studies designed specifically to look at SFT items relative to
appropriate
criterion measures. A brief summary of criterion-evidenced validity for
each SFT item is presented in this chapter.

Construct-Jtelnted Validity

Construct validity, or discriminant validity as it is sometimes called,

is the degree to which a test measures a particular construct of
interest. A construct is an attribute that exists in theory but cannot be
observed
directly such as intelligence, personality, or in this case, functional
fitness. The process of establishing construct validity typically begins
with the development of a conceptual framework that explains the
meaning and relevance of the construct and continues until studies are
able to confirm expected predictions or inferences about the construct.
Support for the construct validity of the SFT items comes from
material discussed in chapter 2 (in the sections Conceptual
Background and Functional Fitness Parameters) and from studies
showing the SFT's ability to detect expected fitness differences in
older adults of different ages, health conditions, and activity levels
(Rikli & Jones, 1999a).
Subsequent SFT scores of active versus inactive older adults from our
normative study are presented in table 3 1.
TABLE 3.1 SFT f•teans and Standard Deviations (In Parentheses}
for Active Versus Inactive Older Adults
AGE GROUPS

Group size
ActJve n - 538 n - 986 n - 1,130 n - 847 n - 425 n - 235 n - t0J n - 4,262
Inactive • - 239 n - 420 n - 504 n - 48t n - 299 n - 200 n - I J8 n -
2,261 Chair stand (a stands)
Active 15.6 (4.3) t4.7(3.9} 14.0 (3.9) t3.6 (4.I) t2.3 (3.9} 11.3 (3.9} t0.5 (3.9} t3.9 (4.1)
I•ectl•e 13.8 (3.9) t2.8(3.6) 12.2 (3.6) II.8 (3.7) 10.5 (4.2} 9.4 (4.0) 6.9 (4.7} 11.7 (4.1)
Arm curl (€ reps)
AcUve J7.6 (4.7) J6.9(4.9} J6.0 (4.8) JS.5 (4.5) J4.5 (4.2} J3.3 (3.8) J2.2(3.5) J6.0 (4.6)
Inactive J5.7 (4.8) J4.9(4.5) J4.I (4.3) J3.4(4.3) J2.9 (4.5) J J.8 (3.9} J0.4 (3.7} J3.7 (4.5)

6-minute walk (€ yds)

AcUve 638 (9J) 607(t02) S88 (94) SSJ (J06) 524 (97) 48S (J08) 427 (t20) 576 (J J0)
Inaccive 595 (9S) S45(J t3) SJ2 (t09) 477 (J23) 4J7 (J30) 384 (t47) 305 (t27} 489 (J38)
2-minute step test (0 steps)
Active 100 (23) 98 (26) 92 (25) 92 (25) 8S (24) 78 (22) 78 (21) 93 (25)
Inactive 85 (23) 86 (24) 80 (25) 78 (24) 69 (23) 6J (J'7j 52 (2J) 77 (2S)
 AGE GROUPS

Chair tit-and-reach (in.J

Activ• 2.1 (4.21 1.7 (4.01 1.i (4.01 0.9(4.1) 4.i (4.4)• 4.314.2l• -1.6I3.6l• i .i (4.21
Ina‹tive 0.8(4.2) 0.6 (4.1) 0.5 (4.0) 6.1 (4.3) 6.6(4.2) •1.0 ‹3.6) -2.9(4.6) 4.0 (4.4)
Back scratch (in.)
Acove -I.2 ‹3.9› -1.9 4.3) -2.2 ‹4.2) -2.7 (4.4) -3.1 (4.7) -3.8(4.8› -4.6(4.7)‘ -2.3 (4.4)
Inacti•e -2.0 (4.3› -2.6 (4.4) -3.1 4.5› -4.0 ‹4.9) -4.2 ‹4.9) -S.2 (4.6) -6.2 ‹5.4) -3.6 ‹4.8j
8-foot up-and-go (sec)
Acove 4.9(1.1) 5.2 (I.I) S.5 ‹t .3› 5.8 (1.4) 6.S (1.6) 7.2 (2.0› 7.6 (1.9) 5.7 (1.5)
Ina¢ttve 5.4 (1.4) 5.8 (1.4) 6.3 ‹t .9) 6.8 II.9) 7.6 (2.6) 8.3 t3.1) 10.I ‹3.6) 6.7 I2.3›

Validity Evidence for the SFT Items

Presented here is a brief discussion of the purpose and background of
each of the SFT items, followed by a summary of the evidence
supporting the validity of each item. A full description of each of the SFT
items is presented in chapter 4.

30-Second Chair Stand Test

The purpose of the 30-second chair stand test is to assess lower-body

strength, an important aspect of fitness in older adults because of its role
in common everyday activities such as stair climbing; walking;
maintaining balance; and getting out of a chair, bathtub, or car. The
test involves counting the number of times, within a 30-second period,
that a person can come to a full stand from a seated position with
arms folded across the chest.
Background

The 30-second chair stand test is a modification of other versions of

chair stand tests that involve recording the time it takes to complete a
specified number of stands, such as 10 stands (Csuka & McCarty, 1985)
or 5 stands (Guralnik et a1., 1994). The reason for changing the protocol
from measuring the time it takes to complete a specific number of
stands to counting the number of stands that can be completed in a
specific amount of time (30 seconds) was to improve the discrimination
ability of the test. In the 5- and 10-stand versions of the test, if people
are unable to complete the required number of stands, and many cannot,
then they are unable to receive a score. In one large-scale study, for
example,
involving several thousand community-residing older adults, more than
20 percent of the participants could not complete even 5 stands (Guralnik
et a1., 1994). In another study, 74 percent of assisted-living residents
could not complete 5 stands (Giuliani et al., 2008). Using a standardized
time protocol (such as 30 seconds) instead of a standardized number
protocol (such as 5 or 10 stands) makes it possible for every person to
receive a score, even though the score might be only 1 or even 0 for
those with very little lower-body strength and 20 or more for higher-
functioning older adults. The ability of a test item to discriminate
(measure performance) over a wide range of ability levels is especially
important when testing older adults across broad age ranges (such as
from age 60 to age 90 or 100) or when assessing intervention treatments
for older adults who may be very low functioning at the onset of
treatment and then progress to higher levels over time.

Validity Evidence

A number of studies show that chair stand performance is a good field-

test indicator of lower-body strength in older adults because of its
relatively high correlation with proven laboratory measures such as
knee extensor and knee flexor strength and one-repetition maximum
(IRM) leg press strength (Bohannon, 2002; Csuka & McCarty, 1985;
Jones, Rikli, & Beam, 1999), thus supporting the criterion validity of
the test. In support of the construct (discriminant) validity, the chair
stand test is
effective in detecting anticipated age-related declines (Csuka &
McCarty, 1985; Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b; Wiacek & Hagner,
2008); in discriminating between high-active and low-active older
adults (Burger & Marincek, 2001; Miotto, Chodzko-Zajko, Reich, &
Supler, 1999; Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b, 2000 [scores presented in
table 3 1]); and in predicting falling risk (Alexander, Schultz, &
Warwick, 1991; MacRae, Lacourse, & Moldavon, 1992; Tinetti,
Speechley, & Ginter, 1988).
The 30-second chair stand has been successful in detecting exercise
effects in relatively healthy older adults (Cavani, Mier, Musto, &
Tummers, 2002; DiBrezzo, Shadden, Raybon, & Powers, 2005;
Dobek, White, & Gunter, 2007; Takeshima et al., 2007; Yan, Wilber,
Aguirre, & Trejo, 2009); in more frail populations (Beck, Damkjaer, &
Beyer, 2008; Hruda, Hicks, & McCartney, 2003; McMurdo & Rennie,
1993); and in populations with special conditions, including
cardiovascular disease (Liu, Baiqing, & Shnider, 2010), osteoporosis
(Pearson, Burkhart, Pifalo, Palaggo-Toy, & Krohn, 2005), and
fibromyalgia (Jones, Rutledge, & Aquino, 2010), as well as in breast
and prostate cancer survivors (Damush, Perkins, & Miller, 2005) and
patients who have been diagnosed with low- to medium-grade
Alzheimer's (Santana-Sosa, Barriopedro, López-Mojares, Pérez, &
Lucia, 2008).

30-Second mm Curt Test

The arm curl test is included in the SFT as a general measure of

upper- body strength, which is important for performing many
everyday activities such as housework and yardwork and for lifting
and carrying things such as groceries, suitcases, grandchildren, and
pets. The test involves counting the number of times a person can curl a
hand weight, 5 pounds (2.3 kg) for women and 8 pounds (3.6 kg) for
men, through the full range of motion in 30 seconds.

Background

The arm curl test in the SFT is similar to many other arm curl tests
(Osness et al., 1996) with two exceptions: (1) a change in the
prescribed
weight for women from a 4-pound (1.8 kg) to a 5-pound (2.3 kg)
weight, and (2) a change in arm position during the curl-up phase of
the movement. The 5-pound weight for women was selected for the
SFT because upper-body strength in women tends to be about 60
percent of that in men (Spelling, 1980), thus improving the
representation of the female-male weight ratio (5 pounds for women
versus 8 pounds for men). The change in arm position from the
handshake grip to a palm-up protocol during flexion in the SFT test
was to more effectively engage the muscles of the upper arm and the
biceps tendon relative to muscle action. In the SFT arm curl test, the
participant starts the test holding the weight in the handshake position
at full extension (arm down at side), then supinates during flexion so
that the palm of the hand faces the biceps at full flexion, then returns
back to the handshake position during the extension phase. See the
arm curl test procedure in chapter 4 for complete details.

Validity Evidence

As an indication of criterion validity, arm curl performance has been

positively associated (r - .82) with Cybex machine arm curl
performance (Osness et al., 1996) and with a composite measure of
upper-body strength, which included IRM biceps, chest press, and
upper-back strength scores as measured on weight resistance machines
(James, 1999; Rikli & Jones, 1999a). The moderately high correlations
(r = .84 for men and .79 for women) between the SFT arm curl test
and the combined biceps, chest, and upper-back composite measure is
of particular significance, since this provides support for the validity
of the SFT arm curl as a reflection of overall upper-body strength.
As with the chair stand test, construct validity of the arm curl test is
evidenced by its success in detecting expected age-related declines in
upper-body strength (Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b; Wiacek &
Hagner, 2008); in discriminating between high-active and low-active
older adults (Miotto et a1., 1999; Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b, 2000
[see table 3 1]); and in detecting changes due to exercise
interventions in both healthy populations (Cavani et a1., 2002;
DiBrezzo et al., 2005; Dobek et a1., 2007; Takeshima et al., 2007;
Yan et al., 2009) and special populations
including cancer survivors (Damush et al., 2005), cardiovascular
patients (Liu et al., 2010), women with osteoporosis (Pearson et al.,
2005), and Alzheimer's patients with low- to moderate-level diagnoses
(Santana- Sosa et a1., 2008).
Grip strength, measured by a grip dynamometer, is another common
field-test measure that is a reasonably valid indicator of upper-body
strength in younger people. However, this is not a recommended
option for many older adults because of the discomfort associated
with performing this test, especially for the numerous older people
with arthritis in their hands.

6-Minute Walk Test

The purpose of the 6-minute walk test is to assess aerobic endurance,

defined as the capacity to perform large-muscle activity over an
extended time. Aerobic endurance is needed to perform a variety of
activities including stair climbing, walking, shopping, sightseeing
while on vacation, and participating in active sport and recreational
activities. The test involves walking continuously around a 50-yard
(45.7 m) course, covering as much distance as possible in 6 minutes.

Background

The rationale for standardizing the time (6 minutes) in the SFT instead
of a specified distance, such as half a mile, 400 meters, or a mile, as is
common in other distance walking tests (Kline et a1., 1987; Osness et
a1., 1996; Simonsick, Fan, & Fleg, 2006), was to improve the
discrimination ability of the test. On a timed test, such as the 6-minute
walk, scores can be obtained for people of all ability levels—from the
borderline frail who can walk only a few feet in 6 minutes, to the
highly fit who can cover several hundred yards in the time allowed.
Because reports show that a considerable number of community-
residing older adults (more than 20 percent of those over 65) have
difficulty walking even a few blocks (Federal Interagency Forum on
Aging-Related Statistics, 2010; Stump, Clark, Johnson, & Wolinsky,
1997), tests with prescribed distances (such
as half a mile or a mile) are prohibitive to many elderly people.

Validity Evidence

Past studies show that distance walking tests of various types (half
mile, 400 meters, 1 mile) are reasonably good indicators of aerobic
endurance in both young adults and well-functioning older adults
(Bravo et a1., 1994; Fenstermaker, Plowman, & Looney, 1992; Kline
et al., 1987; Pettee Gabriel et al., 2010; Simonsick et a1., 2006;
Warren, Dotson, Nieman, & Butterworth, 1993). More specifically,
the criterion validity of the 6-minute walk protocol developed for the
SFT is supported by a study showing relatively high correlations for
older adults (r = .82 for men and .71 for women) between 6-minute
walking scores and treadmill performance using a modified Balke
protocol (Rikli & Jones, 1998).
As with most other SFT measures, the 6-minute walk test has been
successful in detecting expected performance differences across
different age groups and in people with different levels of physical
activity (Miotto et a1., 1999; Peterson, Crowley, Sullivan, & Morey,
2004; Rikli & Jones, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000). It also has been
successful in detecting exercise intervention effects in relative healthy
populations (Cavani et al., 2002; DiBrezzo et al., 2005; Dobek et a1.,
2007, Takeshima et al., 2007) as well as in studies involving special
populations such as cardiovascular patients (Wilk et al., 2005), people
with diabetes (Lambers, Van Laethem, Van Acker, & Calders, 2008),
women with fibromyalgia (Jones et a1., 2010), and patients with total
hip replacements (Hernandez & Franke, 2005; Wang, Gilbey, &
Ackland, 2002).

2-Minute Step TLS*

The 2-minute step test is included in the SFT battery as an alternative
measure of aerobic endurance when space limitations (or sometimes
weather conditions) prohibit use of the 6-minute walk test. The 2-
minute step test protocol involves determining the number of times in 2
minutes that a person can step in place, raising the knees to a height
halfway
between the patella (kneecap) and iliac crest (front hip bone). See the
2- minute step test photo in chapter 4.

Background

The 2-minute step test might be considered a self-paced version of

several previously published tests such as the Harvard Step Test
(Brouha, 1943), the Ohio State Step Test (Cotten, 1971), and the
Queens College Step Test (McArdle, Katch, Pechar, Jacobson, &
Ruck, 1972), all of which require a specified stepping cadence. Pilot
testing during the early stages of the SFT development clearly showed
that many older adults cannot or will not maintain a prescribed
stepping cadence, thus making these tests inappropriate for this
population.

Validity Evidence

Although the validity of step tests involving a prescribed cadence and

bench height has been well documented for younger participants, no
studies can be found on the validity of these tests for older adults.
The criterion validity of the SFT self-paced 2-minute step test has
been estimated by comparing it with other published measures of
aerobic endurance. Dugas (1996; also reported in Rikli & Jones,
1999a) found a moderate correlation (r = .73) between 2-minute step
test scores and Rockport l-mile walk scores in 24 older men and
women (mean age = 69.6). In another study involving 25 older men
and women (mean age 70.8), a similar correlation (r - .74) was found
between 2-minute step test scores and treadmill performance
(Johnston, 1999; also reported in Rikli & Jones, 1999a). Treadmill
performance consisted of time on the treadmill until the participant
reached 85 percent of predicted maximum heart rate using a modified
Balke graded exercise protocol (American College of Sports
Medicine, 2010).
The 2-minute step test has been successful in detecting expected
performance declines across different age groups and physical activity
levels (Miotto et a1., 1999; Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b; Wiacek &
Hagner, 2008) and has been used to measure exercise intervention effects
in various community-residing populations (Yan et al., 2009), nursing
home residents (Beck et a1., 2008), cancer survivors (Damush et al.,
2005), coronary heart patients (Liu et al., 2010), and lower-limb
amputee patients with prostheses (Burger & Marincek, 2001). The test's
ability to detect significant differences in active versus inactive older
adults is seen in table 3 1.
It is also interesting to note that information collected on the rating of
perceived exertion (RPE) during the 2-minute step test is fairly
comparable to that collected from the same participants during the 6-
minute walk test, suggesting that the two aerobic endurance tests are
similar with respect to exercise intensity (unpublished data from the
Center for Successful Aging at California State University,
Fullerton). On an RPE scale of 6 to 20 (Borg, 1998), the average RPE
reported during the step test was 13.9 compared with 13.6 during the
6-minute walk test. These RPE scores represent a degree of exertion
that is between “somewhat hard” (13.0 on this scale) and “hard”
(15.0 on this scale).

Chair Sit-and-Reach Test

The purpose of the chair sit-and-reach test is to assess lower-body

flexibility, particularly hamstring flexibility, which is important for
good posture and for mobility tasks such as walking, stair climbing, and
getting in and out of a car or bathtub. Lower-body flexibility also helps
prevent low-back pain and musculoskeletal injuries and reduces the risk
of falling. The test involves sitting at the front edge of a stable chair,
with one leg extended and the other foot flat on the floor. With hands on
top
of each other and arms outstretched, the participant reaches as far
forward as possible toward the toes. The score is the number of inches
(centimeters), either plus or minus, between the tips of the middle fingers
and the toes.

Background
The chair sit-and-reach test in the SFT was adapted from earlier versions
of floor sit-and-reach tests that have appeared in numerous test batteries
including the YMCA battery (Golding, Myers, & Sinning, 1989), the
Fitnessgram (Welk and Meredith, 2008), and the AAHPERD Functional
Fitness Test for adults over 60 (Osness et al., 1996). Most versions of the
sit-and-reach test involve sitting on the floor with both legs extended
and reaching as far forward as possible toward (or past) the toes. An
exception is the Fitnessgram back-saver sit-and-reach, which involves
sitting on the floor but extending only one leg at a time while the other is
bent.
We chose to move from a floor to a chair protocol for the SFT
flexibility test because many older adults have medical conditions or
functional limitations (e.g., obesity, low-back pain, lower-body
weakness, hip and knee replacements, severely reduced flexibility) that
make it difficult or impossible for them to get down to and up from a
floor position. In our pilot studies we also found that some older people,
probably due to a combination of weak abdominal muscles and tight
hamstrings, could not hold a sitting position on a flat surface,
particularly with both legs extended.
In the chair sit-and-reach test, the participant extends only one leg at a
time while keeping the other leg bent, with the foot flat on the floor.
The rationale for keeping one leg straight and one bent during the
testing, as opposed to both legs straight, is based on evidence showing
that the simultaneous stretching of both hamstrings causes excessive
posterior disc compression, thereby increasing the risk of back injury
during the testing (Cailliet, 1988). Another advantage of measuring one
leg at a time is the ability to detect any asymmetry in hamstring
flexibility between legs, which can cause problems with hip rotation and
be a contributing cause of gait abnormalities and low-back pain
(Cailliet, 1988).

Validity Evidence

Past studies indicate that sit-and-reach tests, in general, have at least

moderate criterion-related validity relative to established measures of
hamstring flexibility, with r values ranging from .61 to .89 (Jackson &
Baker, 1986; Jackson & Langford, 1989; Patterson, Wiksten, Ray,
Flanders, & Sanphy, 1996). More specifically, the criterion validity of
the SFT chair sit-and-reach test has been estimated to be .76 for men
and
.81 for women (Jones, Rikli, Max, & Noffal, 1998) based on
comparisons with goniometer-measured hamstring flexibility, a
common gold standard measure of lower-body flexibility (American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1966). In fact, data show that scores
on the chair version of the sit-and-reach test are better correlated to
hamstring flexibility in older people than are scores from the floor sit-
and-reach test, even for those who have no trouble getting down and up
from the floor position (Jones et a1., 1998).
Relative to the construct validity of the chair sit-and-reach test, data
indicate it is capable of detecting differences between various age groups
(Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 1999b; Wiacek & Hagner, 2008) and physical
ability levels (Miotto et a1., 1999; Rikli & Jones, 2000), but the test has
received mixed reports about its effectiveness in detecting change after
an exercise intervention. Improvements in chair sit-and-reach
performance have been found in studies involving relatively healthy
older adults (Cavani et a1., 2002; DiBrezzo et a1., 2005; Yamauchi et
al., 2005; Yan et a1., 2009), Alzheimer's patients (Santana-Sosa et a1.,
2008), and women with osteoporosis (Pearson et al., 2005) but not in
other studies involving community-residing older adults (Takeshima et
a1., 2007), cancer patients (Damush et a1., 2005), or patients with heart
disease (Liu et a1., 2010). Further study will be needed to determine
whether the lack of observed differences in exercise groups is due to
the inability of the chair sit-and-reach test to detect such change or
whether, in fact, it is due to the difficulty of improving flexibility
during exercise interventions.

Back Scratch Test

The purpose of the back scratch test is to assess upper-body flexibility,

particularly shoulder flexibility, which is important for performing
common tasks such as combing one's hair, zipping a dress, putting on
an over-the-head garment, or reaching for a seat belt. Reduced range
of motion in the shoulder can also result in pain and increased chance
of injury and disability in later years (Chakravarty & Webley, 1993;
Magee,
1992). The test involves reaching one hand over the shoulder and down
the back as far as possible and the other hand around the waist and up the
middle of the back as far as possible, trying to bring the fingers of both
hands together. The score is the number of inches (centimeters), either
plus or minus, between the extended middle fingers.

Background

The SFT back scratch test is a modified version of the Apley scratch
test that has been used for years by therapists and orthopedic
physicians as a quick way of evaluating overall shoulder range of
motion (Gross, Fetto, & Rosen, 1996; Magee, 1992; Starkey & Ryan,
1996; Woodward & Best, 2000). The Apley protocol, which involves
reaching behind the head with one hand and behind the back with the
other hand toward a specified anatomical point on the opposite
scapula, was revised slightly to involve simply trying to touch the
middle two fingers together behind the back. The change in
assessment protocol was to provide a simpler and more quantifiable
method of measuring shoulder range of motion in the field setting.

Validity Evidence

Although no single criterion measure exists for the Apley test, it is

considered by experts in the field to be an important indicator of overall
shoulder range of motion (Gross et a1., 1996; Starkey & Ryan, 1996;
Woodward & Best, 2000). The motion of reaching one hand behind the
head and over the shoulder involves shoulder flexion, adduction, and
external rotation. The behind-the-back position of the other arm
involves shoulder extension, adduction, and internal rotation.
Similar versions of this test are included in other published test
batteries such as the Fitnessgram (Welk & Meredith, 2008) and the
Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick & Short, 1999), but no
studies, to our knowledge, have been published describing the criterion
validity of these measures. The shoulder stretch test in the Fitnessgram
involves the same
motions as the back scratch in the SFT, although the scoring systems
are different. In the Fitnessgram, scores are either yes (fingers can
touch behind the back) or no (fingers cannot touch), whereas the back
scratch test in the SFT involves measuring the distance between the
two middle fingers, thus providing a continuous-scale scoring system.
The modified Apley test in the Brockport battery involves evaluating
only one arm at a time as the person attempts to reach behind the head
toward the opposite scapula. Data from an unpublished pilot study
indicate some support for the relationship between the modified Apley
scores and functional ability in a group of people with cerebral palsy
(Winnick & Short, 1999).

The logical (content) validity of the Apley and related shoulder stretch
tests has been fairly well established based on the extent of its use by
therapists and physicians as a tool in evaluating shoulder range of
motion (Gross et al., 1996; Starkey & Ryan, 1996; Woodward & Best,
2000).
Support for the construct validity of the back scratch test comes from
studies showing its ability to detect expected declines across age groups
(60s, 70s, and 80s) as well as expected differences between participants
with high and low activity levels (Rikli & Jones, 1999a, 2000; Wiacek
& Hagner, 2008). As with the lower-back flexibility measure (chair sit-
and- reach), the upper-body back scratch test has been successful in
detecting exercise intervention effects in some studies (Dobek et al.,
2007; Liu et al., 2010; Peterson et a1., 2005; Santana-Sosa et al., 2008;
Yan et a1., 2009) but not in others (Damush et al., 2005; DiBrezzo et
al., 2005).
Although more studies are needed to verify the criterion-related and
construct-related validity of the back scratch test, the evidence supporting
its logic (content validity) as an overall measure of shoulder flexibility
appears strong.

The purpose of the 8-foot up-and-go test is to assess agility and

dynamic balance, attributes that are needed for a number of functions
such as getting up and maneuvering quickly enough to get off a bus in
time, attend to something in the kitchen, go to the bathroom, or
answer the phone or the door in a timely manner. The test involves
getting up from a seated position and walking as quickly as possible
around a cone (or similar marker) that is 8 feet (2.4 m) away and
returning to the seated
position.

Background

The 8-foot up-and-go test is a modified version of a previously

published 3-meter timed up-and-go protocol (Podsiadlo & Richardson,
1991). The main purpose in changing the distance from 3 meters (9.8
feet) to 8 feet was to increase the feasibility of administering this test
in areas with limited space, particularly in the home setting. In our pilot
studies when developing the 8-foot up-and-go test, we found that
although it was often difficult to find the needed space in many areas to
administer the 3-meter test (which must include room for turning
around the cone), we almost always could find space to set up an 8-
foot version of the test.
Fortunately, reliability studies have shown that little to no accuracy was
lost in shortening the distance (Cavani et a1., 2002; Miotto et al.,
1999; Rikli & Jones, 1999a).

Validity Evidence

Although there is no one gold standard criterion measure to compare

performance on a timed up-and-go test, it has been found to be
significantly related to the Berg Balance Scale (r — .81), gait speed (r =
.61), and the Barthel Index of ADLs (r — .78)—a composite measure
involving activities such as getting into and out of a car, walking, and
stair climbing (Podsiadlo & Richardson, 1991). Past evidence also
indicates that performance on up-and-go tests can discriminate among
various functional categories in older adults and is responsive to changes
resulting from an increased level of physical activity (Podsiadlo &
Richardson, 1991; Tinetti, Williams, & Mayewski, 1986).
Studies conducted specifically on the 8-foot version of the up-and-go
test indicate it is an excellent discriminator of performance changes
across age groups and that it can detect expected differences between
active and inactive older adults as seen in table 3 1 and in Miotto et a1.
(1999).
Study results also show a progressive slowing of average times on the 8-
foot up-and-go test for people in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s (Miotto et
al., 1999; Rikli & Jones, 1999b). More recently, the 8-foot up-and-go
test has been found to be a good discriminator of fallers and
nonfallers, with scores of 8.5 seconds or longer being an indicator of
increased risk for falling (Rose, Jones, & Lucchese, 2002). The 8-foot
up-and-go has also been used successfully in detecting exercise
intervention effects on various types of populations (Beck et al., 2008;
Cavani et a1., 2002; DiBrezzo et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2010; Pearson et
a1., 2005; Santana-Sosa et a1., 2008; Yan et al., 2009).

Height and Weight

This test item measures participants' body mass index (BMI) and is
included in the SFT to assess body weight relative to body height, a
measure that is important because of its relationship to body composition
(especially the ratio of fat to lean muscle tissue). Technically, BMI is
determined by dividing weight in kilograms by height in meters
squared (BMI = kg/m2). An alternative formula, using nonmetric units,
involves multiplying weight in pounds by 703 and dividing by height in
inches squared: BMI = (lb • 703)/in.2. BMI can also be estimated
using a conversion chart such as the BMI conversion chart.
Although body mass index is not a measure that was developed or
validated for the SFT, we suggest that it be included as an indicator of
functional fitness because of previous evidence showing its role in
maintaining functional mobility. Studies show that people with high
BMIs (or in some cases very low BMIs) are more likely to be disabled
in later years than are people with normal body mass ratings (Arnold,
Newman, Cushman, Ding, & Kritchevsky, 2010; Bouchard, Beliaeff,
Dionne, & Brochu, 2007; Losonczy et al., 1995; Sternfeld, Ngo,
Satariano, & Tager, 2002). High BMI values are also associated with
numerous health problems including hypertension, heart disease, and
type 2 diabetes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2008), all of which can have adverse effects on functional mobility.

Although experts have not determined the ideal BMI for older adults,
partially because of the unknown changes that occur in muscle and
bone
during aging, the following are suggested as general (rough) guidelines
for older adults (American College of Sports Medicine, 2010; Losonczy
et a1., 1995; Ross & Janssen, 2007):
BMI
19-25 Healthy range
E26 Overweight; associated with increased risk for disease
and loss of mobility
ñ18 Underweight; could indicate loss of muscle mass and bone
tissue
In summary, based on literature review, pilot studies, and feedback from
a panel of experts during the development of the SFT, we believe there
is sufficiently strong evidence to support using the SFT as a valid
measure of physical capacity in older adults. In addition to having
acceptable validity, it is important that test items have good test—retest
reliability.
Procedures and documentation for estimating the test—retest reliability
of the SFT items are presented in the following section.

Reliability
Reliability, like validity, is an essential characteristic of a good test. A
reliable test produces scores that are relatively free of measurement error
and are dependable and consistent from one trial to the next, even one
day to the next, assuming there are no changes in ability level or testing
conditions. Obtaining stable (reliable) measures is critical, whether tests
are to be used for program evaluation, for individual assessment, or for
conducting research. A recommended method of estimating the
reliability of a physical performance test is to give the test on two
different occasions, usually 2 to 5 days apart, and then determine the
correlation between the two sets of scores. A high correlation (.80 or
above) between scores on day 1 and scores on day 2 indicates the test
has acceptable reliability, meaning it produces scores that are relatively
consistent from one time to the next (Safrit & Wood, 1995).

Procedures for Estimating Reliability

Because the reliability of a test can vary considerably depending on how
and where the test is used, it is important that reliability studies be
conducted for the specific population of interest and under conditions
that are similar to those where the test is most likely to be given.
Therefore, rather than depending on past research to support the
reliability of the SFT, we conducted our own test—retest reliability
studies using group testing conditions and trained volunteer assistants.
Recall that the intent of the test is that it be easy to use in the community
setting, with minimal training of testing technicians.
The procedures followed in conducting the reliability have been well
described and previously published (Rikli & Jones, 1999a). Briefly,
participants for the reliability study (82 men and women, mean age
71.8 years) were solicited from a nearby retirement housing complex and
from enrollees in the senior exercise classes at our university. All
participants were living independently, did not require a cane or other
assistive device to walk, and had no medical conditions that would
prohibit their participation in the testing. All tests were conducted by
trained senior volunteers or by graduate student volunteers. Before all
testing, participants performed 8 minutes of warm-up and stretching
exercises. All tests and retests were administered 2 to 5 days apart.
Because our pilot testing indicated that a practice trial was necessary in
order to obtain stable scores on both the 6-minute walk test and the 2-
minute step test, these items were administered on three different
occasions, with the first test treated as a practice trial. The practice trial
helps the participants establish an efficient pace for these tests, thus
improving their scoring consistency on subsequent trials.

Reliability of the SFT Items

The test—retest reliability value for each test item was established by
calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (it) using a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for establishing the
reliability of a single trial (Baumgartner, Jackson, Mahar, & Rowe,
2007). The one- way ANOVA model treats all sources of measurement
variation, including changes in day-to-day performance, as error (lack
of reliability), thus resulting in the most accurate estimate of stability
reliability. Results indicate that the test—retest correlation values for the
SFT items ranged from .80 to .98, indicating acceptable reliability for all
test items. See table 3 2 for specific it values and 95 percent
confidence intervals for each test item.
Subsequent studies have found comparable reliability results on similar
populations of community-residing older adults, with Miotto et al.
(1999) reporting reliability (R) values ranging from .94 to .98, and
Cavani et al. (2002) reporting reliabilities of .95 to .98. High reliability
scores have also been reported for the 30-second chair stand and a
modified arm curl in a study involving patients with idiopathic
inflammatory myositis (Agarwal & Kiely, 2006) and for stroke
survivor patients on the 30- second chair stand and 8-foot up-and-go
test (Sakai, Tanaka, & Holland, 2002).
TABLE 3.2 Test-Retest Reliability{A) and 95% Confidence Intervals
{Cl) for the Senior Fitness Test
ALL PARTICIPANTS WOMEN

Chair stand .89 (.79-.93) 76 .86 (.77-.90) 34 .92 (.87-.95) 42

Armcurl .81 (.72-.88) 78 .81 (.óó-.90) 36 .80 (.67-.89) 42
6-minutewaIk .94 (.90-.96) óó .97 (.92-.99) 23 .91 (.84-.9S) 43
2-minutestep .90 (.84-.93) 78 .90 (.80-.95) 36 .89 (.83-.94) 42
Chairsit-and-reach .9S (.92-.97) 76 .92 (.8S-.96) 34 .96 (.93-.98) 42
Backscratch .96 (.94-.98) 77 .96 (.93-.98) 3S .92 (.8ó-.96) 42
8-foot up-and-go .9S (.92-.97) 76 .98 (.96-.99) 34 .90 (.83-.9S) 42
e ›nted ‹mas›on from R îh +nd Jones
1S97ø

In addition to being valid and reliable, tests should have performance

standards that can be used in evaluating test results. Standards that
provide a basis for comparing a person's scores to others within a
particular group are referred to as norm-referenced standards, or
norms. Test norms, usually presented as percentile tables, are statistics
that summarize the typical performance of a specific population of
people.
The next section describes the procedures followed in developing age-
group percentile norms for the SFT.

Percentile Norms
Normative scores are developed by testing a large number of people in a
specifically defined population and then summarizing the data using
descriptive statistics. A common method of organizing normative data is
through the use of percentile tables. Percentile tables indicate the
percentile equivalent (rank) associated with any given raw score. Raw
scores are those scores received directly from each test item, such as the
number of yards covered during the 6-minute walk test or the number of
repetitions completed in 30 seconds on the arm curl test. A raw score
falling at the midpoint of a distribution for a specific age group is
equivalent to the 50th percentile in that distribution, meaning that 50
percent of those tested scored at or below that particular score and 50
percent scored above it. Similarly, a raw score falling at the 75th
percentile indicates that 75 percent of the population scored at or
below that value, with only 25 percent scoring above it. SFT percentile
scores are reported separately for men and women in 5-year age groups
from 60 to 94. Percentile tables for the Senior Fitness Test can be seen
here The following section describes the procedures and results of a
nationwide study conducted to establish normative scores for the SFT.

Normative Study Procedures

Although the procedures involved in collecting data for the SFT norms
have been fully described in a previous publication (Rikli & Jones,
1999b), we provide a summary here because it is important that users
of SFT norms understand the nature of the study and the
characteristics of the population from which the norms were developed.
Technically, normative scores provide accurate comparison data only
for participants who are similar to the normative population. Although
data collection for the normative study took place in the late 1990s,
there is little reason to believe that the norms are not as relevant today
as they were at the time they were collected. Statistics suggest that
there has been very little change in older adult characteristics in terms
of their physical activity patterns, health indicators, and other physical
and functional measures (Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related
Statistics, 2010).
Data for the normative study were collected on 7,183 older
Americans (5,048 women and 2,135 men), aged 60 to 94, from 267
test sites in 21 different states. A summary of participant characteristics
is presented in table 3 3. The older adult participants at each site were
solicited through a call for volunteers made at various senior centers,
retirement housing complexes, and similar community locations via
posted notices and through local media announcements. To be
included in the study, participants had to be residing in the
community, living independently, and ambulatory without regular use
of assistive devices, as well as have
no medical conditions that prohibited them from participating in the tests.
 TA6ŁE 3.3 P•rtłclpanC Ch•r•ctccMfcs: Meanc and St•ed•rd 0evl•Nons(in Pacenthesae)
art 0 of s

SMS

?3*)J* MD(T4 61 fl? 3DTl 5 ?69( *i $1 #U 1 #*0( O) P23)'M

t*6 s us 4i S3 z• t3ż a ›s3 › to s› 1•• › c› a t•2 9 O• e. t36 a OJ ti t3a o izr Q \że 2 a3 n

››s e os si te • e o ›e* s m » t›e s oo s› tle • o• +ł › zz eoa xi i+› 'z a2'zi tss s oo x
ł4sl33ł \aapq t4st2sl t44uo t4sce ł44p'o izapzi i<ep'ą

7A I *9 7 e3 8
se 7 M0 fib 0

P0 98
›2O *g I

te 30 20
09 08

To maximize consistency of the testing procedures, a large emphasis

was placed on training test administrators and assistants. Training
workshops were held for most of the lead coordinators from each of the
participating states. State coordinators, in turn, held training workshops
for local technicians and assistants. A testing manual and an
instructional videotape, given to ali testing personnel, provided an
additional source of
information and training.

Data collection at the various test sites typically took place in a group
setting, with up to 24 participants per group. The tests were administered
circuit-style in six stations set up around the periphery of a large
multipurpose room. After an 8- to 10-minute warm-up, participants were
divided evenly among the six stations to begin the tests. To minimize
the effects of fatigue, stations were arranged in the following order:
(1) 30- second chair stand test, (2) 30-second arm curl test, (3) height
and weight and 2-minute step test (if used), (4) chair sit-and-reach test,
(5) back scratch test, and (6) 8-foot up-and-go test, with participants
beginning at any point in the circuit. A diagram of the circuit setup for
group testing can be found in chapter 4, figure 4 3. As indicated, when
the 2-minute step test was used to assess aerobic endurance instead of
the 6-minute walk test (usually because of lack of space or inclement
weather), it was included as part of the height and weight station. If the
6-minute walk test was used as the test of aerobic endurance, it was
administered as a group after all other tests had been completed.

Study Results and Participant Characteristics

Data from the study provided percentile-based normative performance
scores for men and women separately in 5-year age groups from 60 to
94. The percentile score equivalents for raw scores on all test items are
presented in the normative percentile tables here. A percentile rank
represents that point in a distribution of scores below which that given
percentage of scores falls. A raw score falling at the 25th percentile, for
example, indicates that 25 percent of the scores in that particular age
group would be lower than that score while 75 percent would be
higher. As an alternative to the full set of percentile tables presented
here, chapter 5 contains tables of the normal range of scores for men
and women (see tables 5 3 and W) to provide a simpler, more user-
friendly way of looking at the normative data. These abbreviated
percentile tables present only the normal ranges of scores, defined as
those representing the middle 50 percent for each age and gender
group on each test item
(i.e., scores that fall between the 25th and 75th percentiles).
Data from the SFT normative study also provide important information
on the typical amounts and rates of declines experienced by this cross
section of older adults. As illustrated in , the data reveal
remarkably consistent patterns of declines in physical performance scores
over most 5-year age groups for both men and women on all test
items.
Statistical analysis of these data indicate that the average decline across
the majority of the adjacent 5-year age groups was statistically
significant for both men and women (Rikli & Jones, 1999b). The
overall amount of decline across variables from age 60 to age 94 was
in the 30 to 45 percent range, resulting in an approximate 1 to 1.5
percent per year or 10 to 15 percent per decade loss in strength,
endurance, agility, and balance. The exact percentage of decline was
not calculated for the two flexibility tests since the measurement scales
involved an arbitrarily determined zero point, thus making it
inappropriate to conduct ratio types of calculations. Exact means and
standard deviations for all variables can be found in Rikli and Jones,
1999b.
 Figure 3.1 Fitness mean scores across 5-year age groups for men and
women.
20
18 Chair stand

1C
Number of stands

14
12
10

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

24
22 Arm curl
20
18
16
Number of

14
12
curls

10

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

 780
720 6-minute walk
660
600
Yards

540
480
420
360
300
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

140
2-minute step
120

100
Number of

80
steps

60

40
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 Chair sit-and-reach
Inches

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

Back scratch

.ü -
2

-10
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 10
8-foot up-and-go

Men
Seconds

@ Women

60-64 65-69 70-74 7S-79 80-84 8S-89 90-94

Reprinted by permission from Rikli and Jones 1999b.

As also can be observed in , there are definite gender

differences on the test items, with men consistently scoring better than
women on the strength, endurance, agility, and balance tests and women
consistently performing better than men on the two flexibility measures.
These gender differences were significant across all age groups on all test
items.
Again, it is important to remember that these normative scores represent
average amounts of decline within each age group and can be quite
different for different subgroups of people. As shown in figure 3,2, for
example, older adults who regularly participate in physical activity (30
minutes, three times a week) have overall better scoring distributions
than those who are less active, with almost all comparisons being highly
significant (see table 3 1). Further, the scores of active people were not
only higher to begin with, but the average rate of decline in performance
between ages 60 and 94 was less for the active than for the inactive
participants as well (31 percent versus 44 percent). As can be seen in
figure 3 2, there tends to be a noticeable acceleration in fitness declines
in the late 80s and 90s, especially for inactive older adults.
 Figure 3.2 Fitness test scores across 5-year age groups for active and
inactive participants.
20
18 Chair stand
16
14
12
Number of

10
stands

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

20
Arm curl
18
16
Number of curls

14
12
10

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

 700
6-minute walk
600

500
Yards

400

300

200
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

120
110 2-minute step
100
90
80
Number of

70
steps

60
50
40
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 Chair sit-and-reach
Inches

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

Back scratch
Inches

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

 12
11 8-foot up-and-go
10

Active
8
@ Inactive

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

Data suggest that for sedentary people, approximately 50 percent of the

decline in performance might have been offset by being active. To
illustrate, look at the chair stand test data in and the exact
mean scores in . Over the three decades from 60 to 64 to 90
to 94, the chair stand test performance of inactive persons declines by
almost 7 points, from an average score of 13.8 for those aged 60 to 64 to
an average score of 6.9 by age 90. Chair stand scores of active people on
the other hand are 3.6 points higher at age 90 (10.5 versus 6.9),
suggesting that if inactive people had been active they might have
improved their performance by approximately 50 percent. In other
words, instead of being able to perform only 6.9 chair stands by age 90,
if a person had been active instead of inactive, she might be able to
perform 10.5 stands, thus improving her performance by 52.2 percent
“Regular physical activity is essential for healthy aging. .
Even in older adults with existing functional limitations,
scientific evidence indicates that regular physical activity is
safe and helps improve functional ability.”
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008
In calculating similar “savings ratios” for the other fitness items, we find
that the average percentage of loss that might have been saved by being
active is 52 percent. This statistic is especially important when
considering that a 50 percent reduction in age-related decline translates,
over a 30-year period, into a 15-year fitness advantage for active
compared with inactive people. Such statistics are in line with other
reports suggesting that regular participation in moderate physical activity
can reduce physical decline by as much as 50 percent and delay age-
related physical deterioration by 10 to 20 years (Chandler & Hadley,
1996; Morey, Pieper, & Cornoni-Huntley, 1998; Paterson & Warburton,
2010; Shephard, 1997).
Of special concern in using normative standards to interpret individual
scores are the characteristics of the study (normative) population. As
indicated in table 3 3, participants in the normative study were 89.1
percent Caucasian, 4.2 percent Hispanic, 2.5 percent African American,
2.3 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, and 1.9 percent from other
groups. Although these proportions are reasonably similar to U.S.
national statistics, there clearly is an overrepresentation of Caucasian
participants and an underrepresentation of other groups, especially
African Americans and Hispanics. The current racial and ethnic
percentages in the United States for the 65-plus population are 80.1
percent Caucasian, 8.3 percent African American, 7.0 percent Hispanic,
3.4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, and 1.2 percent other
(Administration on Aging, 2010).
Also of interest is that study participants were reasonably well educated
(an average 14.5 years of education, equivalent to 2.5 years of college),
they were quite active (more than 50 percent reported that they
participated at least three times per week for at least 30 minutes a day
in moderate activity compared with only about 25 percent nationwide), and
most reported being in good to very good health.
Although participants in the SFT study may not vary greatly from other
participants of the same type (community-residing older adult
volunteers), care must be taken when using SFT norms to interpret
scores of people who are different from those represented in this study.
Again, it is important to remember that the SFT was designed for
independent- living, community-residing older adults and that the test
norms are based on a volunteer sample from this population. Using
volunteers in studies results in a sample of convenience rather than a
sample that is a true representation of the entire population of interest,
with convenience samples almost always being healthier and higher
functioning than the
population as a whole. In reality, though, the norms probably provide
reasonable standards of comparison for the majority of older adults who
are most likely to take these tests—that is, those who willingly
participate in various community programs or in research studies.
In addition to establishing percentile norms for the SFT, data from the
normative study provided a basis for establishing the first ever, as far as
we know, criterion-referenced fitness standards for older adults,
standards that provide health practitioners and rehabilitation and fitness
specialists with clinically relevant information about the level of fitness
needed to remain physically mobile and independent. The next section
describes the procedures followed in establishing criterion-referenced
fitness standards for older adults.

Criterion-Referenced Functional Fitness

Standards
Criterion-referenced standards are developed by identifying scores
associated with a particular goal or category of interest, such as being
healthy or being functionally independent. In many cases, criterion-
referenced standards provide more important types of information than
do norm-referenced standards. For a 60-year-old man, for example,
knowing that his cholesterol level does or does not place him at risk
for cardiac problems is generally more important than knowing whether he
is average for his age group. Similarly, knowing that one's lower-body
strength (as measured by the SFT chair stand test) is at the level
needed to remain physically mobile and independent may be of more
interest than knowing how one's score compares with others of the
same age.
In developing the criterion standards for the SFT (Rikli & Jones,
2012), we were interested in identifying the cut-point score on each
test item that is best associated with having the fitness level needed to
perform the types of everyday activities required to remain physically
independent until late in life, with late in life defined as age 90 and
beyond. These
cut-point scores (standards), which indicate the level of fitness needed
to be physically independent, should be considered appropriate fitness
goals for all older adults regardless of their sex, education, or
ethnicity.
 The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 can generate
personalized reports that allow test participants to
compare their own scores to both normative ranges and
the criterion standards associated with functional
independence. To learn more, visit
http://sft.humankinetics.com.

When interpreting results of the SFT, we believe that important

information can be gained from both norm-referenced and criterion-
referenced standards. Normative standards provide a basis not only for
comparing a person's current fitness level with that of peers but also
for tracking one's rate of change over the years relative to what is
typical of other people the same age. Criterion standards, on the other
hand, can be helpful in identifying the fitness level needed to remain
functionally independent. With people living longer and the number
of older adults increasing throughout much of the world, it is
important for both personal and economic reasons that this large segment
of the population remain healthy and independent. Although it is well
known that preserving mobility and physical independence requires
sufficient physical capacity (strength, endurance, agility, and balance),
limited information has been available regarding the level of fitness
needed to
perform the common everyday activities needed for living
independently. The criterion standards developed for the SFT represent
the first attempt to identify criterion measures for a comprehensive
fitness test battery for older adults. Criterion standards are presented
for all SFT items except for the two flexibility measures, because there
is currently insufficient research concerning the relationship between
flexibility and improved functional ability.
The processes followed in setting criterion standards for the SFT were
consistent with those recommended by leading measurement experts
in exercise science (Baumgartner et a1., 2007; Cureton & Warren,
1990; Mahar & Rowe, 2008; Morrow, Jackson, Disch, & Mood, 2011;
Safrit & Wood, 1995). Because setting criterion-referenced standards
involves referencing a particular score to a particular criterion goal, an
important step in the process is determining how the criterion
(physical independence, in this case) will be defined and evaluated.
 “I use the Senior Fitness Test items routinely in clinical
work. The new criterion-referenced standards will enhance
their relevance and be a major contribution to the field...I
look forward to seeing them integrated into our geriatric
medicine world.”
Miriam C. Morey, associate director of geriatric research, Durham
VA Medical Center; professor of medicine, Duke University School
of Medicine

Functional Abilities Needed for Physical

Independence
With the goal being developing criterion standards for the SFT that
indicate the threshold fitness scores associated with maintaining the
functional abilities needed to be physically independent, it was
important that there be a way of assessing functional ability. For the
study to establish criterion-referenced standards for the SFT (Rikli &
Jones, 2012), functional ability was assessed through self-evaluation
using the composite physical function (CPF) scale described in figure 3
3, a scale that had previously been evaluated for reliability and
validity (Rikli & Jones, 1998). The 12-item CPF scale was designed to
assess physical function across a wide range of abilities—basic
activities of daily living (ADLs; e.g., dressing and bathing oneself) to
intermediate or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs; e.g.,
housework and shopping) to advanced activities such as strenuous
household, sport, and exercise activities. The CPF scale was developed
based on an adaptation and extension of other previously published
scales by Siu, Reuben, and Hays (1990) and by Rosow and Breslau
(1966), with items also taken from the National Health Interview
Survey (National Center for Health Statistics, 1991).
 ’•rqr.,‹*.‹y*v’‹v. o
GA!’‹'iE*•»,t'•''*

ah'#lp :ao
’ 0

o. 2 ' 0
S'/a!k •.•uts ‹Ie '1 rar 2 t›/• bsl 2 ’ 0
d Do •ght hc•u-hold cnc•‹es. such as i 0

: 0
' 0

: 0
0
7 0

2 0

CPF scores of study participants in the nationwide database were used

to categorize people as high (advanced) functioning, moderate
functioning, or low functioning and at risk for loss of physical
independence. High- functioning persons indicated they could
perform all 12 items with no difficulty or assistance, receiving a
perfect CPF score of 24. Moderate- functioning persons scored 14 or
above, meaning they were able to
perform at least 7 items on the CPF without assistance, thus meeting
commonly recognized requirements for physical independence. Low-
functioning persons did not meet the requirements for moderate
functioning, thus indicating they may be at risk for loss of physical
independence. Defining moderate {unctioning (ability to perform at least
7 CPF activities without assistance) as having the ability to function
independently is consistent with data reported by others (Cress,
Petrella, Moore, & Schenkman, 2005; Rosow & Breslau, 1996; Siu et
al., 1990). It is commonly proposed, for example, that living independently
requires such attributes as being able to dress and bathe oneself, do
simple housework, do one's own shopping and errands (requiring the
ability to walk approximately 400 yards or 366 m, far enough to go to
the post office, bank, grocery store, or doctor), lift and carry 10 pounds
(4.5 kg), and negotiate stairs. These are the kinds of activities that
would have to be checked off on the CPF scale in order to meet the
minimum requirement for a rating of moderate functional ability
(ability to do at least 7 CPF items without needing assistance) and,
thereby, also meeting the requirements for being functionally
independent.
The CPF scale also provides for an age-adjusted definition of moderate
functioning, which is the definition of interest when the goal is to
project into later life (say by age 90) one's ability to do the kinds of
activities needed for independent functioning rather than assessing
independent functioning at the current time. Since the process of
establishing criterion fitness standards for the SFT involved projecting
into the future (by age 90) what level of fitness on each test item was
associated with retaining at least moderate functional ability and
physical independence, age- adjusted scoring was used in defining
moderate functioning. As indicated in , an age-adjusted rating of
moderate functioning requires that people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s be
able to score higher (i.e., be able to perform a proportionately greater
number of CPF activities without assistance) than those in their 90s for
a rating of moderate.

Identifying Criterion Fitness Scores Associated

With Maintaining Functional Mobility and
Independence
As is typical in the process of establishing criterion-based standards, a
combination of processes—subjective reasoning, data-based statistics,
and literature review—was involved in arriving at the recommended
fitness standards (cut-point scores) for the SFT test items that would be
associated with the ability (or projected ability) to function independently
in later years. More specifically, fitness standards were developed
based on the fitness scores achieved by the 2,140 moderate-functioning
participants in the previously described normative database ( ),
with adjustments made as needed to reflect other relevant information
from the literature regarding anticipated age- and gender-related
patterns of decline over the 30-year period from the 60s to the 90s.
Naturally, the 3,126 study participants who are rated as high
functioning in table 3 3 would also meet the criteria for independent
functioning in later years.
However, fitness scores for this group of study participants were not
considered in the analysis when establishing minimum fitness standards
for independent functioning because it was assumed their
performance, being much higher than what is needed to meet minimum
requirements, would have an inflationary effect on the fitness
standards being proposed.

The strategy followed in arriving at the recommended fitness standards

for older adults as presented in chapter 5 ( ) involved three
stages, with the first step being to set fitness standards for 90- to 94-
year- olds, utilizing the actual scores obtained by the moderate-
functioning (independent) 90- to 94-year-old participants in the
normative study database. This was considered a logical first step since
the goal of maintaining the level of fitness needed for independent
functioning had already been met by this group. Because there is no
evidence in the literature suggesting that thresholds for maintaining
physical independence should be different for men than for women, the
same fitness standards are proposed for those over 90 for both sexes on
all test items, standards that are based on the average scores obtained by
moderate-functioning 90- to 94-year-old male and female study
participants, but with some rounding off and minor smoothing of
numbers to make them consistent with SFT scoring procedures and
convenient for use by the public.
Previous reports suggest that the proposed standards for the 90- to
94- year-olds are reasonable and in line with other findings
concerning the level of fitness needed for independent functioning.
The 400-yard (366
m) standard for 90- to 94-year-olds on the 6-minute walk, for example,
is within the range of the 360- to 600-meter recommendation that has
been previously proposed as the minimum walking distance needed to
function independently—that is, to be able to navigate within the
community to do one's own shopping and errands (Cohen, Sveen,
Walker, & Brummel-Smith, 1987; Lerner-Frankiel, Vargas, Brown,
Krusell, & Schoneberger, 1986). Also, the 400-yard standard on the 6-
minute walk is close to the quarter-mile (440 yard) criteria used by
Medicare as a cut point for defining mobility limitation and disability
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). The proposed
fitness standard of 8.0 seconds for 90- to 94-year-olds to complete the
8- foot up-and-go test is similar to, but appropriately below, the 8.5-
second cut point that has been identified as a predictor for falling in
older adults, using the same testing protocol (Rose et al., 2002).
Performing below the
8.5 cut point for predicting falls is an especially important
consideration, given that falls and fall-related injuries are a major cause
of loss of independence and escalating health care costs (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2011).
The second stage in the process involved determining appropriate
fitness standards for age groups younger than 90 based on how much
anticipated physical decline needed to be planned for over the 30-year
period between the ages of 60 and 64 and 90 and 94. It was important
that standards be set high enough to allow people to experience normal
rates of age-related decline and not progress below that required for
independent functioning at age 90. In estimating the rate of decline that
needed to be planned for on each of the fitness variables, we first
considered the actual scores obtained by the 2,140 independent-
functioning participants in the normative database, then we calculated the
percent decline seen over the 30-year period from 60 to 64 and 90 to
94. Next, we made adjustments in this figure (percent decline) based on
information from the literature showing a greater rate of decline
(approximately 1.25 as great) when performance is tracked longitudinally
(in the same people from one age to the next) versus cross-sectionally,
which occurred in the normative study when different age groups were
measured at the same time. Therefore, the standards presented in table
M for 60- to 64-year-olds reflect an anticipated rate of age-related
decline that is approximately 1.25 times greater than what was observed
in the normative study participants. See Rikli and Jones (2012) for
additional details.
Once fitness standards were developed for the oldest (90 to 94) and
youngest (60 to 64) age groups, we established standards for the
remaining in-between ages based on the best knowledge available
concerning patterns of declines across these age groups, paying particular
attention to the fact that the rate of decline tends to be greater for men
than women (Doherty, 2003; Hughes et al., 2001); that lower-body
strength tends to decline faster than upper-body strength (Paterson,
Jones, & Rice, 2007; Vandervoordt, 2002); and that there is a well-
recognized curvilinear pattern of age-related decline, with an acceleration
in decline in later years (ACSM, 2009; Doheny, 2003; Macaluso & De
Vito, 2004; Paterson et al., 2007; Vandervoordt, 2002). Note in table 5 5
that the proposed standards reflect a somewhat slower rate of change
during the earlier years compared with the later.
As mentioned previously, the ultimately proposed standards of fitness for
all age groups reflect rounded-off numbers to make them consistent
with SFT scoring procedures and to make them more user-friendly and
convenient for use by practitioners who work with older adults and by
older adults themselves. As seen in table 5 5, all standards for the chair
stand, arm curl, and step test have been reponed in whole numbers to be
consistent with the SFT scoring instructions for these tests, with
standards for the 6-minute walk reported in 5-yard increments, also
consistent with scoring instructions on the SFT.
The criterion performance standards (fitness goals) for each age group
are also illustrated by the star symbols ( * ) in figures 5.2 and 5.3. The
low-functioning zones in these performance chans (figures 5.2 and M)
reflect the average fitness scores of older adults who report being
unable to perform the types of functional activities required for
independent living as described in table 3 4. More specifically, low-
functioning people are those who indicate they can perform only 6 or
fewer activities on the CPF scale without assistance, thus making them
at risk for losing their independence.
 TABLE 3.4 SFT f4eans and Standard Deviations(in Parentheses) for
¥/'omen and Men ¥/'Ith High{Advanced}, f•toderate, and Low Levels of
Funct onal Abll

Cha:‹stand(ruands
VVoien
Men
JS.S (4.2) 8.3 (3.4)
emcu°(#reps
UVOMT N
5.7 (4.6) J4.0 (4.01 t0.5 (3.9}
Men
18.0 I4.'h t0.7 (3.S)
6-m›nute walk ta of ydj
Woman
589 ‹84l St S (t01l 363 (J3S)

2-minute step (¥ steps)

Women
94 (24) BJ (23)
Men
87 (26)
Ch.1i‹ sit -.Ind- reach
(in.)
Wom9n I .0 f3.6)
Men 0.2(4.5) -3.8 (4,8)

—0. I (3.S) -2.0 (3.9) —4.S (4.7)

Me• •-d.0 (4.7j -5.7 -8.0 (S.7)
8-foot up-‹*nd-go (sc'c)
15.2)
Women

To recap, the recommended fitness standards (cut-point scores on

the SFT) were developed based on the projected level of fitness
needed at each age to maintain mobility and physical independence
until late in life, despite normal age-related declines in physical
capacity.
Determining the Validity and Reliability of the
Criterion-Referenced Standards
Once criterion performance standards had been proposed for the SFT, we
assessed their accuracy by testing their validity and reliability on a
separate sample of 82 community-residing older adults (48 women and
34 men; mean age = 70.2; SD - 5.7) (Rikli & Jones, 2012). In
developing criterion standards, it is important to repon not only the
validity and reliability of the measurement tools (the SFT and CPF, in
this case) but also the validity and reliability of the fitness standards as
an indication of their accuracy and consistency in identifying those who
have or have not met the standards (Baumgartner et al., 2007; Morrow
et al., 2011). The validity of a criterion-referenced test addresses the
question of consistency in properly classifying people as having met or
not met the established standards on each test. In this case, a high
validity score would indicate that the established fitness standards were
accurate in a large percentage of cases in predicting those who also met
(or did not meet) the standard for moderate functional ability as
measured by the CPF. As reponed in table 5 5, the validity scores were
quite good (generally above .80) on all items for both men and women.
Per recommended procedures (Baumganner et al., 2007), phi coefficient
correlation values are also presented, providing another indication of
classification consistency.
 TABLE 3.5 Validity of Criterion-Referenced Standards
for Senior Fitness Test Items
TOTAL WOMEN

Chairstand 0.87 -0.7 75 0.86 -0.74 45 0.86 -0.71 30

Armcurl 0.83 -0.66 69 0.83 -0.52 40 0.86 -0.72 29
ó-minutewalk 0.91 -0.67 78 0.88 -0.44 48 0.97 -0.97 30
2-minutestep 0.91 -0.79 ó8 0.92 -0.81 40 0.89 -0.76 28
8-footup-and-go 0.79 -0.56 73 0.8 -0.6 44 0.79 -0.58 29
Note. c - validity coefficient, the proportion of consistent classifications in hoving met or not met the
stan- dard on both measur the SFT field measure and the CPF criterion measure for functional
independence.
@ - phi coefficient, indicates correlation between the classifications on each vorioble (SFT and CPF), another
indication of classification consistency.
Rcp‹inted by permission from R‹kli and dones 20a 2.

Criterion-referenced reliability is determined by administering the test on

two different occasions so that comparisons can be made regarding
the accuracy of the classifications on day 1 versus day 2. Criterion
tests are considered to have good reliability when a large number of
participants who meet (or do not meet) the standard on one day are
consistent in meeting (or not meeting) the standard on the retest day.
As seen in table M, there was considerable consistency in study
participants relative to their meeting (or not meeting) the SFT fitness
standards when the test was given on two different days. Modified
kappa (kg) Values are also
reported to provide a correction for chance in reporting classification
consistency.
TABLE 3.6 Test-Retest Reliability of Criterion-Referenced Standards
for Senior Fitness Test Items
TOTAL WOMEN

Chairstand .89 (.79) 73 .89 (.78) 42 .90 (.80) 31

Armcurl .80 (.ó0) 71 .79 (.58) 39 .81 (.62) 32
6-minutewaIk .93 (.86) 73 .91 (.82) 44 .97 (.94) 29
2-minutestep .88 (.7ó) ó9 .90 (.80) 39 .87 (.74) 30
8-footup-and-go .90 (.80) 71 .88 (.7ó) 40 .94 (.88) 31
Note. Pa - proportion of agreement in panicipants being consistently classified as having met or not met
the SFT performance standard on both day I and day 2.
kq - modified kappa, providing a correction for chance in reporting classification consistency (Looney, 1989).
Reprinted by perm›svon from Rikli and Jones 2012.

Although further study over longer periods is required to fully assess

the accuracy of the recommended criterion standards, with the true test
being tracking participants over time to determine whether the proposed
standards for the younger age groups are good predictors of functional
ability and physical independence in later years. In the meantime,
however, we believe the rationale and empirical evidence supporting the
standards are sufficiently solid to make them useful as guidelines for
evaluating fitness capacity in older adults relative to what is needed to
remain physically independent until late life. Most important, the
standards can provide health and fitness professionals with previously
unavailable reference points for planning exercise interventions that
target specific areas of weakness, thus reducing the risk for eventual
loss of independence.

Summary
Published tests should be valid and reliable and should have
accompanying performance standards to aid in the interpretation of test
scores. Ideally, tests should be validated using multiple sources of
evidence, including content-related, criterion-related, and construct-
related evidence.
In developing the SFT, content (logical) evidence regarding the relevance
of the selected fitness categories was provided through literature review
and through expen opinion, as was discussed in chapter 2 in the sections
Conceptual Background and Functional Fitness Parameters. Criterion-
related evidence was documented by showing the correlation (r values)
between performance on each test item and performance on a
recognized criterion measure, when an appropriate criterion could be
identified.
Construct-related validity of test items was evidenced by their ability
to detect expected performance differences from one age group to
another, and between people with high versus low levels of physical
activity, and by their ability to detect exercise intervention effects.
The test—retest reliability of the SFT was assessed using intraclass
correlation (R) procedures to compare test scores on day 1 with retest
scores on day 2. Studies to assess SFT reliability were designed
specifically to reflect conditions similar to those where most testing is
likely to take place (i.e., in a group setting within the community,
using trained volunteer assistants). As shown in table 3 2, test—retest fi
values for the test items range from .80 to .96, indicating acceptable
reliability for all items.
Percentile norms for the SFT are based on a nationwide study involving
more than 7,000 older Americans from 267 testing sites in 21 states.
Data from the study provide age-group norms (reported in percentiles)
for men and women aged 60 to 94. Test users are reminded that the
SFT norms are based on a volunteer sample of independent-living older
adults who are relatively healthy and tend to be more active than the
population as a whole, which included a slight overrepresentation of
Caucasian versus minority panicipants. The characteristics of the SFT
panicipants are, however, similar to other large-scale samples of
community-residing older adults and therefore appear to provide
relevant standards of comparison for the majority of people most likely
to take the test—that is, willing panicipants residing within the
community.
Test users are funher reminded that the norms represent average
scores of broad ranges of ability levels and that the performance of
specific subgroups of older adults might be expected to vary
considerably.
Finally, the data from the normative study also provided a basis for
developing the first-ever criterion-referenced standards for a
comprehensive fitness test battery for older adults. Specifically, the
average SFT fitness scores of moderate-functioning older adult study
participants, with adjustments made as needed to better reflect
anticipated patterns of age-related decline, were used in establishing the
criterion fitness standards as presented in chapter 5 (table 5 5 and
M and M). The proposed fitness standards provide previously
unavailable reference points for evaluating fitness levels in older adults
relative to those needed to perform the kinds of everyday activities
required for physical independence. Chapter 5 contains additional
information on using the SFT performance tables and chans to interpret
individual test scores.
In the next chapter we describe the procedures for administering and
scoring the SFT items, including information needed to prepare
participants properly for testing; checklists for gathering supplies and
equipment; descriptions of the specific testing and scoring protocols,
with examples of how to adapt test protocols for special populations;
and guidelines for conducting group testing and training volunteer
assistants.
 Chapter 4
Test Administration
Establishing Consistent Testing
Protocols
 n '

The Senior Fitness Test (SFT) was designed to be easy to administer in

common community settings without extensive time, equipment, technical
expertise, or space requirements. The complete test battery can be given in
approximately 20 to 30 minutes to an individual or to pairs, using partners
to assist with scoring. However, we also designed the test to be easily
administered to a group of participants (up to 24 at a time) within a 60- to
90-minute period with the help of trained assistants.
In previous chapters we describe the rationale for the SFT, possible uses of
the SFT, and why each physical parameter is imponant for keeping
people active and independent in later years. In this chapter we provide
detailed instructions for planning and administering the test items and
discuss guidelines for group testing. More specifically, the topics include
the following:
• Pretest procedures and considerations
Administering the tests
• Guidelines for group testing

Pretest Procedures and Considerations

Although the SFT is comparatively simple to administer and score, as with
any test, careful planning is required to ensure reliable testing protocols and
meaningful data. The following is a list of pretesting procedures and
conditions that need to be addressed before test day. Attention to these
points is important to ensure participant safety, testing efficiency, and
accurate measurements.

The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 allows you to enter

participant information individually or impon information for a
group of participants from your own spreadsheet. To learn more,
visit http://sft.humankinetics.com.

1. Technician training. Those administering the test items should be

properly trained and well practiced regarding the testing procedures
— that is, they should understand and be able to follow the exact
protocols for administering the tests and recording the scores. Strict
adherence to the established test procedures is essential if meaningful
comparisons are to be made to the normative standards, or if
comparisons are to be made from one testing time to another, such as
before and after initiating an exercise program. After becoming
familiar with the test instructions contained in this chapter,
technicians should engage in ample practice testing before actually
giving the tests to clients.
2. Informed consent and assumption of liability. If test results are
being used for research purposes, the examiner must obtain informed
 consent from the participants before testing. The purpose of
obtaining informed consent is to protect the rights of human subjects
(i.e., to ensure they have been informed of the test's purposes and
risks and are aware of their right to discontinue testing at any time).
Although a signed informed consent form may not be required in
your program, we recommend that it (or something similar) be used
anyway as a way of explaining the risks and responsibilities
associated with testing.
Here is a sample informed consent and assumption of liability form
describing testing purposes, risks, protocols, and individual rights and
responsibilities.
3. Screening of participants. Although the test items are safe to
administer to most community-residing older adults without medical
screening, there are some exceptions. People who should not
participate in testing without physician approval are those who
have been advised by their doctors not to exercise because of
a medical condition;
have had congestive hean failure;
are currently experiencing joint pain, chest pain, or dizziness or
have exertional angina (chest tightness, pressure, pain,
heaviness) during exercise; or
have uncontrolled high blood pressure (greater than 160/100).
4. When gathering the information you normally obtain from your
clients (name, address, emergency contact, health background, and
so on), you should explain the previously listed conditions and ask
clients to obtain medical clearance from their doctors if needed.
Asking clients to sign an informed consent and assumntion of
liability form that describes these conditions is one way of
communicating this information. Here is a samDle medical clearance
form, should it be required.
5. Pretest instructions to participants. To ensure maximum safety
and performance, panicipants should also be given information before
test day concerning the best way to prepare for testing. Specifically,
participants should be asked to
avoid strenuous physical activity for a day or two before
assessment;
avoid excess alcohol use for 24 hours before testing;
eat a light meal an hour before testing;
wear clothing and shoes appropriate for participating in physical
activity;
bring a hat and sunglasses for walking outside and reading
glasses (if needed) for completing forms;
 bring the informed consent and medical clearance forms, if
required; and
inform the test administrator of any medical conditions or
medications that could affect performance.
6. Also, to improve their scoring accuracy, participants need to
practice taking the aerobic endurance test before test day. They
should time themselves either walking for 6 minutes or stepping for
2 minutes. Practicing the test will help them determine the pace
that works best for them. The informed consent and medical
clearance forms, if needed, should be distributed to clients at the
same time as the list of participant instructions. Here is an example
of a
instructions before assessment form. You may copy or adapt this
form, as needed, for use in your program.
7. Testing equipment and supplies. All testing equipment and
supplies should be gathered and readily available before testing.
Most of the materials required for the SFT are common items that
can be found in most exercise facilities, brought from home, or
obtained easily at local stores. Table 4 1 contains a list of all
equipment and supplies needed to conduct the SFT, along with
possible vendors or sources where they can be obtained, and these
supplies are shown in fieure 4 1. Specific uses of each equipment
and supply item are indicated in the test item descriptions in the next
section.
TA8LE 4.1 Vendors and Sources for SFT Equipment and Supplles

Folding chairs Generally available at major discount stores, sport•

Stopwatcl+os ing goods stores, and some department stores.
Hand weiqhts IS & 8 Ib 12.3 & 3.6 kg) dumbbells)
Scale
Masking tape
30 ›n. (76 cm) cord
Lonq tape measure (>20 yd or
m) 4 cones {or similar marken)
Popsicle sticks(for countinq leps on 6•minuto welk) Usually eveilable in creft end febric sections of dis•
ó0 ›n. (JS0 cm) tape measure count storos or in specialty craft end fabric storos.
J8 in. (4S cm) rulec (half a yardsticN
Tally countor (for 2•minuto step tos0 Ava'lablo in ofF•co supply storos.
Small penc‹Is
Name tags
3 x S in. (7.S x 12.5 cm) cards (may be used as
an alternative way of marking laps in the ó minute
walk}
lnformst‹on in appendix D can be cop'ed onto
Individual score cards(approx. Sx 8in. lt3 x 8.S x J I (22 x 28 cm) card stock. then cut in
20cm8 half.
Intormetion in appendix G can bo copiod and
StatiOO $igAS (fOf Ut0 i0 g¢OU@ tOStiP*g} onlargod onto hoavy paper. Could also be
mounted and laminated i( so desired.
t2-in. plastic goniomoter Aveileble et koeltk/medical supply stores or online.
" Fo‹ g‹ovp teu‹ng. mu!\'plc nvmbe'* ef *'> 'e '‹cm› w'i be ‹equ•ed See ‹ab+o * Z
Figure 4.1 Equipment and supplies you will need to administer
the SFT.
8. Data recording forms (scorecards). Forms for recording the test
scores, similar to the sample shown in fit.ure 4 2, should be
prepared before testing. The “comments” line on the scorecard is for
indicating any deviations from proper protocol. Scores obtained
from adjusted protocols, of course, should not be compared with the
normative standards but can be used for individual comparisons from
one testing time to the next. Note that the information appears twice
on the same page, thus allowing it to be copied onto heavy paper
and then cut in
half to form two approximately 5- by 8-inch scoring cards.
 Scorecard: Senior Fitness Test

Date:

Name: ^'y’3oñob
M: F: Age: Ht: Wt:

Test Item Trial I Trial 2 Comments

1. Chair stand test

(8 in 30 sec) 15 N/A
2. Arm curl test
(8 in 30 sec) 10 N/A

3. 2-minute step test (# of steps)

or &minute walk test (# of yds) 52O yd N/A

4. Chair sit-and•reach test

(nearest 1/2 in.: +/-) +1.5 +2.0 Right or Leh (extended leg)

5. Back scratch test

(nearest 1/2 in.: +/-) -4.5 -3.0 Right or Leh (over shoulder)

6. 8•ft up-and•go test

(nearest 1/10 sec) 6.1 0.3

FIGU9E 4.2 Sample scorecard.

The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 allows you to enter

scores directly into the system using your smart phone or
other mobile device. To learn more, visit
http://sft.humankinetics.com.

9. Testing order. In planning testing order, it is important to consider

whether you will be using the 6-minute walk test or the 2-minute
step test as the aerobic endurance measure. If the 2-minute step
test is used, the test items should be scheduled in the following
order to minimize fatigue: chair stand test, arm curl test, 2-minute
step test, chair sit-and-reach test, back scratch test, and 8-foot up-
and-go test. When test stations are set up circuit-style to assess
large groups,
 participants can begin at any point in the rotation, but should then
follow the recommended order so that the same muscle groups are
not involved in back-to-back tests. If the 6-minute walk test is
used, it should be administered last, after all other tests have been
completed. Normally, if the 6-minute test is given, the 2-minute step
test is omitted from the rotation. If you choose to give both the 2-
minute step test and the 6-minute walk, we recommend that the 6-
minute walk be administered on a separate day to avoid overfatiguing
the participants. The height and weight measurements can be taken at
any time, since they involve no exertion. During group testing we
recommend that the height and weight measures be scheduled at
station 3, along with the
2-minute step test if it is given or instead of the 2-minute step test if it
is omitted.
10. Environmental conditions. The tests should not be administered if
the temperature or humidity conditions are uncomfortable or appear
unsafe for the participants. Because people differ substantially with
respect to their tolerance of temperature and humidity, the best guide
is each person's own comfort level. Always watch for signs of
overheating or overexertion, and stop the test immediately if
symptoms occur or if the participant requests to stop.
11. Signs of overexertion. The following are common physiological
signs associated with overheating or overexertion. Testing should
be stopped immediately if any of the following conditions appear:
• Unusual fatigue or shortness of breath
• Dizziness or light-headedness
• Tightness or pain in chest
• Irregular heartbeat
• Pain of any kind
• Numbness
• Loss of muscle control or balance
• Nausea or vomiting
• Confusion or disorientation
• Blurred vision
12. Emergency procedures and accident reporting. Before you begin
testing, be sure to plan procedures that will be followed in case of
emergency. Know where the closest phone is, and be sure that
emergency procedures and phone numbers are posted clearly. It is
also a good idea to have typed directions to your facility posted
nearby in case you need to call for emergency assistance. If any kind
of injury or illness occurs during testing, you should complete an
accident report describing the situation and the procedures that were
 followed. Here is a .

Administering the Tests

This section describes the procedures you should follow on test day.
Included are guidelines for a proper warm-up and the instructions you
should give to participants before they begin the tests. Also presented are
detailed descriptions of each of the official SFT protocols.
“Normally, at this stage in life, taking a test is the last thing
I want to do. But the Senior Fitness Test is an exception.
It's mostly fun to take and confirms the value of exercise
classes I attend.”
Ken Higdon, age 86, Lakeview Village, Lenexa, Kansas

Warm-Up Exercises and Participant Instructions

Before testing begins, participants should engage in 5 to 8 minutes of warm-
up and stretching activities. It doesn't really matter what specific
activities are performed during the warm-up, as long they involve the
large-muscle groups and are not too strenuous. Marching in place,
swinging the arms, and up-and-back and side-to-side walking steps are
good ways to warm up the muscles. Performing these activities to music
can make them more enjoyable and provide a fun way to begin the
testing experience. After the warm-up, participants should do some
simple stretches, paying special attention to the areas that will be
stretched during the tests, especially the lower-body (hamstring) muscles
and the upper-body (shoulder) area. The following are some sample
exercises that could be used before the SFT to stretch the major muscles
and joints involved in the testing.

Sample Stretching Exercises

Head Turns

Slowly turn your head to the right until you feel gentle tension on the side
of your neck. Hold 5 seconds, and then slowly turn your head to center.
Repeat the stretch to the left side.
Head Half Circles

Slowly tilt your head over to the right side until you feel gentle tension,
and then slowly rotate your head forward and to the left side. Repeat the
stretch
on the opposite side.

Single-Arm Crossover
Using your left hand, grab your right arm and slowly pull it across your
chest until you feel gentle tension. Hold 5 seconds. Repeat with your left
arm.

Chest Stretch
Grasp your hands behind your back, and slowly raise your arms until you
feel gentle tension in your chest, shoulders, and arms. Hold 5 seconds.

Calf Stretch
Step forward with your left foot, keeping your feet parallel to each
other. Shift your body weight forward by bending your left knee,
keeping your right leg straight with your heel on the floor. Hold 10
seconds. Repeat with your right foot forward.
Hamstring Stretch

Extend your left leg forward with your foot lightly flexed. Bend your right
knee and lean forward at the hips, using your hands for support. Keep
leaning forward until you feel gentle tension in the back of your left
leg.
Hold 10 seconds. Repeat with your right leg forward. Be sure to keep
your back straight, not rounded.
 Guidelines for Stretching

Do
• Perform some type of warm-up activity before stretching
(to increase circulation and body temperature).
• Gradually ease into each stretch and hold for 5 to 10 seconds.
• Stretch to the point of gentle tension but not pain.
• Repeat each stretch at least two times.
Don't
• Bounce, jerk, or force a stretch.
• Stretch to the point of pain.
• Hold your breath.

Just before beginning the tests, tell all participants to do the best they can
on all tests but never to push themselves to a point o[overexertion or
beyond what they think is safe for them. Such a statement not only
standardizes the testing instructions for all participants (these were the same
directions given during the normative testing) but also helps clarify for the
participants that the objective on all test items is to try as hard as they
comfortably can, while staying within their own safety limits.

Instructions for Participants

Encourage participants to do the best they can on all tests
but never to push themselves to a point of overexertion or
beyond what they think is safe for them.
Strict adherence to the points mentioned, as well as to the test protocols that
follow, contributes not only to participant safety but also to consistent and
reliable testing procedures. Again, scores obtained from protocols that have
been altered in any way or adapted to meet individual needs should not be
compared with the performance standards, but they can be used for
individual evaluation from one testing time to another. The specific
variation from the recommended protocols should be described in the
comment section of the scorecard.

Safety Precautions and Adaptations for Special

Populations
Although the SFT was originally designed for generally healthy community-
dwelling older adults, because of the ease and safety of test administration,
the test items also have been used with various clinical and frail populations,
including people with metabolic disorders (e.g., cardiovascular conditions,
pulmonary disorders, diabetes), musculoskeletal conditions (e.g.,
osteoporosis, arthritis, hip or knee replacement), neurological and cognitive
disorders (e.g., Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia,
Parkinson's), sensory impairments (e.g., vision, auditory, sensorimotor),
chronic pain conditions (e.g., fibromyalgia, arthritis, complex regional pain
syndrome), and mobility limitations (e.g., balance disorders, sarcopenia,
morbid obesity). Although some elements in the test item protocols may
need to be adjusted, there is no need to change the time of the 30-second
chair stand, 30-second arm curl, 2-minute step, and 6-minute walk.
Although some people may not be able to perform the task for that long, you
just need to write down how much they could do within that period. The
extended time was deliberately set to measure a wide range of physical
abilities and provide an opportunity for people to demonstrate improvements
over time. If the time of the 30-second chair stand was reduced to 10 or 15
seconds, there would be less opportunity to demonstrate improvement.
The safety precautions and adaptations for special populations at the end
of each SFT test item protocol are based on recommendations from a panel
of expert clinicians and practitioners who have experience using the SFT
with various clinical populations. In addition, when administering all test
items, keep in mind the following general guidelines:
• Stop testing immediately if participants are using improper technique
or form (especially if they are in danger of hurting themselves).
 • Stop testing if there are any signs of overexertion, as described in
the section Pretest Procedures and Considerations.
• For people with visual impairments, use bright objects, clear any
clutter, avoid glaring lights, and always ask how you can assist them.
• For participants with auditory impairments, use more visual
demonstrations; have them read the directions; speak clearly and
slowly, using low tones; and remember that facial expressions
communicate a lot.
• For people with chronic pain, assess level of pain before testing. If
pain level is greater than 5 on a 0 to 10 scale, delay testing until the
level is lower. Also, spreading out the assessments over multiple days
would be helpful.
• For participants with cognitive impairments, use simple words; speak
slowly and distinctly; be calm, reassuring, and positive; maintain eye
contact; don't give too many verbal instructions; use nonverbal
gestures and demonstrations to help with communication; and allow
participants adequate time to respond.
“It was found that this test battery (SFT), with minimal
adaptations such as helping with one or both hands while
standing up and the use of additional support for walking,
is suitable for subjects after lower-limb amputation.”
Burger & Marincek, 2001

Official SFT Protocols

This section offers a full description of each of the SFT protocols. Included
under each test item are its purpose, equipment requirements, test
procedures, scoring instructions, safety precautions, and adaptations for
special populations. For each test item, the instructor should first
demonstrate the proper procedures at a reduced pace to ensure that
participants understand what is expected. Then, on each of the timed tests
(chair stand, arm curl, 2-minute step, 8-foot up-and-go, and 6-minute walk),
the demonstration should be repeated at a faster pace to illustrate that the
objective is to do the best one can within safety limits. As previously
described, to minimize fatigue, we recommend giving the test items in the
order they are presented here: chair stand test, arm curl test, 2-minute step
test (if 6-minute walk test is not given), chair sit-and-reach test, back scratch
test, and 8-foot up-and-go test. Again, when testing a large group using
circuit-style stations, participants can begin at any point in the rotation, then
follow the recommended order from that point on. If the 6-minute walk test
is used instead of the 2-minute step test, it should always be administered
after all other tests are completed. The height and weight measures can be
taken at any time because they don't involve any exertion.

30-Second Chair Stand Test

Purpose

To assess lower-body strength

Equipment

Stopwatch and straight-back or folding chair with a seat height of 17 inches

(43 cm); chair is placed against a wall to prevent slipping

Procedure

Instruct the participant to sit in the middle of the chair with back straight,
feet flat on the floor, and arms crossed at the wrists and held against the
chest. On the signal “go,” the participant rises to a full stand, then returns
to a fully seated position. Before testing, have the participant practice one
or two stands. Demonstrate the test slowly to show proper form, then at a
faster pace to show that the objective is to do the best one can within safety
limits. Encourage the participant to complete as many full stands as
possible in the 30 seconds.

Scoring

The score is the total number of stands completed in 30 seconds. If a person

is more than halfway up at the end of 30 seconds, it counts as a full stand.
Administer only one test trial.

Safety Precautions

• Brace the chair against the wall, or have someone hold it

steady. Ideally, use a carpeted surface for the chair to further
keep it from slipping away from its position.
• Watch that the chair is under the participants when they sit, especially
for people who are visually impaired or physically and cognitively
frail.
• Watch for balance problems; quick movement could especially
increase instability for people with sensory impairments (e.g.,
vision or inner ear problems).
 • This test item may be contraindicated for people with chronic pain
disorders and tall people who have had a knee or hip replacement
(using a 17-inch chair may cause an angle greater than 90 degrees
at the hips and knees, causing additional strain). Adapt the test to
reduce pain or improve the angle, or do not use the test.

Adaptations for Special Populations

• If participants cannot perform even one stand with arms crossed

on the chest, allow them to use their hands to push off their legs
or the chair, or use a cane or walker, or use a higher or lower
seat height. Describe the exact adaptation on the scorecard (e.g.,
pushed off thighs, used chair to push off, adjusted seat height up
or down [note inches]). Although the recorded test score is zero
for purposes of comparing to normative standards, also indicate
the adapted score (i.e., 0/14) so that personal performance can be
evaluated from one test time to the next. Of course the goal is to
eventually use the test protocol as written, which doesn't allow
using hands to press off.
• Remember, although the test protocol is the number of stands in
30 seconds, the test time can stop once you observe the person is
no longer able to perform additional stands.
• For the cognitively impaired, you may want to repeat the test item
demonstration.
• If the person is rather frail, she does not have to perform a
practice stand.

30-Second Arm Curl Test

Purpose

To assess upper-body strength

Equipment

Stopwatch, straight-back or folding chair with no arms, 5-pound (2.3 kg)

dumbbell for women, and 8-pound (3.6 kg) dumbbell for men

Procedure

Have the participant sit on a chair with back straight and feet flat on the
floor, with the dominant side of the body close to the edge of the seat. The
weight is held down at the side, perpendicular to the floor, in the
dominant hand with a handshake grip. From the down position, as the
elbow bends the weight is curled up, with the palm gradually rotating to a
facing-up position during flexion of the elbow. The weight is returned as
the elbow is fully extended down, with the hand returning to a handshake
grip. The wrist should not move-the bending is at the elbow. Demonstrate
the test slowly to illustrate the form, then at a faster speed to illustrate the
pace. Have the participant practice one or two repetitions without the weight
to ensure proper form.
On the signal “go,” the participant curls the weight through the full range
of motion (from full extension to full flexion of the lower arm) as many
times as possible in 30 seconds. The upper arm must remain still
throughout the test. Bracing the elbow against the body helps stabilize
the upper arm.

Scoring

The score is the total number of arm curls executed in 30 seconds. If the arm
is more than halfway up at the end of 30 seconds, it counts as a curl.
Administer only one trial.

Safety Precautions

• Make sure participants do not have extensive flexion at the wrist

when performing the test. The flexion and extension are from the
elbow— not the wrist. The wrist should not bend forward and
backward.
• Ask participants if they have any elbow, wrist, or hand pain; adapt
the test to reduce pain, or do not use the test.

Adaptations for Special Populations

• If a participant cannot hold the hand weight because of a health
condition such as arthritis, a Velcro wrist weight can be used.
• If the weight is too heavy for the participant to complete even one
repetition using the correct form, a lighter weight can be substituted.
• If some participants are confused by the motion described in the
test protocol or have difficulty switching from the handshake grip
to the palm-up position, have them hold the weight in only one
position during the arm curl.
• Allow the person to perform the test while standing if it is easier.
• For any adaptations in the test protocol, record both the official test
score (zero) and the adapted test score (e.g., 0/13). Note the type
of adaptation used to complete the test on the comment section of
the scorecard (e.g., 2 lb weight, used green resistance band, did not
return to handshake grip).
• Remember, although the test protocol is the number of curls in
30 seconds, the test time can stop once you observe the person is
no longer able to perform additional curls.
• For the cognitively impaired, you may need to repeat the test
item demonstration.

Height and Weight

Purpose

To assess body mass index (BMI)

Equipment

Scale, 60-inch (150 cm) tape measure, masking tape, and ruler (or other flat
object for marking the top of the head)

Procedure

• Shoes. For the sake of time, shoes can be left on during height
and weight measurements, with adjustments made as described
later.
 • Height. Tape a 60-inch tape measure vertically on the wall with
the zero end positioned exactly 20 inches up from the floor. Have
the participant stand with the back of the head against the wall (the
middle of the head is lined up with the tape measure) and the eyes
looking straight ahead. Place a ruler (or similar object) on top of
the participant's head, and while keeping it level, extend it straight
back to the tape measure. The person's height is the score in inches
indicated on the tape measure plus 20 inches (the distance from the
floor to the zero point on the tape measure). If shoes were worn,
subtract .5 to 1 inch (or more) from the measured height, using
your best judgment. Record height to the nearest half inch. (Note:
A 60- inch tape measure is approximately equivalent to a metric
tape measure of 150 cm. If a metric tape measure is used, for ease
in calculating height, position it exactly 50 cm [equivalent to 19.7
in.] up from the floor. To adjust for shoe height, subtract 1 to 3 cm,
using your best judgment. Record height to the nearest centimeter.)
Weight. Have the participant remove any heavy articles of
clothing (e.g., jackets, heavy sweaters). Measure the person's
weight and record it to the nearest pound (or kilogram), with
adjustments made for the weight of the person's shoes. In general,
subtract 1 pound (approximately .5 kg) for lightweight shoes and
2 pounds (approximately 1 kg) for heavier shoes, using your best
judgment.

Scoring

Record the person's height and weight on the scorecard. You can
estimate body mass index later using the BMI conversion chart. More
precisely, you can determine BMI by dividing weight in kilograms by
height in meters squared:

BMI = kg/m2
BMI can also be calculated by multiplying the weight in pounds by 703,
then dividing by the height in inches squared:

BMI = (lb • 703)/in.2

 2-Minute Step Test

Purpose

To provide an alternative test of aerobic endurance

Equipment

Stopwatch, tape measure or piece of cord about 30 inches (76 cm) long,
masking tape, and a tally counter to help count steps
Setup

For maximum scoring accuracy, have participants practice the test (stepping
in place for 2 minutes) on a day before the test. On test day, begin by
setting the minimum knee-stepping height for each participant, which is at
a level even with the midway point between the kneecap and the front hip
bone (iliac crest). It can be determined using a tape measure or by simply
stretching a piece of cord from the middle of the patella (kneecap) to the
iliac crest, then folding it over and marking this point on the thigh with a
piece of tape.

Monitoring Step Height

You can monitor the correct knee height (stepping height) by moving the
participant to the wall, to a doorway, or next to a high-back chair and
transferring the tape from the thigh to a spot at the same level on the wall
or the chair. If the person is tall enough, step height can also be marked by
stacking books on a nearby short table.

Procedure

On the signal “go,” the participant begins stepping (not running) in place as
many times as possible in the 2-minute period. Although both knees must
be raised to the correct height, use your tally counter to count only the
number of times the right knee reaches the target. When the proper knee
height cannot be maintained, ask the participant to slow down or to stop
until she can regain the proper form, but keep the time running.
Scoring

The score is the number of full steps completed in 2 minutes (i.e., the
number of times the right knee reaches the proper height). Administer
only one trial on test day.

Safety Precautions

• Participants with balance problems should stand next to a wall, next

to or in a doorway, or between rails or chairs (for support in case of
lost balance) and should be spotted carefully.
• Monitor participants for signs of overexertion.
• At the end of the test, ask participants to walk slowly for a minute to
cool down.
• If any participants stomp their feet on the floor during the test,
encourage them to bring their feet down lightly to prevent sore
knees.

Adaptations for Special Populations

• If participants are unstable or visually impaired, have them hold on

to a table, or stand next to a wall, or stand between rails or chairs
to complete the test; closely monitor their progress.
• If participants are unable to lift their knees to the proper height or
can lift only one to the proper height, allow them to complete the
test to the best of their ability.
• If participants are unable to perform the steps in place, allow them
to do a moving march.
• For any adaptations in the test protocol, note the type of
adaptation used to complete the test on the comment section of
the scorecard (e.g., unable to lift one knee to proper height, held
on to rails with both hands, held on to the wall with one hand).
• Remind the frail or less aerobically fit participants that they can rest
at any time (score is the number of steps completed in the 2
minutes).
 Chair Sit-and-Reach Test

Purpose

To assess lower-body (primarily hamstring) flexibility

Equipment

Folding chair with a seat height of 17 inches (43 cm) and with legs that
angle forward to prevent tipping, and an 18-inch (46 cm) ruler (half a
yardstick); chair is placed against a wall to prevent slipping

Procedure

The participant sits on the edge of the chair. The crease between the top
of the leg and the buttocks should be even with the front edge of the chair
seat. One leg is bent and slightly off to one side with the foot flat on the
floor.
The other leg is extended as straight as possible in front of the hip. The
heel is placed on the floor, with the foot flexed at approximately 90
degrees.
With arms outstretched, hands overlapping, and middle fingers even, the
participant slowly bends forward at the hip joint, reaching as far as
possible toward or past the toes. If the extended knee starts to bend, ask
the participant to move slowly back until the knee is straight. The
maximum reach must be held for 2 seconds.
The participant should practice the test on both legs to see which is
preferred (the one resulting in the better score). Only the preferred leg is
used for scoring purposes (for comparison with norms). Once the
preferred leg is determined, have the participant practice a couple more
times for warm-up.

Scoring

After the participant has had two practice trials on the preferred leg,
administer two test trials and record the better test score. Measure the
distance from the tips of the middle fingers to the toe end of the shoe to
the nearest half inch (centimeter). The midpoint at the toe end of the
shoe represents the zero point. If the reach is short of this point, record
the distance as a minus (—) score; if the middle fingers touch the toes,
record a score of zero; and if the reach is past the midpoint of the toes,
record the distance as a plus (+) score.
Safety Precautions

• Place the chair securely against a wall so it doesn't slip during testing.
• Remind participants to exhale as they bend slowly forward and
to avoid bouncing.
• Participants should stretch only to a point of slight discomfort,
never to the point of pain.
• Remind participants not to hold their breath—just continue
breathing throughout the test.
• Do not administer the test to people with severe osteoporosis,
with recent knee or hip replacements, or who have pain when
flexing forward.
• Tester should get down beside the participant to the outside of the
extended leg and place one hand on the knee (gently) so that if the
tester feels the knee start to bend, she can have the participant stop
or pull back if necessary.

Adaptations for Special Populations

• For people who cannot fully extend the knee, note approximate
flexion on the scorecard, using a goniometer (if available) or using
best judgment. The goniometer, if used, is positioned on the outside
of the extended leg with the center axis at the midpoint of the knee
joint, with one arm of the goniometer placed in line with the femur
and one arm in line with the middle of the lower leg.
• If a participant is visually impaired, ask if you can touch him to
help direct him.
Repeat the demonstration for people who have a difficult time
following directions.
• Allow participants to perform the test from a wheelchair (with
wheels locked) or a walker with a seat.
 Back Scratch Test

Purpose

To assess upper-body (shoulder) flexibility

Equipment

18-inch (46 cm) ruler

Procedure
Have the participant stand and place the preferred hand over the same
shoulder, palm down and fingers extended, reaching down the middle of the
back as far as possible. Note that the elbow is pointed up. Ask the
participant to place the other arm around the back of the waist with the
palm up, reaching up the middle of the back as far as possible in an attempt
to touch or overlap the extended middle fingers of both hands. The
participant should practice the test to determine the preferred position (the
hand over the shoulder that produces the best score). Two practice trials are
given before scoring the test.

Check to see if the middle fingers are directed toward each other as best as
possible. Without moving the participant's hands, direct the middle fingers
to the best alignment. Do not allow participants to grab their fingers
together and pull.

Scoring

After giving the participant two warm-up practice trials in the preferred
position, administer two test trials and record the better test score to the
nearest half inch (cm), measuring the distance of overlap, or distance
between, the tips of the middle fingers. Give a minus (—) score if the
middle fingers do not touch, a zero score if the middle fingers just barely
touch, and a plus (+) score if the middle fingers overlap. Always measure
the distance from the tip of one middle finger to the tip of the other,
regardless of their alignment behind the back.

Safety Precautions

• Stop the test if the participant experiences pain.

• Remind participants to continue breathing as they stretch.
• Remind participants to avoid any bouncing or rapid movements.
• Try to take the measurement as quickly as possible so participants
don't have to hold an uncomfortable position.
• Have participants shake and roll their shoulders between trials.
Adaptations for Special Populations

• This test is contraindicated for people with neck and shoulder injuries
or problems (e.g., frozen shoulder, rotator cuff problems, pinched
nerves).

8-Foot Up-and-Go Test

Purpose
To assess agility and dynamic balance

Equipment

Stopwatch, folding chair with 17-inch (43 cm) seat height, tape measure,
and cone (or similar marker)

Setup

Place the chair against the wall, facing a cone marker exactly 8 feet (2.4 m)
away (o), measured from the back of the cone to a point on the floor even
with the front edge of the chair.

Procedure

Instruct the participant to sit in the middle of the chair with back straight,
feet flat on the floor, and hands on the thighs. One foot should be slightly
in front of the other foot, with the torso slightly leaning forward. On the
signal “go,” the participant gets up from the chair, walks as quickly as
possible around either side of the cone (b), and sits back down in the chair.
Be sure to start the timer on the signal “go” whether or not the participant
has started to move, and stop the timer at the exact instant the person sits
back down on the chair.

Scoring
After you have demonstrated the proper form and desired pace, have
the participant practice the test once, and then administer two test trials.
Record the best (fastest) time to the nearest tenth of a second.

Safety Precautions

• When administering the 8-foot up-and-go test, stand between the chair
and cone in order to assist participants in case they lose their
balance. For the frail, you may need to spot them more closely,
especially as they stand, turn around the cone, and sit down. If at
any time you believe a person is at risk for falling, do not
administer the test.
• With a frail or very obese person, watch that he stands up and sits
down safely; you may have to direct the person's bottom to the
chair as he sits down. Also, you may need to use a larger and
sturdier chair and possibly get assistance from a strong person.

Adaptations for Special Populations

• If needed, participants can use a cane or walker for this test.

• For the visually impaired, use a brightly colored or larger cone
to prevent tripping; provide verbal guiding cues; and, if
needed, physically guide the panicipant.
• For the cognitively impaired, mark the walking path with markers
or arrows.
• Allow people who are unable to get up from a chair to start and stop
the test from a standing position.

6-Minute Walk Test*

 *Note: When administering tests, the 6-minute walk test should
always be given last.

Purpose

To assess aerobic endurance

Equipment

Long measuring tape, two stopwatches, four cones (or similar markers),
masking tape, felt-tip marker, 12 to 15 popsicle sticks per person (or
index cards and pencils to keep track of laps walked), chairs for waiting
panners and for walkers who need to rest, and name tags
Setup

For improved pacing and maximum scoring accuracy, have participants

practice a 6-minute walk before test day. To set up on test day, mark off
in 5-yard segments a flat 50-yard rectangular area (20 yards by 5 yards;
see diagram). The inside corners of the measured distance should be
marked with cones, and the 5-yard lines marked with masking tape or
chalk. (In metric units, this can be a 50 m rectangular course marked off
in 5 m segments, with scores then translated to yards for comparison
with the norms in this text).

Procedure

Two or more participants should be tested at a time to standardize

motivation. A skilled instructor can test up to 12 people at once, using
partners to assist with scoring, but 6 at a time is more manageable.
Starting (and stopping) times are staggered 10 seconds apart to
encourage participants to walk at their own pace and not in clusters or
pairs.
Participants wear numbers (using name tags) to indicate the order for
starting and stopping. On the signal “go,” the participant begins walking as
fast as possible (not running) around the course, covering as much distance
as possible in the 6-minute time limit. We recommend using two
stopwatches to time the test, just in case one stops working. To keep track
of the distance walked, panners give popsicle sticks (or similar objects) to
participants each time they complete a lap. Or partners can mark a
scorecard each time a lap is completed, using the “picket fence” system (/ /
/ and so on).
The timer should move to the inside of the marked area after eveiyone
has started. To assist with pacing, the remaining time should be called out
when walkers are about half finished and when about 2 minutes is left.
Participants can stop and rest on the chairs provided, but the time keeps
running. The tester should encourage participants a few times by saying,
“You're doing well,” and “Keep up the good work.” When a participant's
6 minutes has elapsed, the tester asks her to stop, move to the right
(across from the nearest 5-yard marker), and slowly step in place for a
minute to
cool down.

Scoring

Record the scores when all the walkers have been stopped. Each popsicle
stick (or mark on a card) represents 50 yards (or meters). For example, if
a person has eight sticks (representing eight laps) and was stopped next to
the 45-yard (or 45-meter) marker, the score is a total of 445 yards or 445
meters, with meters needing to be converted to yards for comparison with
norms.
Administer only one trial on test day.

Safety Precautions

• Select a well-lit walking area with a level, nonslip surface.

• Position chairs at several points along the outside of the walking
area for participants who want to rest during or after the test and
for emergency situations (e.g., dizziness or overexertion).
• Monitor participants for signs of overexertion.
• For people with diabetes, watch for signs of hyperglycemia
or hypoglycemia. Have fruit juice available for them to
drink.
• At the end of the test, ask participants to continue walking slowly for
a minute to cool down, followed by a lower-calf stretch.
• Have water available for participants to drink before, during, and
after testing.
• Remind panicipants that they can slow down; or they can stop, rest,
and start again until the 6 minutes are up.

Adaptations for Special Populations

• If needed, participants can use a cane or walker for this test to help
 with balance.
• For the frail or visually impaired participant, offer to have a
“buddy” (testing assistant) walk with the panicipant (or even
allow the participant to hold the assistant's arm if needed).
• For any adaptations in the test protocol, note the type of adaptation
used to complete the test on the comment section of the
scorecard (e.g., walked with cane, held arm of tester).
• Remind the frail or less aerobically fit participants that they can rest
at any time (score is the number of yards or meters completed in
the 6 minutes).

Guidelines for Group Testing

It has been our experience that both practitioners and researchers
generally find it preferable to administer the SFT to several people at a
time. In fact, group testing is preferred when the goal is to compare
performance to the normative data, because all normative scores were
collected in a group setting where there tends to be more social
interaction and encouragement than when tests are given in an isolated
environment. Although the SFT is especially suitable for group
administration, careful planning and organization are needed for the
testing to run smoothly and efficiently. With the help of six or seven
trained assistants, it is possible to test up to 24 participants at a time in a
60- to 90-minute period using a circuit-style setup. If all tests, including the
6-minute walk test, are to be administered indoors, a large community
center or gymnasium (approximately 50 feet by 100 feet, or 15 m by 30
m) will be needed. However, a much smaller area will work if the 6-minute
walk test can be administered outdoors or if the 2-minute step test is
substituted for the 6-minute walk test as the measure of aerobic
endurance. Included in this section are instructions for setting up the
stations for testing, a list of equipment and supplies that will be needed at
each station, guidelines for selecting and training testing assistants, and
step-by- step procedures for administering the test items on test day.

The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 allows you to schedule

testing sessions and assign panicipants to groups and to test
 sessions. To learn more, visit http://sft.humankinetics.com.

Station Setup
For the most efficient use of time and to minimize the fatigue effect for
participants, testing stations should be set up circuit-style in the following
order: (1) chair stand test, (2) arm curl test, (3) height and weight and 2-
minute step test (if 6-minute walk test is not used as the aerobic
endurance test), (4) chair sit-and-reach test, (5) back scratch test, and (6) 8-
foot up-and- go test. As indicted in the diagram in figure 4 3, the stations
should be set up around the periphery of the room, allowing space in the
center for the pretest warm-up exercises and for the 6-minute walk if
there is room. This type of station setup allows participants to begin their
testing at any point in the circuit and then rotate in order to the next
station.
 Figure 4.3 Order of station setup for group testing.
Chair stand

8-foot
up-and-go Arm curl

Warm-up area

Back Height and weight/

scratch 2-minute step

Chair
sit-and-each

*If the 6-minute walk test is substituted for the 2-minute step test, it should
always be administered after all other tests are completed.
When the 6-minute walk test is used, it should always be administered after
all other tests are completed. If it is not possible to give the 6-minute walk
test (e.g., because of space limitations, bad weather), then the 2-minute step
test is administered at station 3 along with the height and weight
measurements. If you want to administer both the 2-minute step test and the
6-minute walk test, we recommend including the 2-minute step test as
part of the regular circuit and giving the 6-minute walk test on a separate
day.
For many older adults, it is too exhausting to complete both aerobic tests on
the same day. Doing so could result in unsafe conditions as well as
inaccurate scoring.
For group testing, the specific procedures for administering each of the
test items within the circuit is the same as those described in the
preceding section on official SFT protocols. However, additional
equipment and supplies will be needed, as well as trained assistants to
help at each of the stations.

Testing Equipment, Supplies, and Assistants

For group testing to run smoothly, each station should be properly set up
in advance with all the required equipment and supplies. Although a
special feature of the SFT is that it does not require extensive equipment,
you should not underestimate how long it takes to gather the needed items.
Table M lists the specific equipment and supplies, as well as the number
of assistants, needed at each station. Brief organizational instructions are
also provided. Recall that table 4 1 provides suggested vendors and
sources for obtaining the equipment and supplies.
 TA9LE 4.3 SNtlgn Setup end Inctructfene fer Testing Up to g4

2 Arm ml ie+1 Stop•e‹c”+i. I

5!b * 8 !^ ¢2 3 ^e 6 3 +
Lgl dumL<</Is I› ml.
folding cha•‹, 17 •n. +ea‹
l/i of
'°'9^‹ •<l Sca¥a•d0k 0Ne d 2“
i 2-m•>,is

•
• - . ••• mwc mo in mm
mo
•+e•••• co u r •+ s
«m . x v u

•••»s w « m
u i
•
s
e•mm«u
m m»w
••• -i n
’h“• •p•.qm-.,p&m I.-..,..,-ci‘„..*.•.•.•‘ ,&-.•’•,•". •‘•',‘•• ..,..•,•,•4 ...•..••‘*,.•#

Although not absolutely necessary, it is convenient to have a small table

(such as a card table) set up at each testing station, or, if possible, to
arrange the testing stations near a counter, a table, a bench, or a ledge of
some type that can provide a place to lay out the testing supplies
(scorecards, pencils, stopwatches). To facilitate assigning and rotating
participants, it is also helpful to post station signs indicating the test name
and number of each station. The signs can be copied, mounted, and
laminated to make them more durable for repeated use.
As an aid in organizing and keeping track of all supplies and equipment,
and in ensuring they are readily available at each station on test day, we
have found it helpful to use numbered containers (e.g., gift bags or
shopping bags) to collect and transport the items for each station. For
example, a small bag labeled Station 1 would contain all the items
needed to conduct the chair stand test: a stopwatch, scorecards, and
pencils. Similarly, a somewhat larger bag labeled Station 6 would
contain the items needed for the 8-foot up-and-go: a stopwatch, tape
measure, cone (or similar marker), scorecards, and pencils. In fact, if you
plan to conduct the tests on multiple
occasions, it is helpful to list the contents on the outside of each bag,
making it easy to double-check to see that all equipment and supplies are
available each time they are needed.

Selecting and Training Testing Assistants

For assessing groups of approximately 24 people at a time, resulting in 4
participants per station, 6 to 8 testing assistants are required. If only 3 or
4 assistants are available, we suggest limiting your testing group to 12
instead of 24. Generally, 1 assistant is assigned to each station, with one
exception. If the 2-minute step test is included at station 3 (meaning it is
given instead of the 6-minute walk test), then at least 3, preferably 3,
assistants are needed at this station to maintain good timing and prevent a
backlog in the rotation of groups from one station to the next. If possible,
the lead instructor or researcher should not be assigned to a testing
station but should be free to walk around to monitor the testing and help
rotate groups and to be available in an emergency situation. If additional
assistants happen to be available to help with testing, by all means use
them. Working in partnership during testing is more enjoyable for the
assistants and has a positive effect on testing accuracy and efficiency.
Testing assistants can be older adult volunteers, coworkers, friends, or
student volunteers from a nearby university. Active older adult volunteers
are an especially ideal source of assistance provided they have good
communication skills as well as the physical and mental capabilities
needed to demonstrate and conduct the tests properly. In fact, we have
found older adults to be enthusiastic about helping with the tests, reliable,
accurate, and even willing to go on the road to assist in testing at other
locations, if needed. Regardless of the type of assistants you have, it is
essential that they be properly trained and given ample time to practice
the tests before test day. All testers need to understand the exact
procedures (protocols) for each
test item and the imponance of strictly following such procedures, or if
necessary, of describing any deviation in proper protocol in the comment
section of the scorecard. The following is a summaiy of the procedures that
should be followed in training testing assistants.
• Provide all assistants with written descriptions and visual diagrams
of the test protocols several days before testing, and assign each
assistant only one or two test items to learn and administer. The test
descriptions in this chapter can be copied and distributed to test
assistants.
• Ask the testing assistants to study their assigned test protocols and
practice giving the tests to a friend or a family member.
• Schedule a testing practice day (rehearsal day) before the official
test day for all assistants; demonstrate and review procedures for
each of the test items.
• During the rehearsal, have the assistants practice giving their assigned
tests to each other, and check carefully for accuracy in testing and
scoring.
• If you are including the 6-minute walk test as one of the test
items, explain the protocol fully to your assistants during the
practice day, emphasizing their role in helping to get all
participants to the proper location for testing, helping to assign
partners, watching for signs of overexertion during the test, and
assisting with scoring at the end of the test. If time permits,
assistants should partner up and practice the 6-minute walk test
exactly as it will be given on test day.

Test-Day Procedures
To help with planning, we have compiled the following list of test-day
procedures based on our experience in administering the SFT to many
different groups of older adults at numerous test sites. Following these steps
should help your test day run smoothly.
1. You and all your assistants should arrive at the testing site at least
30 minutes before testing to set up the test stations and the 6-minute
walk test course, if it is to be included.
2. Before participants arrive, call all test assistants together to review
procedures and answer any last-minute questions.
3. Assign someone to collect all informed consent and medical
clearance forms (if applicable) from participants.
4. After welcoming participants, you or an assistant should conduct a
5- to 8-minute warm-up for the participants, including gentle
stretching exercises. If possible, use lively music for the warm-up
to promote enjoyment and a positive mood for the day.
5. Before sending participants to their stations, explain that the goal is
to do the best they can on all tests but never to push themselves to
a point of overexertion or beyond what they think is safe for them.
Remind panicipants they should discontinue any activity that
causes them pain or discomfort.
6. After the warm-up and special instructions, direct the participants
(in equal numbers) to one of the six stations. Participants will start
at different stations; however, they should rotate from station to
station in numerical order. For example, if a participant starts at
station 5, she rotates to station 6, then station 1, and so on until she
completes all stations. Have the participants remain at their
respective test stations until eveiyone has completed the tests. Then
ask participants to take their scorecards and rotate in a clockwise
direction to the next station.
Sample testing scenario 1: Assuming 24 participants and 6 to 8
assistants, 4 participants would be assigned to each of the six stations
to begin the testing. Each assistant remains at the same station
throughout the testing, while participants rotate from one station to the
next.
Sample testing scenario 2: Assuming 12 participants and 3 or 4
assistants, 4 participants are assigned to stations 1, 3, and 5 to
begin the testing. Each assistant is responsible for conducting tests
at two stations in a row. For example, when the assistant at station
1 completes the chair stand tests, he moves with these participants to
station 2 to conduct the arm curl. Meanwhile, the assistant at station
3 also conducts the test at station 4, and so on. The participants
eventually rotate to all six stations, while the assistants go back and
fonh between their two assigned stations.
7. If you have scheduled the 6-minute walk (which is always given
after all other tests are completed), have participants bring their
scorecards and walk together as a group to the test location. Refer to
the 6-minute walk protocol described earlier in this chapter for
setup and instructions. With a skilled instructor, it is possible to
test up to 12 people at a time, using partners to help count laps.
However, if time permits, testing 6 at a time is more manageable.
 8. After testing, collect all scorecards and thank participants for their
cooperation. Provide them with information about when and how
they will receive their test results.

Summary
The SFT can be administered easily within the community setting. The
complete test battery can be given to one or two people in 20 to 30
minutes and, with the help of trained assistants, can be given to a group
of up to 24 older adults in a 60- to 90-minute period. Important pretest
considerations include the following:
• Properly training test technicians
• Obtaining informed consent
• Properly screening participants
• Providing pretest instructions to panicipants
Gathering testing equipment and supplies
Preparing scorecards
• Planning proper testing order
• Considering environmental conditions and signs of overexertion
On testing day it is important to include a proper warm-up, provide
standardized instructions to participants, and conduct the tests according to
the official SFT protocols described in this chapter. When deviations
from proper protocols are necessary, they should be described in the
comment section of the scorecard.
The SFT is especially conducive to group testing, but this requires careful
planning for the testing to run smoothly on test day. Specifically, special
attention is needed with respect to (1) planning the testing stations, (2)
gathering and organizing the equipment and supplies, (3) selecting and
training testing assistants, and (4) planning the step-by-step test-day
procedures.

Now that you know how to administer the SFT, the next chapter provides
information on interpreting the test results and providing feedback to clients.
Suggestions are made for using feedback to motivate clients and improve
their performances.
 Chapter S
Test Results
JnierRreting and Using Feedback to
Motivate and J••Rrove Performance
We have found that after taking the Senior Fitness Test (SFT), most of
the participants immediately want to know three things: (1) what their
scores are, (2) what their scores mean, and (3) how they can improve
their scores. In this chapter we explain how to interpret the results of the
SFT items to your clients, including how to read the performance
tables and charts that were developed as part of the national study to
establish
the fitness standards. We also discuss ways of using the feedback from
the test items to motivate your clients to increase their level of physical
activity and improve their fitness level. Specifically, we will provide
information on
interpreting test scores,
providing feedback to participants, and
using test results to motivate participants.

Interpreting Test Scores

An important feature of the SFT is its accompanying performance
standards that can be used in interpreting test results. As you will
recall from chapter 3, performance standards can be either norm
referenced (standards that make it possible to compare one's scores
with those of others of the same age and sex) or criterion referenced
(standards that represent a criterion behavior or goal, such as having
the fitness level needed to perform everyday activities). Both
normative and criterion- referenced standards have been developed for
the SFT based on a national study involving more than 7,000 older
adults, aged 60 to 94, from 267 different test sites throughout the
United States. Data from the study were analyzed and then organized
into various tables and charts that can be used in interpreting test
scores.

Normative Tables
A common method of presenting normative data is through the use of
percentile tables. Percentile norms indicate how a person's test scores
rank relative to her peers. A percentile rank indicates the point in a
distribution of scores below which that percentage of scores falls. For
example, a chair stand test score of 15 for a 62-year-old woman would
fall at the 50th percentile (as seen in the sample percentile norms in
table M), meaning half (50 percent) of the women her age typically
score below her and half score above her. However, another woman of
the same age scoring 20 on the chair stand test would have a percentile
rank of 90, indicating she was better than 90 percent in her age group
and that only 10 percent scored above her. Percentile tables for the
Senior Fitness
Test contain the full distribution of percentile scores for women and men
on each of the SFT items.
 TABLE 5.1 Sample Chart ofAge-Group Percentile Norms:
Chair Stand Test(¥/omen)

9S 21 18 17
90 20 J8 18 17 17 IS IS
8S 19 17 17 16 16 J4 13
80 18 1ó 1ó 1ó 1S 14 12
7S 17 16 1S 1S 14 13 11
70 17 IS IS 14 13 12 11
6S 1ó IS 14 14 13 J2 10
60 1ó 14 14 13 12 11 9
SS 1S 14 13 13 12 11 9
S0 IS 14 13 12 11 J0 8
4S J4 13 12 12 11 10 7
40 14 13 12 12 10 9 7
3S J3 12 U 11 10 9 ó
30 12 12 11 11 9 8 5
2S J2 JJ 10 10 9 8 4
20 11 11 10 9 8 7 4
1S 10 10 9 9 7 ó 3
10 9 9 8 8 6 S 1
S 8 8 7 6 4 4 0
Note: Percentile no‹ms for all SFT test items arc presented in appendix li.
Reprinted by perm+iston from Rikl• and Jones 1999b.

Percentile tables can also be used to compare a person's own scores

across the different fitness categories. Determining the corresponding
percentile rank for various test scores as illustrated in table 5 2
indicates a person's relative strengths and weaknesses. For example, if
a 73-year- old man obtained the raw fitness scores presented in table
5 2, his corresponding percentile ranks (determined from the
the Senior Fitness Test) would tell us he is above average on the first
three tests (chair stand, arm curl, and 6-minute walk, scoring at the
75th,
70th, and 90th percentiles, respectively) but below average (at the 20th
percentile) in lower-body flexibility.
 TABLE 5.2 Example of Raw Scores and Percentile Equivalents
Per centil e ran k
(ap prox.) (fo r men
aged 70-74)
Chair stand test (lower-body strength) 17 7Sth
Arm curl test (upper-body strength) 20 70th
6•minute walk test (aerobic endurance) 740 90th
Chair sit-and-reach test (lower-body flexibility) —4.0 20th

Test results, such as those presented in table 5 2, can help in planning

programs that are specifically targeted toward the needs of clients. Based
on this gentleman's test scores, a recommended exercise program
probably should include extra activities for improving his lower-body
flexibility. Recording your client's percentile scores on a personal profile
form, such as the one in fieure 5 1, can help interpret personal
strengths and weaknesses and track progress from one testing time to
the next.
Also, for those who have access to a computer, the Senior Fitness Test
Software 2.0 can be used to prepare personalized, professional-looking
records for clients and can help maintain class records and document
program outcomes.

Reports generated from the Senior Fitness Test Software

2.0 show an individual participant's scores placed on a
continuum of normative values to help participants interpret
the scores. To learn more, visit
http://sft.humankinetics.com.
 Personal Profile Form
Test Date ^-’^-’

A9e M X C

2-min ute

Chair sit and 1

reagh :

an=d
go

Tables 5 3 and provide an alternative version of the normative

performance standards on each of the SFT items. In these simplified
tables, only the normal range of scores is given for each age group,
with normal defined as the middle 50 percent of the scores—that is,
those falling between the 25th and 75th percentiles. To use these
tables, you simply check to see whether a particular score falls within
the normal
range or if it is above or below the normal range. For a 72-year-old
woman, a chair stand test score of 12 falls within the 10 to 15
range indicated for 70- to 74-year-olds and therefore would be
evaluated as normal or typical for this age group. A chair stand test
score of 9 or lower, on the other hand, would be considered below
normal for 70- to 74-year-olds, while scores falling above the
indicated range (i.e., 16 or higher) would be considered above
normal.
TABLE 5.3 Normal Range of Scores for '/omen°

Chair stand 12-17 11-1ó 10-15 10-15 9-14 8-13 4-11

(t/ of stcnds)
Arm Curl 13-19 12-18 12-17 11-17 10-16 10-1S &13
(# of reps)
6-mir1ute S4S-óó0 SIXI-ó3S 480-ó1S 43S-S8S 385-540 340-S1O 275-440
•valk“* (# of
yd)
2-minute 75-107 73-107 ó8-101 ó8-1fX/ óO90 55-85 44-72
step (#
of steps)
Chair sin- -0.5-+5.0 -0.5-+4.5 -1.0-+4.0 -1.S-+3.5 -2.0-+3.0 -2.5-+2.5 —4.5-+1.0
and-reach”
(in. +/—)
Back -3.0-+1.5 —3.S-+1.5 —4.0-+J.0 -S.0-+O.S -5.5-+0.0 -7.0--1.0 —8.0--1.0
soatch'

&foot up- ó.0-4.4 6.44.8 7.1-4.9 7.4-5.2 8.7-5.7 9.ó-6.2 11.5-7.3

and-go (sec)
” Normal range of scores is defined as the middle S0’X for each age group {between the 2Sth and 75th
percentiles). Scores above the range would be cons<fcred obovc normoI for the ogc gioup, ond those below
the r*ngc would be considered below normal.
”” Scores arc rounded to the nearest S yd.
' $coros orc rounded to the nearest half inch
 TABLE 5.4 Normal Renge of Scores for I•ten"

Chair stand 14-19 12-18 12-17 11-17 10-IS 8-14 7-12

(g of stands)
Arm curl (¥ of 1&22 15-21 14-2t 13-19 13-19 1t -17 10•14
reps)
6winute 610•735 5ó0•70 I 545-ó80 470•ó40 445 5 380-570 305•S00
walk““(5 ofyd}
2-minute step 87-115 8ó-116 8Q1t0 73-109 71-103 59-9t S2-8ó
(¥ of steps)
Chair sit-and- -2.S-+4.0 —3.0-+3.0 —3.0-+3.0 —4.&+2.0 -S.5-+1.S -S.S-+0.S -6.5--0.5

Back scratch’ -ó.5-+0.0 -7.5--1.0 -•8.0--1.0 -9.&-2.0 -9.5--2.0 -9.5--3.0 -10.5--4.0

(in. +/-)
8-foot up•and- S.53.8 S.9-4.3 6.2-4.4 7.2-4.6 7.ó-S.2 8.9-S.S 10.0-ó.2
go (sec)
° Normal range of scores is defined os the m<JdIe 50’¥• of carh age group (between tic 25th and 7Sth
percentiles). Scores abo' e the range would be considered above normal for the age group. and those below the
range wouk:I be considered below normal.
”” Scores are ‹ounded to the nearest 5 yd.
“Scoros aro roundod to the noarmt hall inch.

“The SFT is the best tool I know of that allows for

national benchmarking of program effectiveness. With
only a small space, some simple equipment, and the test's
easy-to-follow instructions, our program leaders have a
powerful tool for tracking the progress of their clients and
programs.”
Jan Montague, president, Whole-Person Wellness Solutions,
www.wpws.net

Criterion Performance Scores

Another perhaps more important way to evaluate test scores is to
compare them with criterion standards or reference points, such as
the fitness cut-point scores presented in table 5 5, which indicate the level
of fitness needed to remain physically mobile and independent until late
in life. The data collected in our national study described in chapter 3,
in addition to providing information about what is typical for women
and
men at various ages, also provided information on fitness levels
associated with maintaining functional mobility and physical
independence. The average fitness scores for moderate-functioning
women and men (i.e., those in the study who reported having no
difficulty performing normal everyday activities as they aged, such as
climbing stairs, walking a half mile, or carrying groceries, as indicated
on the CPF scale presented in figure 3 3) provide a type of threshold
value or criterion reference point that indicates having a sufficient level
of fitness to maintain functional mobility and independence. See chapter
3 for additional details concerning the definition of moderate-
functioning (independent) older adults and procedures for establishing
the recommended fitness standards.
TABLE 5.5 SFT Scores (Criterion Fitness Standards) Associated
With Maintaining Functional Mobility and
Physical Independence
AGE GROUPS

Chair stand (ff in 30 sec)

Women 15 IS 14 13 12 11 9
Men 17 16 15 14 13 11 9
Arm curl (# in 30 sec)
Women 17 17 16 15 14 13 11
Men 19 t8 17 16 15 13 11
ó-minute walk (/f of yd)
Women 625 605 S80 5S0 510 460 400
Men ó80 650 620 580 530 470 400
2-minute step (# of steps)
Women 97 93 89 84 78 70 60
Men 10ó 101 9S 88 80 71 60
8-foot up-and-go (sec)
Women 5.0 S.3 S.6 6.0 6.S 7.1 8.0
Men 4.8 5.1 5.5 5.9 6.4 7.1 8.0
Rcprinted by perm•won from R›kli and Jones 20J 2.

and M provide graphical information showing above

average, normal, below average, and low functioning scoring zones for
each of the test items for women and men, as well as the criterion fitness
scores (signified by the star symbol) that are the recommended fitness
goals for maintaining functional mobility and independence. Scores
falling at or above the fitness standards (star symbols) indicate that a
person has met the recommended standard for his age group, a
standard that was set high enough to allow for normal age-related
declines in fitness level without progressing below that associated with
independent functioning in later life (by the age of 90). The low
functioning zone reflects the average scores of people in the normative
database who were unable to perform without assistance at least 7
activities on the CPF scale, the number required for maintaining
physical independence (see
table 3 4).
 Figure 5.2 SFT performance charts for women. Exact figures are
reported in table 5 5.
30-second chair stand—Women
(lower body strength)
2
18
Number of stands

16
14
12
10

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

 3&second arm curl—Women
(upper body strength)
22
20
18
16
Number of

14
12
curls

10

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

 6-minute walk—Women
800 (aerobic endurance)
700
Yards walked

600

500

400

300

200
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 2-minute ste Women
(aerobic endurance)
120
110
æ 100
* 90
e 80
E 70
” 60
50
40
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 Chair sit-and-reach—Women
(lower body flexibiliÇ)
Inches

—6
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 Back scratch—Women
(upper body flexibility)

—10
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 8-foot up-and-g Women
(agility/dynamic balance)

@ Normal range

@j Below average
8
••e-75lh percentile
25Ih percentile

10

J2 @ Low functioning'
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

A Functional fitness standards

(criterion scores associated with
maintaining mobility and physical
independence until late in life
despite age-related declines)

lReflects average fitness scores of men and women who can perform
only 6 or fewer activities on the CPF scale without assistance (see tahle
 Figure 5.3 SFT performance chans for men. Exact figures are reponed
in table 5 5.
30-second chair stanoMen
(lower body strength)
2
18
Number of stands

16
14
12
10

60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

 3&second arm curl—Men
(upper body strength)
22
20
18
Number of curls

16
14
12
10

8
" I

6
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 6-minute walk—Men
800 (aerobic enśurancej
700

600
Yards walked

500
400

300
200
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 2-minute ste Men
(aerobic endurance)
120
110
,a,100
a
Ț 90
y
80
a .
E 70
n
60
50
40
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 Chair sit-and-reach—Men
(lower boQ flexibiliȘ)
Inches

—8
Ô0-Ò4 ÒÉ-Ô9 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 Back scratch—Men
(upper body flexibiliŞ)

-8
-10
-12
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
 &foot up-and-go—Men
(agility/dynamic balance)
2 Above average

4 @ Normal range
S øcofldS

8 75th percentile
25th percentile
10

12 @ Low lunclioning’
60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94
E5469/Rikli/fig5.3g/430474/aIw/r4 Functional fitness standards
(criterion scores associated with
maintaining mobility and physical
independence until late in life
despite age•elated declines)

lReflects average fitness scores of men and women who can perform
only 6 or fewer activities on the CPF scale without assistance (see tahle

Age, of course, is an imponant factor in interpreting one's score

relative to having a sufficient level of fitness to support long-term
functional mobility and independence. A chair stand test score of 11,
for example, would be interpreted quite differently for a woman who
is 82 years old than for one who is 62. For an 82-year-old woman, a
score of 11 falls within the normal range of lower-body strength for
her age group and meets the recommended fitness standard for those
aged 80 to 84. For a 62-year-old woman, however, a score of 11
indicates she is below average for her age group and below the
recommended fitness standard associated with having good functional
mobility for her age. A 62-year- old woman who scores 15 or more
chair stands, on the other hand, meets the recommended fitness standard
for her age group, meaning she should have a sufficient level of lower-
body strength to withstand normal age- related declines and not
progress below that which is associated with independent functioning
at age 90. The 25th and 75th percentile lines in figures 5 2 and
provide a general indication of the typical,
anticipated
aging curves for each of the various test items.
Body mass index (BMI), another important variable in maintaining good
health and mobility, can be evaluated through use of the BMI conversion
chan. Although an optimal BMI range for older adults has not been
determined, various sources suggest that BMI values above 25 or
below 19 may be associated with increased risk for disease and
disability in later years (ACSM, 2010; Shephard, 1997). Although
BMI values provide useful body weight guidelines for most people,
they should be interpreted with caution in older adults since unknown
changes in bone and muscle loss can result in an increased chance of
misclassification in this age group.

Precautions in Interpreting Performance

Standards
The recommended fitness standards presented in table 5 5 and in the
performance charts ( and M) should be thought of as
general performance guidelines rather than as absolute predictors of
functional mobility level. Certainly, additional research is needed to
validate these data. However, because of the large number of people
tested in our study, we do think these data provide useful, previously
unavailable reference points (standards) for evaluating fitness levels in
older adults relative to their ability to remain physically mobile and
independent until late in life.
Test users are reminded that the cut-point scores used to identify the
recommended fitness standards represent group averages and may not
apply equally to all people. For example, people who are very short (or
perhaps very tall) may not have scored well on some of the test items
because of their size, but they may in fact be maintaining their fitness
and functional ability quite well. With test directions standardized for
all participants, such as that requiring a 17-inch (43 cm) seat height for
the chair stand, it could be that a very short or very tall person, for
example, may not score as well as those of more average height because
of the extra difficulty of getting up and down from the chair seat.
Also, when using the tables and charts to assist with interpretation of
scores, keep in mind the overall characteristics of the study population.
As indicated in chapter 3, those participating in the study were
independent-living volunteers who were fairly active, 89 percent
Caucasian, and fairly well educated. Additionally, it is important to
note that the data in the tables represent overall means and may not
be representative of individual subgroups of older adults. It is not
clear, for example, how these scores would compare with those of
different ethnic and racial groups, groups from other countries, less
motivated (e.g., nonvolunteer) participants, or people with multiple
chronic health conditions.

Methods of Providing Feedback to

Participants
Of the mechanisms discussed earlier (tables, charts, personal profile
forms, and computerized printouts), the ones that work best for
explaining test results to your participants will depend on each specific
situation. If you have given the SFT to a large group and have little
time to provide individualized feedback, it will probably work best for
you to return the individual scorecards (after you've made copies or
entered the scores into the Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0).
Participants can then compare their scores against posted standards,
using either the normal range of scores tables ( and M), the
criterion fitness standards in table 5 5, or the SFT performance charts.
By referring to the charts, participants can compare their scores with
those of other people their age to find out whether their performance on
each test is considered normal, above normal, or below normal and
whether or not they have met the recommended fitness standards for
their age. Before giving back the scorecards, we recommend that you
meet with your group to explain what the performance standards
represent and how to use the tables and charts. It is also important at
this time to assure participants, particularly those with low scores, that
fitness can be improved regardless of a person's age or current
condition.
If time and resources permit, more meaningful feedback can be provided
to clients through individualized personal profile forms with the
reports generated from the Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0. These
forms provide clients with the information they need to interpret their
scores.
Raw scores are listed for each test item along with the corresponding
percentile ranks, the evaluation category (normal, above normal, or
below normal), and whether or not the recommended fitness scores
have been met. It is important to point out that scoring within the
normal range does not necessarily mean that a person's score is good.
Considering that many older adults in the normative data base were
quite inactive, the average scores in this distribution are often below
the fitness goal that is recommended in order to maintain physical
independence.
Using these forms makes it easy to evaluate a person's relative
strengths and weaknesses within the fitness categories (i.e., what the
client is best or worst at) and makes it easy to compare scores from
one testing time to the next. In the SFT Software 2.0, the program
evaluates each person's scores relative to the established standards
and provides clients with
easy-to-read charts explaining their scores. The software also facilitates
ongoing record keeping of your clients and provides you with handy
group statistics for evaluating the effectiveness of your total program.
See the sidebar for more information on the reporting options included
with this software.
Again, regardless of the feedback method used, remember it is
critically important for you to help clients understand that no matter
what their age or current condition, improvement is always possible!
Never just assess clients and give them feedback about their fitness,
especially if their scores are low, without giving them hope and
encouragement at the same time. Instead, explain to them that
numerous studies show it is never too late and that people are never
too old to improve their fitness, and you will help them plan exercise
activities to improve their performance if they so desire. We also
suggest that you help clients understand that although the performance
standards (charts) make it possible for them to compare their scores
with those of others their age, the more important concern is how their
own scores change over time. This is especially important for people
with low performance scores so they won't become discouraged.
Suggestions for motivating participants to increase their physical
activity level and improve their performance are discussed in the next
section.
Reporting With the Senior Fitness Test Software
2.0
The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 provides several reporting
functions to help you organize and interpret test results as well as
provide individualized feedback to participants. The software
allows you to do the following:
• Display basic information for each participant and export
participant lists.
• Generate individual test result reports that compare a
participant's scores to the normative ranges for his or her
age and sex, as well as to the criterion-referenced standard
scores he or she should target to remain functionally
independent.
• Graphically display the participant's scores on a continuum
of normative values for his or her age.
Graphically display a participant's scores from several
testing sessions in a report that tracks individual progress
over time.
• Generate group performance reports for your own use that
display the number of participants in a testing session,
participants' individual scores on a given test, and the range
of scores within the group. The report also calculates
average age of participants, average score, and standard
deviation to help you interpret the results and understand
the needs of your participant group.
• Print information sheets on important fitness topics
to distribute to participants.
• Transfer data to or from Microsoft Excel.
To access the Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0, go to
http://sft.humankinetics.com. If you have already purchased a
subscription, you can follow the link on this page to enter your
key code. If you have not purchased the software, follow the links
on this page to purchase a subscription.
 Using Test Results to Motivate
Participants
Almost everyone recognizes that adequate physical activity is
important for optimal health and functioning, yet few people (less
than 20 percent of older adults) get the amount of activity they need.
According to exercise experts, an important first step in motivating
people to become more active is to assess their fitness level and
provide individualized feedback, presuming, of course, that people are
at the stage of at least contemplating becoming more active. In fact,
Dr. Kenneth Cooper, the founder and medical director of the world-
renowned Cooper Institute in Dallas, designed his entire program on
the premise that evaluation is the most powerful motivator for getting
people to improve their fitness level. According to Cooper, and
according to our own experiences in working with older adults, the
steps to success in getting people to change their activity behaviors
are as follows:
• £vofiiation—assessing people's current level of fitness
and identifying strengths and weaknesses
• Education and motivi2tion—helping people understand why fitness
is important in their lives
• Goal setting and program planning—planning and carrying out
a relevant program based on individual goals designed to meet
individual needs and interests
• Monitoring progress and reevaluotion—checking
participants' progress and adjusting the program as needed
If you have given the SFT to your clients, you already have
completed step 1 of the steps to success, that of evaluation. For many
people, simply having their fitness level assessed motivates them to
increase their activity level and improve their fitness. The remainder
of the chapter describes procedures for addressing the steps
subsequent to evaluation.

Educating and Motivating Participants

After administering the SFT to your clients or program participants, we
suggest that you meet with them, either individually or as a group, to
give them their feedback. This provides an ideal time to educate and
motivate about the importance of being physically active and fit in later
life. You especially should point out the strong relationship between
people's activity level and their fitness scores (surprisingly, many
people are not aware of this) and the fact that as much as half of the
typical decline associated with aging may not be due to aging at all, but
rather to disuse-that is, people's tendency to become less and less active
as they age.
Point out to your clients that as people are living longer, it is becoming
increasingly important that they pay attention to their fitness level if
they want to remain healthy and independent during their later years.
Learning that participation in physical activity can help delay the onset
of physical frailty and extend their physical independence can be very
motivating.
Statistics indicate that many older adults by their late 70s or early 80s,
particularly those with sedentary lifestyles, will lose the strength and
endurance they need to perform common everyday activities, such as
climbing stairs, walking to the store, and taking care of their own
personal and household activities, unless steps are taken to increase their
activity level. For many, maintaining a physically active lifestyle can
easily add 10 years or more to their functional or active life span, thus
significantly delaying the onset of physical frailty.
It is especially critical for older people to understand the importance of
preventing the vicious cycle that occurs for so many—the cycle that
begins with becoming less active as they age, which in turn leads to
lower energy levels (less desire to be active), which then results in
even further reductions in activity, then further declines in energy
levels, and on and on. Eventually, this downward spiral can result in
people's strength and endurance declining to the point that it is
hazardous to their health and their ability to carry out normal everyday
activities. Scores obtained on the SFT items can provide important
feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of older adults and
whether or not their physical declines are placing them at risk for
losing their functional mobility.
The good news that you can share with your clients, however, is that
no matter what their age or current physical condition, it is always
possible to improve their level of fitness by increasing their activity
level. You
can tell them, citing research reported in national and international
physical activity guidelines, that people of all ages—even into their late
80s and 90s—have experienced significant gains in fitness after
beginning exercise programs, gains that have led to improved functional
performance (e.g., walking and balance) and, for some, the ability to
discard their canes and walk without assistance. Such guidelines have
recently been developed by the World Health Organization and by
researchers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and
elsewhere (ACSM, 2009; Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology,
2011; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008; UK
Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and
Protection, 2011; World Health Organization, 2010).
You can also motivate your clients by sharing success stories from your
own program. Older people are interested in the activities of their peers
and are often motivated by their successes. In our program, for
example, a 79-year-old woman who had several chronic health
conditions and was on 13 medications scored below average on most
test items when she first came in to be tested. She was so surprised at
how poorly she scored compared with others her age that she
immediately hired a personal trainer. Six months later, when she came
back for a reevaluation, she not only scored in the normal range on
most tests but was also down to taking only 4 medications and saying
she felt like a new person. She also looked like a new person—full of
energy and smiles. Certainly we are not suggesting that exercise can be
used to cure medical problems, but we do know it can help in managing
numerous conditions.
“The Senior Fitness Test (SFT) battery is quick, simple,
noninvasive and very functional—all important
considerations for our senior participants. It also proves to
be a great tool for motivation as it offers a thorough report
highlighting how participants' scores compare to others of
their same age and gender and also to their own previous
test scores.”
Clara Fitzgerald, director, Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging,
London, Ontario
Even relatively small success stories can be interesting and meaningful.
One woman, after 8 weeks in our program, was thrilled when she
found she had gained enough upper-body strength to be able, for the
first time, to pull down the back door (hatch) in her minivan without
having to ask for help. Another woman reported a tremendous gain in
self-confidence when her lower-body strength (and balance) improved
to the point she could get up from the floor easily without help,
something she had been unable to do for some time. We could go on
and on with stories about how increased physical activity level has
improved people's quality of life.
Beginning or modifying an exercise program, however, generally takes
more than a motivational talk about the value of exercise and a few
motivational stories. Changing behavior in people is difficult and almost
always requires applying some type of behavior modification strategy.
One behavior modification technique that has been successful in
changing exercise behavior, especially for those who have already
expressed a desire to change, is goal setting.

Goal Setting and Program Planning

Goal setting is an essential step for anyone wanting to make a change in
behavior. Establishing goals, especially written goals, tends to move
people from a good-intentions or wishful-thinking level to an action-plan
level. As an exercise leader, you should encourage your clients to
participate in goal setting, but you should not set their goals for them.
People are much more likely to work toward goals they think are
important rather than goals that have been established by others, unless,
of course, these can be personalized and seen as important to them as
individuals. In helping your clients with goal setting, the following
procedures and considerations may be helpful. Specifically, you should
encourage your clients to do the following:
1. Identify long-term goals or major exercise objectives. You can
expect great variation in what people hope to accomplish in their
exercise programs. Some may be interested in addressing a specific
weakness identified in their SFT results, while others may just
want to maintain their current mobility and energy level. Others
may be interested in managing a health condition (e.g., reducing
 their blood pressure, controlling their diabetes). Some may want to
lose weight, improve their appearance, or reduce their risk of
falling. Still others may want to improve their performance in a
particular sport, such as golf or running. Also, some people's
goals may be very specific, such as losing 10 pounds (4.5 kg)
before a granddaughter's wedding the next summer, whereas
others may be more general. For the goal-setting process to be
most effective, goals should be recorded in writing, perhaps using
a form similar to the .
2. Identify short-term goals (1- or 2-week activity plans). Long-
term goals are more likely to be attained if broken down into
more immediate short-term goals. Short-term goals should be
realistic, measurable, and time specific, and they should not
extend beyond 2 weeks. They should be expressed as specific
activities clients think will move them toward their long-term
goals. Some suggest a goal is realistic only if it meets the 90
percent rule-that is, it is a goal the client is 90 percent sure of
being able to achieve within
the time stated. A measurable goal (or activity) is one that is
observable. A goal of exercising more is not observable, but a
goal of increasing walking time to at least 30 minutes a day at
least four times a week is observable. Being time specific relative
to one's goals means planning the days and times that the activity
will take place, such as walking every Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday morning at 9:00 a.m., or performing 10 minutes of
stretching exercises each evening during the 6 o'clock news.
Scheduling activity into one's day or week (i.e., putting it on the
calendar) increases the likelihood that it will occur. Short-term
goals (action plans) and timetables should be recorded on the
client's goal- setting form along with long-term goals (see
Personal Goals and Activity Plans).
3. Identify potential obstacles, and plan strategies for overcoming
them. Inevitably there will be obstacles and setbacks in carrying
out one's activity goals, so it is important to try to predict in
advance what these might be and plan possible strategies for
dealing with them. Most people can predict what the most likely
obstacles will be for them. It may be bad weather, intemiptions
from friends or relatives, or simply a lack of self-discipline. If
weather frequently intemipts walking plans, perhaps backup
plans can be made for going to the mall or to a fitness center on
bad-
 weather days. If procrastination or lack of self-discipline is a major
barrier, it may help to schedule exercise sessions with a partner.
The extra social pressure and expectations from partners, as well
as the added enjoyment of exercising together, can help people
stay on target with their plans. Projected obstacles and the
strategies for overcoming them should be spelled out clearly as
part of the goal- setting process (see ).

Monitoring Progress and Reevaluation

Another important step in changing physical activity behavior is
monitoring progress and reevaluating. To promote program adherence,
you might suggest to your clients that they discuss their goals and plans
with a friend, with a family member, or with you, their instructor, and
then ask this person to sign the goals contract as a witness to their
plans. Participants might even ask their witnesses to question them
about their progress at least once a week.
For some people, it can also be motivating to keep a daily or weekly
exercise log to track and record their progress toward their long-term
goals (such as losing 10 pounds) and to monitor their adherence to
weekly activity plans. In fact, it is important to recognize that increasing
one's activity level is a worthy accomplishment by itself and often
leads to other unexpected rewards (apart from the original goal), such
as feeling and looking better, having improved self-confidence or self-
efficacy, sleeping better, and having a higher level of energy and
ambition. Interestingly, these supplemental, more intrinsic rewards are
often most responsible for keeping people active long after their original
goal has been met (i.e., the 10 pounds have been lost and the
granddaughter's wedding is over).
The challenging part, however, is that it takes time (sometimes many
weeks) for a person to reach the stage at which the intrinsic rewards
associated with physical activity and fitness (e.g., the joy of being
active, the sense of well-being, and the feeling of accomplishment)
become sufficient motivation for maintaining an exercise program. In
the meantime, you should encourage your clients, especially your new
clients, to continue with the goal-setting activities described earlier and
also to consider keeping an exercise log of their activities. Fieure 5 4
contains an example of a fairly generic weekly activity chart that
should be adaptable for most people. Although people's exercise goals and
plans may vary considerably, most will be best served by planning
activities in the general categories indicated.
 Activity Record

mm«
m mmm •sm
m u.o m
i3 c
in
in
»•••••
‹w
m«
G.»

The panicipants' progress toward their goals should also be

monitored through periodic reevaluation of fitness parameters and
other relevant indicators. Readministering the SFT at regular
intervals at least twice a year provides an indication of progress with
respect to changes in strength, endurance, flexibility, mobility,
balance, and body weight.
Changes in other indicators such as blood pressure, blood sugar readings
(if the person has diabetes), golf scores, or self-diagnosed energy levels
and feelings of well-being also provide evidence of progress toward
goals.

Reports generated by the Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0

can display results from multiple test sessions for an
individual to track progress over time. You can also use the
software to generate group reports in order to evaluate the
needs and progress of an entire group or a specific sex or age
range within the group. To learn more, visit
http://sft.humankinetics.com.

“The SFT assessments help me show progress and set

future goals to improve my whole body. I'm always eager
for my next 6-month assessment to see which areas I've
improved upon and which ones still need work.”
Juanita Nichols, age 80, Crestwood Village West, Indianapolis
As clients are setting their goals and planning their programs, they may
ask you for guidance in helping them determine what specific activities
will best help them reach their goals. Chapter 6 addresses a number of
relevant considerations in helping your clients improve their
performance, plus it provides specific exercise recommendations.

Summary
The performance tables and charts specifically developed for the SFT can
assist professionals in the interpretation of test scores. Data from a
nationwide study of 7,000 older adults provide the basis for both norm-
referenced and criterion-referenced performance tables as follows:
1. Percentile norm tables provide 5-year age-group percentile
ranks for women and men separately on each of the test items,
allowing participants to compare their scores with those of
others of the same age and sex (see the percentile tables for the
Senior Fitness
 2. Two tables provide a simple version of the normative
performance scores, giving only the normal ranges of scores
(middle 50 percent) for women and men on each test item (see
tables 5 3 and M).
3. A table shows recommended fitness standards for older adults that
are associated with maintaining adequate functional mobility
throughout the life span (see ).
4. SFT performance charts provide a graphic display of data
showing scoring zones that indicate above average, normal,
below average, and low functioning, as well as recommended
standards (fitness goals) associated with maintaining functional
mobility and independence until late in life (see figures 5 2 and
M).
In interpreting test scores, test users are reminded that the performance
standards are based on volunteer independent-living older adults
throughout the United States who tend to be healthier and more active
than the population at large over the age of 60.
Administering the SFT can be an effective way of motivating clients to
increase their activity participation. For many, just the process of being
evaluated is motivating and can cause positive changes in behavior. Test
results can also be used as the basis for individual goal setting and
program planning. For some, motivation can be further enhanced by
keeping an activity log tracking both program adherence and physical
progress. Finally, reevaluation (readministering the SFT at regular
intervals) is important in maintaining clients' motivation and interest in
their level of physical activity and fitness.
In the next chapter we discuss exercise guidelines for older adults and
recommend specific exercises that can help improve performance on
each of the SFT items.
 Chapter 6
Exercise Recommendations for
Older Adults
!***R•oving Senior Fitness Test Scores
Contributing author: Jeana French Miller
In recommending specific exercises to help your clients improve their
functional fitness (defined as having the physical capacity to perform
normal everyday activities safely and independently without undue
fatigue), several factors should be taken into account. In addition to
considering their current fitness needs as indicated by their SFT scores,
as well as any personal exercise objectives they have (such as losing
weight or managing a health condition), it is important to consider
clients' exercise and activity preferences. We often hear that the best
exercise to improve performance is the one that people will do,
suggesting you also should help your clients determine which types of
exercise options are most likely to work for them—that is, the ones that
best fit their personalities and meet other personal and environmental
needs (e.g., access to facilities, financial considerations, transportation,
social support). Various exercise options can include exercising alone
versus in groups, exercising at home versus going to an exercise class
or a fitness center, and engaging in structured exercise activities versus
incorporating exercise into daily routines. Other options involve
developing an active hobby; doing more yardwork or housework; or
getting exercise through various recreational, social, dance, or sport
activities. In helping clients plan effective exercise programs, it is also
important to consider the general exercise guidelines and
recommendations that have been developed by professional experts.
In this chapter, we first review recently published physical activity and
exercise guidelines that apply to older adults. We then provide specific
recommendations for increasing lifestyle physical activity and for
performing structured exercises that can help improve SFT scores.
Specific topics include
physical activity and exercise guidelines for older adults;
lifestyle exercise;
guidelines for structured exercise to improve SFT scores;
and exercises to improve strength, flexibility, agility, and
balance.

Physical Activity and Exercise Guidelines

for Older Adults
A number of recent publications such as the Physical Activity Guidelines
for Americans (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008),
the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (Canadian Society for
Exercise Physiology, 2011), and statements from the American College
of Sports Medicine, the American Heart Association (ACSM, 2009;
Nelson et al., 2007), the UK Department of Health, Physical Activity,
Health Improvement and Protection (2011), and the World Health
Organization (2010) provide updated guidelines describing
recommended levels of physical activity for people of all ages, including
older adults, based on strong evidence linking physical activity with
improved health and reduced disease, disability, and all-cause mortality.
These nationally and internationally recognized guidelines generally
suggest that all adults engage in the following: (1) at least 150 minutes of
moderate-level (or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity) aerobic exercise
spread over at least 5 days of the week; (2) muscle-strengthening
activities that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen,
chest, shoulder, and arms), performed at least 2 days a week; and (3)
balance exercises as needed. In addition, although most guidelines do
not make specific recommendations regarding the amount of flexibility
exercise needed, flexibility is mentioned as being important for
maintaining functional mobility and as something that can be improved
through range of motion and stretching exercises. In particular, it is
recommended that people take an extra 10 minutes each day when
performing aerobic or strength exercises to stretch all major muscle and
tendon groups (Nelson et al., 2007).
“Although no amount of physical activity can stop the
biological aging process, there is evidence that regular
exercise can minimize the physiological effects of an
otherwise sedentary lifestyle and increase active life
expectancy by limiting the development and progression of
chronic and disabling conditions.”
ACSM Position Stand (ACSM, 2009)
Moderate aerobic exercise (defined as that which burns at least 150
calories of energy per day, or 1,000 calories a week) would mean (for
most older adults) something equivalent to 30 to 40 minutes of brisk
walking per day. The sidebar lists examples of other activities
providing moderate amounts of exercise. For even greater benefits, the
2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend that
older adults increase moderate-intensity aerobic activity to 300
minutes (5 hours) or perform 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of vigorous-
intensity aerobic exercise spread throughout the week, especially if the
goal is weight reduction.
 Examples of Activities That Provide Moderate-
Level Exercise (Using 150 Calories of Energy)
Washing and waxing a car for 45 to 60 minutes
Washing windows or floors for 45 to 60 minutes
Gardening for 30 to 45 minutes
Pushing self in a wheelchair for 30 to 40 minutes
Walking 1.75 miles (2.8 km) in 35 minutes (20
minutes/mile)
Walking 2 miles (3.2 km) in 30 minutes (15 minutes/mile)
Raking leaves for 30 minutes
Pushing a stroller 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in 30 minutes
Bicycling 5 miles (8 km) in 30 minutes
Bicycling 4 miles (6.4 km) in 15 minutes
Doing water aerobics for 30 minutes
Swimming laps for 20 minutes
Running 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in 15 minutes (10
minutes/mile)
Stair walking for 15 minutes
Dancing socially for 30
minutes Shoveling snow for 15
minutes

For the majority of older adults who have not been active on a
regular basis and have already experienced some degree of age-
related or disease-related physical decline, effective activity
programs typically require more prescriptive and targeted exercise
than what has been recommended in the more generic physical
activity guidelines.
Recognizing that there are physical capacity thresholds for performing
such functions as walking, stair climbing, and rising from a chair, it
is important that older adults engage in exercise programs that not
only promote health and reduce risk for disease but also address special
areas of physical weakness that may cause them to be at risk for
losing their physical independence. Table 5 5 and figures 5 2 and M
provide information on the fitness standards (scores) needed for
maintaining mobility and physical independence that can address
specific areas of weakness.
Again, in recommending specific exercises for people, the only ones
that will be effective are the ones they will do! With that in mind, we
recommend explaining to your clients that they can improve their
fitness level (and test scores) in three ways: (1) by incorporating
additional physical activity into their normal daily routines
(sometimes referred to as lifestyle exercise); (2) by scheduling time
each week to engage in structured types of exercise-that is, exercises
designed to address specific fitness components, such as strength or
endurance; and (3) by engaging in a combination of lifestyle and
structured exercises. Each of these methods has advantages. For
some, the advantage of lifestyle exercise is that it also has other
purposes (e.g., walking the dog, doing yardwork) and doesn't seem
like real exercise. The advantage of structured exercise is that it
focuses on specific aspects of fitness and is especially effective in
addressing any special needs or weaknesses that may have been
identified during the client's fitness assessments. The next sections
include additional suggestions relative to each of these categories—
lifestyle exercise and structured exercise.

Lifestyle Exercise
Most people could significantly increase their activity level and improve
their fitness simply by building more activity into their daily lives.
Every day there are numerous opportunities to become more active
just by altering normal routines and habits—for example, by taking the
stairs instead of the elevator, by walking more and driving less, and by
doing more housework and yardwork. We especially suggest that you
try instilling in your older clients the idea that moving more and sitting
less are good for them. Considering that the “use it or lose it”
phenomenon becomes increasingly real as we age, the best thing we
can do to ensure continued functional ability is to stay as active as
possible. The following are just a few examples of how people could
significantly increase their daily energy expenditure:
• Taking the stairs instead of an elevator or escalator
• Walking the dog more often
• Walking to the store instead of driving
• Bicycling to a friend's house
• Cleaning the garage or car
 • Doing more housework and yardwork
Playing with grandchildren
Joining a hiking club or dance group
• Volunteering for active
projects Parking farther away
Planning active vacations (e.g., fishing, walking or bicycle
tours) Walking and using a pull golf cart for clubs instead of
riding a cart Taking up an active hobby (e.g., dancing,
gardening)
Picking up litter in public places (e.g., parks, beaches)
These lifestyle activities can help maintain functional fitness and may
even result in an increased level of fitness if there is a substantial
increase in activity expenditure over what a person has been accustomed
to. Additional benefits, however, can be gained from engaging in
structured exercises that specifically address each of the major
underlying physical fitness parameters (aerobic endurance, strength,
flexibility, and balance) associated with functional independence. The
next section provides specific exercises to improve the underlying
physical fitness parameters for each of the SFT items.

Guidelines for Structured Exercises to

Improve SFT Scores
In addition to incorporating as much activity as possible into their daily
routines (i.e., limiting sitting and inactivity as much as possible), most
older adults could benefit from setting aside time each day for structured
exercise, thus ensuring a well-rounded program of activities that
addresses all aspects of physical fitness. Structured or focused exercise is
especially important for clients who received low scores on the SFT and
need to improve their fitness in one or two specific categories. This
section provides information on exercise recommendations to improve
test scores for SFT items, each of which is associated with a major
component of physical fitness. Specific physical activity and exercise
training guidelines and precautions associated with various
musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic disorders and
frail populations are beyond the scope of this chapter. Therefore, we
recommend other publications such as Physical Activity Instruction o[
Older Adults (Jones & Rose, 2005), ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise
Testing and Prescription (2009), and ACSM's Exercise Management for
Persons With Chronic Diseases and Disabilities (2009). In addition, it
is always advisable to remind clients of the signs of overexertion
(discussed in chapter 4) and when exercise should be stopped or is not
advisable.
You can also refer to the recommended adaptations for special
populations when administering the SFT, as discussed in chapter 4.

Improving Aerobic Endurance

Aerobic exercise improves the function of the heart, lungs, and blood
vessels and helps people feel more energetic. It is helpful to remind
clients that maintaining an adequate level of aerobic endurance is
critical for physical independence and for reducing risk of
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and cognitive problems. In
the SFT, a person's level of aerobic endurance is measured using either
the 6-minute walk test or the 2-minute step test (depending on the
setting). Your clients can best improve their aerobic endurance scores
by engaging in large-muscle rhythmic activities such as walking,
jogging, hiking, stair climbing, and cycling. For most older adults,
walking is an ideal form of aerobic exercise, not only because it
contributes to one's aerobic fitness but also because of its importance
in everyday functioning. Of course practicing the test items is a form
of exercise and is also a great way to improve scores. For people
whose aerobic endurance scores were exceptionally low on the SFT,
we suggest they work on their lower-body strength (see next section)
before, or at the same time as, working on their aerobic endurance.
For people with balance problems, it is often best to focus on balance
and agility training first and lead up to aerobic training within a few
weeks. However, if exercise equipment that is safe for people with
balance problems (such as a stationary bicycle) is available, aerobic
endurance training and balance training can be done concurrently.
The goal of aerobic conditioning is to gradually increase exercise
duration, frequency, and intensity to the point where one can maintain
the activity for 30 to 40 minutes at a time, preferably at least five times
a week, at a moderate level of intensity. For most, a moderate
intensity level causes a noticeable increase in breathing rate and heart
rate and usually results in some amount of perspiration. Some use the
“talk test” to define moderate-intensity exercise, meaning that when
exercising at a
moderate level, people should still be able to talk but would not be
able to sing. However, we recommend that you use a rating of
perceived exertion (RPE) scale with your participants to help
determine intensity level during aerobic exercise. On the RPE scale in
table 6 1, moderate intensity is indicated by the number 5. Generally,
we recommend an RPE between 5 and 6 for most older adults—that is,
exercise that would be evaluated as being in the moderate to
somewhat hard range. For more frail participants, it is recommended
that exercise intensity start at very easy or somewhat easy (3 or 4 on
the RPE scale), with intensity level gradually increasing over time. To
use the RPE scale effectively, most older adults will require some
training and practice.
 TABLE 6.1 Rating of Perceived Exertion {RPE) Scale

1 No effort
2 Little effort
3 Very easy
4 Somewhat easy
S Moderate
6 Somewhat hard (starting to feel it)
7 Hard
8 Very hard (making an effort to keep up)
9 Very, very hard
10 Maximum effort (can't go any farther)
Adapted from NSCA
2012

As with all types of exercise, you should always advise your clients to
start slow and work up gradually to the desired level; this is especially
true for sedentary people and those with chronic conditions. Studies
show that aerobic exercise accumulated in short bouts (10 minutes at
a time) had similar effects as one continuous bout (30 minutes at one
time) with regard to aerobic fitness and weight loss in women (Schmidt,
Biwer, & Kalscheuer, 2001). The minimum amount (duration) of
aerobic exercise needed to meet the recommended guidelines varies
depending on the intensity level. Refer to the list earlier in this chapter
for examples of activities that provide the recommended amounts of
daily moderate- level physical activity (i.e., activities that use
approximately 150 calories of energy per day or 1,000 calories per
week, assuming daily participation). Increased participation in these
types of aerobic activities should result in improved performance on
the SFT aerobic endurance tests—the 6-minute walk and the 2-minute
step test.
Aerobic Conditioning Guidelines
• Instruct the participant to start slowly and gradually work up to
at least 150 minutes (2.5 hours) each week of moderate-
intensity (somewhat hard) aerobic exercise. This is
approximately 30 minutes per day if spread over a period of 5
days, but it is preferable to exercise every day of the week.
 • For the less fit, encourage 5- to 10-minute bouts of light-
to moderate-intensity exercise.
• The more fit can mix it up with a combination of moderate-
and vigorous-intensity physical activity, increasing duration
with the goal of 300 minutes (5 hours) spread over most or all
days of the week.
Aerobic Conditioning Precautions
• Adjust intensity, duration, and frequency based on the participant's
fitness level, medical conditions, and physical symptoms (e.g.,
pain, fatigue, stiffness). Although mild fatigue and pain can be
expected, exercise should never leave the participant feeling
extremely fatigued or in extreme pain the following day.
• There should be an adequate warm-up and cool-down.
• Outdoor exercise should be avoided in extremes of heat or cold
and in icy or smoggy conditions.
• Avoid unsupported exercise for clients with balance problems.
• Stop exercise for any signs of overexertion (refer to chapter 4).

Improving Strength
As discussed in chapters 2 and 3, maintaining an adequate amount of
lower- and upper-body strength is necessary for executing a variety of
common tasks associated with physical independence such as climbing
stairs, walking distances, getting out of a chair or the bathtub, standing
up from the floor, lifting and lowering objects, and reducing risk for falls.
Reminding participants about the health-related benefits of strength
training is also important—such as reducing risk of obesity, bone loss,
low-back pain, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. In
the SFT, lower-body strength is assessed using a 30-second chair
stand; upper-body strength is measured using the arm curl. Any form
of exercise that stresses a person's muscles, including many common
types of housework and yardwork activities, will help maintain
strength.
However, if your client scored low on either or both of the 30-second
chair stand and arm curl test items and wishes to increase his strength, a
particular regimen of progressive resistance exercises will need to be
followed.
Briefly, strength is increased by gradually increasing the resistance
placed on a muscle (i.e., by applying what is called the overload
principle). Overloading a muscle means making it do more than it is
accustomed to doing. This can be accomplished using free weights
(similar to the dumbbells used to test arm strength in the SFT), elastic
exercise bands, Velcro strap-on weights, exercise machines that are
designed for specific muscle groups, or a person's own body weight
and gravity. A suitable resistance for stimulating strength depends on
the participant's health and fitness status. Generally, according to
national recommendations previously mentioned, a beginner should start
out with a load of 50 percent of one-repetition maximum (IRM),
gradually increasing to approximately 70 to 80 percent of 1RM. A load
of 70 to 80 percent of IRM should cause the lifter to reach fatigue
within 8 to 12 repetitions, with [atigue meaning the muscles cannot
perform another repetition using proper form. Using a leg press as an
example, lower- body strength can be increased by selecting a
resistance (load) that can be pressed at least 8 times, but no more than
12 times, before the muscle is too fatigued to continue. Then, as
muscle strength improves (as it becomes possible to press the selected
weight more than 12 times before fatigue), the resistance should be
increased, thus causing the muscle to again be overloaded (i.e., to do
more than it was accustomed to). This process is repeated throughout
the strength development program—as strength improves to the point
where the new resistance can be
performed more than 12 times without fatigue, it is again replaced with
a heavier resistance.
When recommending strengthening exercises that do not use
traditional weight machines, such as the standing squat, which uses
body weight and position as a form of resistance, the aforementioned
guidelines do not directly apply. Although the goal is to complete 8 to
12 repetitions to fatigue, some participants will at first be able to
complete only 1 or 2 repetitions. If this is the case, gradually increase
the repetitions (not the resistance) until participants are able to
complete the exercise between 8 and 12 times. Also, when performing
nonequipment exercises (e.g., calisthenics), increasing the load
(resistance) is achieved by increasing the challenge, such as changing
body position, gripping up on (shortening) a resistance band, using a
thicker resistance band, or adding dumbbells. Refer to the sections To
Increase the Challenge throughout the chapter for more exercise
examples.
Strength training guidelines for older adults recommend performing at
least one set of 8 to 12 repetitions, to the point of fatigue, for each of the
major muscle groups twice a week. Important muscle groups for older
adults are those needed for lower-body functioning (hip extensors, knee
extensors, and ankle plantar flexors and dorsiflexors), for upper-body
functioning (biceps, triceps, shoulders, and back extensors), and for
trunk and core stability (abdominals and lower back). Strengthening
exercises can also be performed more than two times a week, with at
least 48 hours between sessions.
Strength Conditioning Guidelines
• Always include a short warm-up (including dynamic flexibility
exercises) before doing strength exercises to raise body
temperature and get more blood to the extremities.
Progress slowly, and cautiously increase both the range of motion
and the amount of weight for people with chronic conditions or
who are frail or less fit.
• The goal is to perform at least one set of 8 to 12 repetitions, to the
point of fatigue, for each of the major muscle groups twice a week.
• Rest time between exercises depends on exercise type and
resistance level. Participants should rest for 1 to 2 minutes after
most exercises and 2 to 3 minutes after multiple-joint exercises
using heavy resistance.
Place exercises using larger muscle groups (e.g., leg press,
bench press, seated row, standing squat, chest press, and wall
push-up) at the beginning of the workout; place single-joint and
isolated muscle actions (e.g., triceps extensions, biceps curls,
knee extensions, and leg curls) toward the end of the session.
• Both concentric (shortening) and eccentric (lengthening) muscle
actions are recommended.
• Increase weight (progression) by about 2 to 10 percent when
the desired number of repetitions is met (larger muscle groups
generally can handle a greater increase in load).
• If using a resistance band, switch to another band that
provides more resistance after the participant can do 8 to 12
repetitions.
• Exercises should be conducted through the full range of motion.
• Remind participants to breathe throughout the movement
(generally exhale during the exertion phase and inhale during the
release phase).
Strength Conditioning Precautions
• Participants should talk with their doctors if they are unsure about
doing a particular exercise, especially if they have had joint
surgeries.
• Use only resistance levels that allow the participant to keep proper
body alignment and form during the exercise.
• For the less conditioned and people with chronic pain disorders,
stretch the same muscle group after each resistance exercise.
• Remind participants to avoid hyperextending or locking the joints.
• Remind participants to avoid jerking or thrusting the weight.
• Participants should always stay within their pain-free range.
• Allow 48 hours between moderate- to high-intensity workouts.

Improving Flexibility
Evidence suggests that reduced flexibility can result in impaired
mobility and functional limitation (Holland, Tanaka, Shigematsu, &
Nakagaichi, 2002; Nelson et a1., 2007). As discussed in chapters 2 and
3, flexibility (the range of motion possible at one or multiple joints) is
important for maintaining good posture, reducing the risk for injuries
and back problems, reducing pain and stiffness, and performing tasks
of daily living (e.g., putting on socks and shoes, inspecting and
washing feet, kneeling down to pick up objects from the floor, putting
on overhead garments, combing hair). Although most physical activity
guidelines provide little information about the exact type and amount
of flexibility exercise needed, all agree on the importance of flexibility
and that it be part of a well-rounded physical activity program. In the
SFT, upper-body flexibility is assessed using the back scratch test; lower-
body flexibility is measured using the chair sit-and-reach.
When older adults perform aerobic or strength training activities, they
should take an extra 10 minutes to stretch the major muscle and
tendon groups, holding each stretch for 10 to 30 seconds and repeating
it three to five times. Also, before participating in aerobic or
strengthening exercise, it is important to first warm up the muscles and
joints through walking or light calisthenics and then do some dynamic
flexibility exercises (moving a joint through a given range of motion
but not holding the joint in an end position) to help prevent injuries to
the body tissue. Static flexibility
exercises (moving the joint through a single movement plane until a
given end point is reached and then held for several seconds) should
be included as part of the cool-down period after exercise sessions to
help with muscle relaxation and removal of unwanted waste products,
thus reducing muscle soreness and stiffness. More comprehensive
guidelines for flexibility training of older adults can be found in the
book Physical Activity Instruction o[Older Adults (Jones & Rose,
2005). A well- rounded exercise program should include flexibility
exercises for all muscle and joint areas—ankle, knee, hip, back,
shoulder, trunk, and neck. We also recommend that older adults
incorporate stretching movements into their activities of daily living
(e.g., using a full range of movement to vacuum, sweep, reach for
things, or wash the car).
Flexibility Exercise Guidelines
• Include flexibility exercises for stretching major body parts.
• Add at least 10 minutes of stretching to cardiorespiratoiy and
strength training routines; include dynamic stretching during
the warm-up and static during the cool-down.
• Have participant do a warm-up of 5 to 10 minutes
before performing static stretches.
• Participants should maintain normal breathing throughout each
stretch and focus attention on the muscle being stretched, trying
to limit movement in other body parts.
• Emphasize joints that have obvious range limitations or stiffness.
• For static stretching, participants should move slowly into the
end position (a feeling of gentle tension, not pain).
• Joints should always be slightly bent (not locked) while stretching.
• For static stretching, each exercise should be held for 10 to
30 seconds and should be repeated three to five times
(trying to stretch farther each time).
• Ideally, you want your clients to increase holding of the
static stretch to at least 20 seconds to receive optimal
benefits.
Flexibility Exercise Precautions
• Understand the contraindicated exercises (e.g., high-impact
activities, heavy resistance, ballistic movements) for older
adults with recent injuries, surgeries (e.g., hip, back,
shoulder), joint replacements, and chronic conditions (e.g.,
osteoporosis, spinal
 stenosis).
• Emphasize good body alignment (e.g., avoid hyperextension or
locking of joints).
• Remind participants to breathe normally even when holding a
stretch.
• Make sure participants avoid jerking and bouncing into a static
stretch.

Improving Agility and Dynamic Balance

A combination of agility (involving speed and coordination) and
dynamic balance (maintaining postural stability while moving) is
important for a number of common mobility tasks such as walking,
negotiating curbs, and climbing stairs as well as for making quick
movements to avoid hazards in the environment, getting on and off a
bus in a timely manner, crossing the street before the light turns red,
and getting up quickly to answer a phone or a doorbell. Having
adequate levels of agility and dynamic balance is also important for
reducing risk for falls and loss of independence. In the SFT, agility
and dynamic balance are measured using the 8-foot up-and-go test.
Since unintentional falls among older adults are a major public health
problem in the United States, balance was mentioned as an important
aspect of exercise programs for at-risk older adults in all the recently
published physical activity guidelines. More specifically, the Physical
Activity Guidelines for Americans (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2008) suggests that older adults at risk for falls
should perform balance and moderate-intensity muscle-strengthening
activities for 90 minutes a week, plus moderate-intensity walking for
about 1 hour a week, preferably spreading the activity over 3 or more
days.
Unlike improving aerobic endurance, strength, and flexibility,
improving agility and balance requires a multidimensional approach that
targets the multiple systems contributing to postural control and speed
(e.g., sensory, motor, and cognitive). Findings from several studies
show that balance is best improved, and the risk of falling reduced, if
older adults participate in specific balance and agility activities along
with aerobic, strength, and flexibility exercises (Rose, 2010).
 “Since I have been exercising, I have noticed positive
changes in balance, flexibility, and endurance. The annual
Senior Fitness Tests allow me to track my
improvements... My overall physical conditioning has
improved, as well as a knee injury that has steadily gotten
better.”
George Schussler, age 75, Maple Knoll Wellness Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio
The best exercises to improve agility and balance involve a variety of
motor tasks performed under varying types of sensory and cognitive
environments. Examples of such activities, which can range from simple
to complex, include calf raises, balancing on one foot with eyes open and
with eyes closed, tandem (heel-to-toe) balancing, walking on unstable
surfaces such as foam pads or rocker boards, walking at different speeds
using a variety of gait patterns, and other more complex activities that
include quick weight transfers and crossover stepping (e.g., the grapevine
move in a dance routine). For more capable older adults, participation in
complex exercise routines to music and in various sports activities (e.g.,
tennis and badminton) that involve balance and coordination are
excellent ways to maintain agility and balance.
Agility and Balance Training Guidelines
• Agility and balance activities should be included as part of a well-
rounded exercise program.
• Older adults at risk for falls should perform balance and
moderate- intensity muscle-strengthening activities for 90
minutes a week, plus moderate-intensity walking for about 1 hour
a week, preferably spread out over 3 or more days.
• Balance and agility are best improved through exercises that
involve multiple systems (e.g., somatosensory, visual, vestibular,
musculoskeletal) and cognitive challenges.
Agility and Balance Training Precautions
• If working with a frail client or one with poor balance, make sure
the person is closely supervised at all times.
• Use caution with fast movements, including quick turns and
changes in position. This may increase risk for dizziness and falls.
 • To increase stability and safety during an exercise, provide
participant something to hold on to (e.g., sturdy chair, wall, cane,
walker).
• Progress the participant to the next level of exercise difficulty
when the preceding challenge can be done safely.
• Eliminate any unnecessary clutter that clients might trip over.
• Make sure the participant is wearing stable, flat shoes.

Exercises to Improve Strength, Flexibility,

Agility, and Balance
This section provides examples of low-risk nonmachine exercises
(reproducible for use as handouts) that can help clients and participants
improve lower- and upper-body strength (30-second chair stand and arm
curl tests), lower- and upper-body flexibility (chair sit-and-reach and
back scratch tests), and agility and dynamic balance (8-foot up-and-go
test). In addition, we highly recommend participation in group exercise
classes (e.g., Pilates, yoga, tai chi, aerobic dance) or personalized
programs at fitness facilities that use exercise equipment to improve
functional fitness.

The Senior Fitness Test Software 2.0 includes printable

versions of the exercise instruction sheets in this
section.

For flexibility, agility, and dynamic balance exercises, remind clients that
warming up the muscles for at least 10 minutes before exercising is
essential. For clients who need additional exercises to improve agility
and dynamic balance, FallProo[!, a comprehensive balance and mobility
training program (Rose, 2010), provides evidence-based targeted
exercises to reduce fall risk.
EXERCISES TO IMPROVE LOWER-BODY
STRENGTH

Standing Squat
Exercise Instructions

• Stand in front of a sturdy chair, with feet shoulder-width apart.

The back of the chair will be against a wall.
• As you slowly bend at the knees and hips to lower your
buttocks into the chair, bring both arms forward to help with
balance and control.
• Pause and settle your weight in the chair.
• Return to the standing position by pressing through the heels
and straightening the knees and hips.
• Perform 8 to 12 times or until fatigue.

Tips

• Remember to breathe throughout the movement.

• Keep eyes looking forward to a vertical target (e.g., corner of a
wall, door frame).
• Push off your thighs if you need to.

To Increase the Challenge

• Don't sit completely before doing the next stand.

• Hold hand weights.
• Increase the number of repetitions or sets.

Safety Precautions

• Make sure the chair is stable, with its back firmly against the wall.
• Never perform exercise to a point of pain.
 Single-Leg Lunge

a
 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand behind a sturdy chair, with the right foot in front of the
left foot (a). Place your hands on the chair for stability.
2. Keeping a slight bend in both knees, bring your left knee toward
 the ground, stopping when your right knee almost goes over the
right toes (b).
3. Slowly return to the starting position. Perform 8 to 12 times or
until fatigue.
4. Switch legs so that the left leg is in front, and repeat.

Tips

• Make sure the forward knee does not go beyond the toes of
the forward foot.
• Make sure the upper body is not leaning forward or backward.
• Remember to breathe throughout the movement.

To Increase the Challenge

• Try to perform the exercise without holding on to the chair.

• Increase the number of repetitions or sets.

Safety Precautions

• Hold on to a wall or chair for stability.

• Keep the knee just behind the forward toes.
• Make sure the chair is sturdy and stable and if possible placed on
a nonslip surface (such as carpet).

Hip Extension
Exercise Instructions

1. Stand behind a sturdy chair or next to a wall, and place your

hands on the chair or wall for stability. Place the feet shoulder-
width apan.
 2. Lift one leg up directly behind your body; keep the supporting
leg straight, with the knee slightly bent, pause, and then slowly
return leg to starting position.
3. Repeat exercise with opposite leg, alternating between the two
for 8 to 12 repetitions.

Tips

• Avoid leaning forward or arching your back.

• Squeeze the buttocks as you lift the heel of your foot backward.
• Remember to breathe throughout the movement.

To Increase the Challenge

• Tighten the abdominal muscles when lifting your leg.

• Hold the lift longer.
• Add an ankle weight.
• Perform 8 to 12 repetitions on the same leg instead of alternating
legs.

Safety Precautions

• Keep the supporting knee slightly bent during the exercise.

• If using a chair, make sure it is sturdy and stable.

Leg Curl
Exercise Instructions

1. Stand behind a sturdy chair or next to a wall, and place your

hands on the chair or wall for stability. Place the feet slightly
apart.
2. Slowly lift your right heel toward your buttocks, pause, and then
 slowly return your right foot to the ground.
3. Repeat with the left foot, alternating between the two for 8 to
12 repetitions.

Tips

• Maintain proper posture, with ears above the shoulders and

shoulders above the hips.
• Remember to breathe throughout the movement. Ideally, exhale as
you lift your heel and inhale as you extend your leg.

To Increase the Challenge

• Tighten the abdominal muscles and buttocks when raising the leg.
• Perform 8 to 12 repetitions in a row on the same leg instead
of alternating.
• Add ankle weights.

Safety Precautions

• Perform this exercise slowly and controlled.

• Make sure the chair is sturdy and stable and if possible placed on
a nonslip surface (such as carpet).
EXERCISES TO IMPROVE UPPER-BODY
STRENGTH

Chest Press
Exercise Instructions

1. While seated, place the resistance band behind your upper

back just under the armpits, and grab the ends of the band
with your hands (a).
 2. Press your arms forward and parallel with the floor until
the elbows are straight (b).
3. Slowly return to the starting position. Complete 8 to 12 repetitions.

Tips

• Make sure the band is inside the elbows.

• Exhale as you extend the arms, and inhale as you bring them back.

To Increase the Challenge

• Adjust the grip closer to your body to increase resistance on

the band.
• Change to a heavier resistance band.
• Perform the exercise while standing.
• Increase the number of repetitions.

Safety Precautions
• Perform the exercise slowly and controlled.
• Check to make sure the resistance band is not fraying or damaged.

Wall Push-Up
 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Face a wall, standing a little farther than arm's length away, feet
shoulder-width apart.
2. Extend your arms, lean forward, and place your palms flat against
 the wall, shoulder-width apart (a).
3. With the arms fully extended, slowly breathe in and bend the
elbows, lowering your body toward the wall (b). Keep your
feet flat on the floor and the body straight.
4. Exhale and slowly return the arms to the fully extended
position. Complete 8 to 12 repetitions.

Tips

• Your body weight should be lifted by the arms; don't be tempted

to use abdominal muscles or lower-body muscles to pull yourself
up.

To Increase the Challenge

• Move your feet slightly farther away from the wall. Move to
knee- style push-ups on the floor once your initial strength has
increased.
• Increase the number of repetitions or sets.

Safety Precautions

• Avoid overextending the arms or locking the elbows.

• Avoid slippery surfaces.
• Wear sturdy, nonslip shoes.

Biceps Curl
Exercise Instructions

1. While seated, lift your right foot, wrap one end of the resistance
band around it, and place the foot on the floor.
2. Take the other end of the band in your right hand, with the arm
 extended toward the ground.
3. Slowly bend at the elbow, bringing the palm up toward
the shoulder.
4. Slowly return to the starting position. Complete 8 to 12 repetitions.
5. Switch the band to your left side, and repeat the exercise
using your left arm.

Tips

• Keep the elbows close to the body.

• Exhale as you bend the elbow; inhale as you extend the elbow.
• The exercise can be performed in a standing position if the band
is long enough.

To Increase the Challenge

• Grab lower on the band to increase the resistance.

• Change to a thicker (more resistance) band.
• Increase the number of repetitions.

Safety Precautions

• Make sure the band is wrapped securely around the foot.

• Bend only at the elbow, not the wrist.
• Check to make sure the resistance band is not frayed or damaged.
• Using a resistance band with a handle is helpful, especially
for people with arthritis.
Lateral Arm Raise
 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand upright, with feet shoulder-width apart, knees slightly bent,

and arms at the sides.
2. Hold a dumbbell in each hand beside the thighs, with palms turned
 toward the body.
3. With straight arms, slowly lift to shoulder height (arms parallel
to the floor) (o), pause, and then slowly return arms to the
starting position. This exercise can also be done in a seated
position using a resistance band (b).
4. Select a hand weight that allows completion of 8 to 12
repetitions to fatigue.

Tips

• Keep your back straight, with head and eyes forward.

• Do not lean forward.
• Do not bend the wrists or elbows.
• Inhale as you lift, and exhale as you lower.
• Lift the dumbbells slowly and under control rather than swinging
them up.

To Increase the Challenge

• Use a heavier weight or thicker band if you can do more than

12 repetitions using good form.

Safety Precautions

• Do not hyperextend or lock your elbows.

• Do not raise the dumbbells higher than the shoulders.
• Avoid tensing neck muscles.
EXERCISES TO IMPROVE LOWER-BODY
FLEXIBILITY

Hamstring Stretch

b
Exercise Instructions

1. Lie on your back on an exercise mat or firm surface.

2. Slide the right foot back toward the hip so that foot is flat on
the floor and the knee is pointing toward the ceiling; keep the
left leg straight and flat along the floor (o).
3. Reach down with both hands and gently grab the back of the
right thigh to pull the knee toward the chest (b) until you feel
gentle tension, not pain.
4. Hold the position for 10 to 30 seconds, and then slowly return
the leg to the starting position.
s. Repeat with the opposite leg.
6. Alternating between the two legs, repeat the stretch three to five
times on each side.

Tip
 • Exhale as you pull the knee toward the chest, and relax
the shoulders.

To Increase the Challenge

• Gradually hold the stretch longer, with the goal being 30 seconds.
• To increase tension, slowly extend the leg up and gently pull the
leg toward your face (c}.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• Breathe continuously throughout the exercise.
• Never bounce the knee or move to a point of pain.

Standing Calf Stretch

 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand facing a wall slightly fanher than arm's length away,

with feet shoulder-width apan.
2. Step forward with the left leg, and bend the left knee. Put your
 palms flat against the wall at shoulder height and shoulder-width
apart (a).
3. Keeping both feet on the floor, bend the right knee slightly
until you feel a stretch in your right calf muscle (b).
4. Hold the position for 10 to 30 seconds, and then slowly return to
the starting position.
5. Repeat with the opposite leg.
6. Alternating between the two legs, repeat the stretch three to five
times on each side.

Tip

• Be sure the toes of both feet are pointing directly forward and that
the heels are in line with the toes.

To Increase the Challenge

• Increase tension by bending the front knee more or moving

the back foot farther from the wall.
• Gradually hold the stretch longer, with the goal being 30 seconds.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• Avoid hyperextension or locking of the knee and elbow joints.
• Continue breathing throughout the exercise.
 Seated Back Extension

Exercise Instructions

1. Sit securely toward the front of a sturdy armless chair, with

feet flat on the floor and shoulder-width apart.
2. Place your hands under your thighs.
3. On the exhale, slowly bend forward from the hips. Keep your back
 and neck straight.
4. Slightly relax your neck and lower your chin, and slowly
bend farther forward.
5. Allow your hands to slide down toward the heels or to a point
of tension. Hold the position for 10 to 30 seconds.
6. Slowly inhale and straighten up by pulling your
abdominal muscles toward the spine.
7. Repeat the stretch three to five times.

Tip

• When straightening, slowly uncurl each part of the spine,

starting from the pelvis and working your way up.

To Increase the Challenge

• Gradually increase the stretch so you touch the floor.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• To reduce pressure on the abdomen, separate the feet more.
• People with osteoporosis should not do this stretch.
• Avoid dropping the head too far forward, because this may
cause dizziness.
 Hip Stretch

Exercise Instructions
 1. Sitting in a chair with your feet shoulder-width apart, cross the
left leg over the right leg so that the left ankle is resting on the
right knee.
2. Gently lean your trunk forward.
3. Hold the stretch for 10 to 30 seconds, and repeat on the opposite
leg.
4. Alternating between the two legs, repeat the stretch three to five
times on each side.

Tip

• Exhale into the stretch.

To Increase the Challenge

• Reach under the crossed leg, and lift the leg and foot toward
the chest.
• Increase the repetitions.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• People with knee or hip replacements should not do this stretch.
• Do not perform the stretch if it causes any pain.
EXERCISES TO IMPROVE UPPER-BODY
FLEXIBILITY

Shoulder and Upper-Arm Stretch

 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand with feet shoulder-width apart.

2. Hold one end of a towel in your right hand.
3. Raise and bend your right arm to drape the towel down your back.
 Keep the right arm in this position as you continue holding on to
the towel.
4. Reach behind your lower back, and grasp the towel with your
left hand {a).
5. To stretch the right shoulder, pull the towel down with the
left hand {b) until you feel comfortable tension, not pain.
6. Hold for 10 to 30 seconds and then relax.
7. Alternating between the arms, repeat the stretch three to five times
on each side.

Tips

• Exhale and relax into the stretch as you pull the towel down.
• Continue breathing throughout the exercise.

To Increase the Challenge

• Stretch farther and hold longer.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• Avoid tensing the neck.
• Do not perform the exercise if it causes any pain.
• Do not do this exercise if you have had a shoulder replacement.
Chest Stretch
 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Standing with feet shoulder-width apan, grasp your hands behind

your back.
2. Slowly squeeze the shoulder blades together (a, b) until you feel
 gentle tension in your chest, shoulders, and arms.
3. Hold for 10 to 30 seconds and then relax.
4. Repeat the stretch three to five times.

Tips

• Continue breathing throughout the movement.

• Pull your shoulders slightly down as you pull them back.
• Avoid bending forward or backward—keep the trunk vertical.

To Increase the Challenge

• When squeezing the shoulder blades together, slowly lift the arms.
• Stretch farther and hold longer.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• Avoid tensing the neck.
• Do not perform the exercise if it causes any pain.

Wall Upper-Body Stretch

 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand slightly fanher than arm's length from a wall, feet

shoulder- width apart.
2. Lean forward and put your palms flat against the wall at shoulder
 height and shoulder-width apart.
3. Keeping your back straight, slowly walk your hands up the wall
(a) until your arms are above your head (b).
4. Hold your arms overhead for 10 to 30 seconds.
5. Slowly walk your hands back down and then relax.
6. Repeat the stretch three to five times.

Tip

• Keep your feet flat on the floor when leaning forward.

To Increase the Challenge

• Stand farther away from the wall, and lean farther into the stretch.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• Avoid tensing the neck.
• Wear sturdy, nonslip shoes.
• Do not perform the exercise if it causes any pain.

Neck and Shoulder Stretch

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand with feet shoulder-width apart and hands extended down at

the sides.
2. Gently pull the left arm down, reaching toward the floor with the
 left hand, and tilt the head to the right.
3. Hold the position for 10 to 30 seconds while continuing to breathe.
4. Repeat the action, gently pulling the right arm down toward the
floor, tilting the head to the left.
5. Alternating between the two sides, repeat the stretch three to five
times on each side.

Tip

• Relax the neck, and exhale into the stretch.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before

doing flexibility exercises.
• Do not perform the exercise if it causes any pain.
• Be sure to breathe while holding the stretch.
EXERCISES TO IMPROVE AGILITY AND
DYNAMIC BALANCE

Calf Raise
Exercise Instructions

1. Stand behind a sturdy chair or next to a wall, and place your

hands on the chair or wall for stability. Place the feet shoulder-
width apan.
 2. Rise up onto your toes, and slowly return to the starting position.
3. Complete 8 to 12 repetitions.

Tips

• Maintain proper posture.

• Push up onto the toes as high as possible without pain.

To Increase the Challenge

• Try to perform the exercise without holding on to the chair or wall.

• Increase the number of repetitions.
• Attach ankle weights.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before agility

and balance exercises.
• Use a sturdy chair or wall to increase stability and reduce risk of
falls.

Seated Sit-Ups
 b

Exercise Instructions

1. Sit securely toward the front of a sturdy armless chair; lean

back against the backrest, crossing your arms across the chest
(a).
2. Slowly move forward from the hips, tightening the abdominal
 muscles.
3. Pause when seated upright (b), and return slowly to the starting
position.
4. Perform the exercise 5 to 10 times, slowly and controlled.

Tips

• Pretend there is a grape in your belly button, and squeeze it

while moving forward.
• Breathe out while moving forward, and breathe in while returning
to the original position.

To Increase the Challenge

• Increase the number of repetitions.

• Perform the exercise more slowly.
• Place your hands behind your head.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before agility

and balance exercises.
• Do not perform the exercise if you have lower-back pain.

Shifting Side to Side

Exercise Instructions

1. Stand in front of a chair or other supponing surface such as

a kitchen counter, with feet shoulder-width apan.
2. Place your hands on the supponing surface to assist with
 maintaining balance.
3. Shift your weight from left to right by softening the right knee and
taking the body weight over to the right leg (a).
4. Notice the right leg becomes heavy and the left leg is light as
more of the body weight is supported by the right leg.
5. Hold the position for 5 seconds, and then return to center; repeat
in the opposite direction (b).
6. Alternating legs, perform the exercise eight times on each side.

Tips

• Keep your eyes forward on a vertical target.

• Keep your shoulders directly above the hips during the shifts.

To Increase the Challenge

• Increase the number of repetitions.

• Lift the non-weight-bearing foot off of the floor.
• Close your eyes while performing the exercise (but be sure to
open them if you become off balance).

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before agility

and balance exercises. Perform this activity only while holding
on to something stable.
• Never push yourself beyond what you consider safe for you.
 Zigzag

3N 3 fi 3N

Exercise Instructions

1. Set up four to six markers (e.g., soup cans, cups) about 3 feet
(.9 m) apart in a straight line.
2. Place a sturdy chair at the beginning of the row to mark the
starting line. Sit in the chair to start.
3. Get up quickly from the chair, weave (zigzag) through the
markers in a left to right or right to left pattern to the end of the
course and back, and then sit down and rest for a few seconds.
4. Repeat the exercise three to five times.

Tip

• Start slowly, and work within a safe speed.

To Increase the Challenge

 • Increase the speed, repetitions, or number of markers.

Safety Precautions

• Do a general warm-up for at least 10 minutes before agility

and balance exercises.
• Place a sturdy chair against the wall for the starting line.
• Wear sturdy, nonslip shoes.
• Never push yourself beyond what you consider safe for you.

Summary
Recognize that the best type of exercise is the kind that people will
do. Clients can increase their activity level and their fitness in three
ways: (1) by increasing the amount of physical activity they get in their
normal daily routines, (2) by participating in a structured exercise
program, or
(3) by doing a combination of both. Although both types of exercise
have their advantages and should be encouraged, structured exercise
protocols may be needed to address specific physical weaknesses
identified by the SFT scores, particularly for improving aerobic
endurance, muscular strength, flexibility, balance, and agility. This
chapter provides some structured exercises for improving strength,
flexibility, agility, and dynamic balance. Because a thorough discussion
of exercise programming for various populations is beyond the scope of
this book, readers should also consult the many available additional
resources for helping plan older adult exercise programs.
 Informed Consent and
Assumption of Liability
You are being invited to participate in testing to evaluate your
physical fitness. Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you agree
to participate, you will be asked to perform a series of assessments
designed to evaluate your mobility, upper- and lower-body strength,
aerobic endurance, flexibility, agility, and balance. These assessments
involve activities such as walking, standing, lifting, stepping, and
stretching. The risk of engaging in these activities is similar to the risk
of engaging in all moderate exercise and may possibly result in
muscular fatigue and soreness; sprains and soft tissue injury; skeletal
injury; dizziness and fainting; and the risk of cardiac arrest, stroke, and
even death.
If any of the following apply, you should not participate in testing
without written permission of your physician:
1. Your doctor has advised you not to exercise because of
your medical condition(s).
2. You have had congestive heart failure.
3. You are currently experiencing joint pain, chest pain, or
dizziness or have exertional angina (chest tightness, pressure,
pain, heaviness) during exercise.
4. You have uncontrolled high blood pressure (160/100 or above).
During the assessment you will be asked to perform within your
physical comfort zone and never to push to a point of overexertion or
beyond what you feel is safe. You will be instructed to notify the
person monitoring your assessment if you feel any discomfort or
experience any unusual physical symptoms such as shortness of breath,
dizziness, tightness or pain in the chest, irregular heartbeat, numbness,
loss of balance, nausea, or blurred vision. If you are accidentally
injured during testing, the test administers will be unable to provide
treatment to you other than basic first aid. You will be required to
seek treatment from your own physician, which must be paid for by
you or your insurance company.
You may discontinue participation in testing whenever you wish
by asking to do so. By signing this form, you acknowledge the
following:
1. I have read the full content of this document. I have been
informed of the purpose of the testing and of the physical risks
I may encounter.
2. I agree to monitor my own physical condition during tests I am
asked to perform, and I agree to stop my participation and
inform the person administering the assessment if I feel
uncomfortable or experience any unusual symptoms.
3. I assume full responsibility for all risk of bodily injury and death
as a result of participating in testing. Should I suffer an injury or
become ill during testing, I understand that I must seek treatment
from my own physician and that I or my insurance will have to
pay for this treatment.
My signature below indicates that I have had an opportunity to
ask and have answered any questions I may have had, and that I
freely consent to participate in the physical assessment.
Signature: Date:

Print name:
alidated through research at California State University at Fullenon and elsewhere.
vill be administered by trained personnel, and procedures for any medical emergency
are i ill be instructed to do the best they can within their comfon zone and never to push
themse tenion or beyond what they think is safe for them. Technicians have been
instructed to dis
¿ time panicipants show signs of dizziness, pain, nausea, or undue fatigue. Following are
t
ind test (number of stands from a chair in 30 seconds)
1 test (number of curls in 30 seconds; 5-pound weight for women, 8-pound weight for
men step test (number of steps in place completed in 2 minutes)
walk test (number of yards walked in 6 minutes—person can rest when necessary)
ther the 2-minute step test OR the 6-minute walk test will be performed, not both
-and-reach test (distance one can reach forward toward toes)
atch test (how far hands can reach behind the back)
i-and-go test (time required to get up from a chair, walk 8 feet, and return to the chair)

any medical or other reasons why panicipation in the fitness testing by your patient
would so on this form. By completing the following form, you are not assuming any
responsibili of the test battery.

y questions about the fitness testing, please call

know of no reason why my patient should not panicipate.
believe my patient can panicipate, but I urge caution because
Iy patient should not engage in the following test items:
recommend that my patient NOT panicipate in testing.
ature: Date:
Physician: Phone #:
 Participant Instructions Before
Assessment
Place:
Date:
Time:
Although the physical risks associated with the testing are minimal,
the following reminders are important in ensuring your safety and
helping you score the best you can.
1. Avoid strenuous physical activity for 1 or 2 days before
the assessment.
2. Avoid excessive alcohol use for 24 hours before testing.
3. Eat a light meal 1 hour before testing.
4. Wear clothing and shoes appropriate for participating in physical
activity.
5. Bring a hat and sunglasses for walking outside and reading glasses
(if needed) for completing forms.
6. Bring the Informed Consent and Assumption of Liability form and
the Medical Clearance form, if required.
7. Inform the test administer of any medical conditions or
medications that could affect your performance.

As part of your testing, you will be asked to perform the aerobic

endurance test checked below:
2-minute step test to see how many times you can step
(march) in place in 2 minutes
6-minute walk test around a flat course to determine the
distance you can cover in that time
After you have determined that it is safe for you to participate in the
tests (see Informed Consent and Assumption of Liability form), you
should practice the test you will be taking at least once before test day
—that is, time yourself either walking for 6 minutes or stepping
(marching) in place for 2 minutes. This will help you determine the
pace that will work best for you on test day.
BMI
 Age-Group Percentile Norms
Chair Stand Test
Arm Curl Test
6-Minute Walk Test
Chair Sit-and-Reach Test
Back Scratch Test
8-Foot Un-and-Go Test
CHAIR STAND Test (W'onien)

95 21 19 19 19 18 17 16
90 20 18 18 17 17 15 15
83 19 17 17 16 16 1t 13
80 18 16 1ó 16 15 14 12
75 17 16 15 15 14 13 11
70 17 15 15 14 13 12 11
65 16 1S t4 14 13 12 10
60 16 14 14 U 12 11 9
55 15 14 13 13 12 11 9
50 15 14 13 12 11 10 8
45 14 13 12 12 11 10 7
40 14 13 12 12 10 9 7
35 13 12 11 11 1Q 9 6
30 12 12 11 11 9 8 5
25 12 11 10 10 9 8 4
20 11 11 10 9 8 7 4
15 1Q 10 9 9 7 6 3
10 9 9 8 8 6 5 1
5 8 8 7 6 4 ó 0
CHAIR STAND Test(/•ten)

95 23 23 21 21 19 19 1ó
22 21 20 20 17 17 15
85 21 20 19 18 î6 16 14
20 1? 18 18 16 15 13
75 1? î8 17 17 î5 14 12
70 19 18 17 16 14 13 12
65 18 17 16 16 14 13 11
ó0 17 1ó 1ó 15 13 12 11
S5 17 z6 15 1S z3 12 10
1& 15 14 14 12 11 10
16 15 14 13 12 11 "?
40 1S 14 13 13 11 10
35 15 13 13 t2 JJ 9 8
30 14 13 12 12 10 9
25 zt J2 12 11 10 8
20 13 11 11 10 9 7 7
15 12 II 10 10 8 6 6
10 11 9 9 8 7 5 5
5 9 8 8 7 ó 4 3
ARE4 CURL T•st (Women)

9S 24 22 22 21 20 18 17
90 22 21 20 20 GB 17 1ó
BS 21 20 19 19 17 16 15
80 20 19 18 18 t6 15 14
75 19 18 17 17 16 15 13
70 18 17 17 16 IN 14 13
65 18 17 16 16 15 14 12
60 17 16 16 15 14 13 12
55 17 16 15 15 14 13 1î
50 16 15 14 14 13 12 11
45 16 15 14 13 12 12 10
40 15 14 13 13 12 11 10
IS 14 14 13 12 II 11 9
10 14 11 12 12 11 10
25 13 12 12 11 10 10 8
20 12 2 11 10 10 9
15 11 11 10 9 9 8 7
10 10 10 9 B 8 7 ó
5 9 B B 7 6 5
ARu cuRL rest ue»j

95 27 27 26 24 23 21 18
90 25 25 24 22 22 19 16
85 24 24 23 21 20 18 16
23 23 22 20 20 17 15
75 22 21 21 19 19 17 14
70 21 21 20 19 18 16 14
65 2J 20 J9 J8 18 15 13
20 20 19 17 17 15 13
55 20 19 18 17 17 14 12
19 18 7 1& 16 1# 12
45 18 18 7 ?6 15 13 12
18 17 16 15 15 13 11
35 17 16 15 M 1 12 11
1? 16 5 ?4 1* 11 10
25 16 15 14 13 13 11 10
J5 1d 13 J2 12 10 9
15 14 13 13 11 12 9 8
10 13 12 11 10 10 8 8
5 11 10 9 9 9 ? 6
6-f•tlHUTE WALK Test('\i/omen)

95 741 734 709 696 ó54 ó38 5ó4

90 711 ó97 673 ó55 e12 591 518
85 690 673 650 628 584 560 488
&74 ó 53 630 ó05 5ó 0 S34 tó 3
75 659 636 614 585 540 512 tte
70 ó 47 ó21 599 568 523 493 423
óS &3ó ó07 S8ó 553 508 476 t0ó
ó 24 5'?3 572 538 49t 458 388
S5 &14 581 561 524 477 443 373
ó 01 568 548 509 4ó 2 426 357
45 592 555 535 494 447 dO9 341
582 543 524 4B0 433 394 326
35 570 529 510 465 416 376 308
559 515 497 450 401 3S9 291
2S 547 500 482 433 384 340 273
532 483 466 413 364 318 J51
15 51& 4ó 3 446 390 340 292 22&
10 d95 439 423 363 3t2 261 196
5 4ó 5 402 387 322 270 214 150
6-HINUTE ¥/ALK Test (Men)

95 825 800 779 7ò2 721 710 ò46

792 7ó3 743 71ó 678 ó59 592
8S 770 738 718 ó86 ó49 ó2S 357
751 718 ó98 6ó1 625 596 52!7
75 736 ó8O ó39 604 572 502
?O 722 ó85 óó5 ó2J 586 551 480
65 710 671 652 604 571 532 461
ó0 697 ó57 ó38 58ó 554 512 440
55 686 644 625 57J 540 495 423
674 631 612 555 524 477 403
45 662 618 599 539 508 459 284
A0 65t ó05 58ó 524 494 442 3ó6
3B 638 591 572 506 477 422 345
30 626 .577 559 489 462 403 326
25 612 562 544 471 444 382 30d
597 544 52ó 449 423 358 279
1S 578 S2t 50ó t2t 399 329 249
10 556 49P 481 394 370 295 214
5 523 4ó2 445 348 327 244
2-f•tlHUTE STEP Test Women}

9S 130 133 J25 123 1J3 t0ó 92

122 123 16 US J04 98 85
85 lJ6 107 110 109 9? 93 80
1t1 1J2 J05 J0d 94 88 76
7S 107 107 101 100 90 8S 72
70 103 104 97 96 87 81 69
ó5 100 1RD 94 ?Z 84 79 óó
97 96 90 90 81 76 63
SS 94 93 87 87 78 73 61
50 91 90 84 84 75 70 58
45 88 87 81 81 72 67 5f•
40 85 84 78 78 69 ó4 53
35 82 80 74 7S óó ó1 50
30 79 76 71 72 ó3 59 47
2S 75 73 67 68 60 SS 44
20 71 68 ó3 64 56 52 40
15 66 63 58 59 51 47 3ó
\0 60 57 S2 53 t6 42 31
5 52 47 43 4S 37 39 24
2-f•tlNUTESTEP Test(f4en)

95
90 128 130 124 12ó 118 10ó 102
85 123 125 119 1t9 112 t00 9ó
80 119 120 114 JJ4 t07 95 9t
75 11S 116 110 109 103 91 86
70 112 113 107 105 99 87 83
ó5 10P 110 t04 102 9ó 04 79
60 106 107 a0a 98 93 8A 76
55 104 104 ?8 95 9D 78 72
50 101 101 9$ 91 87 75 ó9
45 98 98 92 87 84 72 66
40 96 95 89 84 8t 69 62
35 98 92 86 80 78 66 59
30 90 89 83 77 75 63 55
25 87 8ó 80 73 71 59 52
20 83 82 7ó ó8 ó7 55 47
15 79 77 71 63 62 50 42
10 74 72 66 5ó 56 44 36
5 ó7 ó7 ó7 47 48 3ó 26
CHAIR SIT-AND-REACH Test('U'omen)

95 8.7 7.9 7.5 7.* 6.6 6.0 *.9

7.2 6.6 6.1 6.1 5.2 4.& 3.4
8S 6.3 5.7 5.2 5.2 I.3 3.7 2.5
5.5 5.0 4.5 4.4 3.6 30 1.7
75 4.8 4.4 3.9 3.7 3.0 2.4 1.O
70 4.2 3.9 3.3 3.2 2.1 1.8 0.4
65 3.7 3.I 2.8 2.7 1.9 1.3 —0.1
3.1 2.9 2.3 2.1 1.d 0.8 -0.7
SS 2.6 2.5 J.9 1.7 1.0 0.4 -1.2
2.1 2.0 1.4 1.2 0.5 —0.1 -1.7
45 1.6 I.S 0.9 0.7 0.0 -0.6 -2.2
1.1 1.1 0.5 0.2 —0.4 -1.0 -2.7
3S 0.5 0.& 0.0 —0.3 —0.9 -1.5 -3.3
0.0 0.1 -0.5 -0.8 -1.4 -2.0 -3.8
25 ••0.ó ••0.4 -1.1 -1.3 -2.0 -2.6 ••4.4
—1.3 —J.0 -1.7 -2.0 -2.ó —3.2 -5.1
15 —2.1 —1.7 -2.4 -28 -3.3 -39 -5.9
10 -3.0 -2.6 -3.3 -3.7 ••4.2 -a.8 ••ó.8
5 —4.0 —3.9 —4.7 -5.0 -5.0 —6.3 -7.9
CHAIR SIT-AND-REACH Test{I*ten)

95 8.5 7.5 7.5 ó.ó ó.2 t.S 3.5

ó.7 5.9 5.8 4.9 4.4 3.0 t.9
85 5.6 4.B 4.7 3.8 3.2 2.0 0.9
80 4.ó 3.9 3.8 2.8 2.2 1.1 0.0
75 3.8 3.1 3.0 2.0 1-4 0.t —0.7
70 3.1 2.4 2.4 1.3 0.6 ••0.2 -1.4
65 2.5 1.8 1.8 0.7 0.0 —0.8 —1.9
ó0 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.1 -0.8 —1.3 —2.5
55 1.2 0.ó 0.ó -0.5 -1.4 -1.9 ••3.0
50 0.ó 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -2.0 —2.4 —3.ó
45 0.0 -0.6 —0.6 -1.7 -2.6 —2.9 —4.2
40 ••0.ó -1.1 -1.2 -2.3 -3.2 ••3.5 ••4.7
35 —1.2 -1.8 —1.8 -2.9 —4.0 —4.0 —5.3
30 —1.9 -2.4 -2.4 -3.5 —4.6 —4.6 —5.8
25 ••2.ó -3.1 -3.t ••4.2 -5.3 ••5.2 ••6.5
20 —3.4 -4.9 -4.9 -5.0 —ó.2 —5.9 —7.2
15 -4,4 m.8 —4.8 —ó.0 -7.2 —6.8 —8.1
10 -5.5 -5.9 -5.9 -71 -8.4 -7.8 -9.1
S -7.3 -75 -7.6 -&8 -102 -9.3 10.7
BACK SCRATCH 7•st 0, 'omen)
I r
95 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.3 3.5 3.9
3.8 3.5 3.2 3.1 2,8 1.9 2.2
85 2.9 2.ó 2.3 2.2 1,8 0.8 09
80 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.9 —0.I —0.1
75 1.6 1.3 0.8 0.ó 0,2 -ó.9 -1.0
70 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -1.6 -1.8
óS 0.7 0.2 —0.2 —0.S —1.0 -2.1 -2.5
6O 0.2 ••0.3 ••0.8 -1.1 -1.6 -2.8 -3.2
55 -0.2 -0.7 —1.2 —1.ó -2,1 -3.3 -3.8
SO —0.7 -1.2 —1.7 —2.J —2.6 -3.9 —4.5
45 -1.2 -1.7 -2.2 —2.& —3.1 —4.5 -5.2
40 -J.ô -2.1 -2.ó -3.1 -3.7 -5.0 -5.8
35 -2.1 -2 -3.2 -3.7 - 2 -17 -Ą5
30 -Z.S -3.1 -J.7 -4.2 -4.8 —6.Z -7.2
25 -3.0 -3.7 -4.2 -4.8 -5.4 —6.9 —8.0
20 -3.6 —43 —4.9 —5.S —ó.1 -7.7 -8.9
15 —4.3 —S.0 —5.7 —ó.4 —7.0 —8.6 -9.9
10 -5.2 -S.9 -6.6 -7.3 -8.0 -9.7 -11.2
-6.4 -7.3 —7.9 —8.8 —9S —11.3 —13.0
BACK SCRATCH Test(Men)

95 4.5 3.9 3.5 2.8 3.2 1.7 .7

90 2.7 2.2 1.8 0.9 1.2 —0.1 -1.1
8S 1.6 1.0 0.6 -0.3 &.1 -1.2 -2.2
0.6 0.0 —0.4 -1.3 -1.2 -2.2 -3.2
75 —0.2 -0.8 —1.2 —2.2 -2.1 —3.0 -4.0
70 -0.9 -1.6 -2.0 -2.9 -2.9 -3.7 —4.7
-1.5 —2.2 -2.6 —3.6 —3.6 -4.3 -5.3
ó0 -2.2 —2.9 —3.3 —4.3 —4.3 —5.0 —ó.0
SS -2.8 -3.5 -3.9 ••4.9 -5.0 -5.6 ••6.6
50 -3.4 —4.1 —4.5 —5.6 -5.7 -ó.2 -7.2
IS —4.0 —4.7 —$.J —d3 —ó.4 —ó8 -7.8
40 ••4.6 -S.3 -5.7 ••6.9 -7.1 -7.4 ••8.4
35 -5.3 -ó.0 -6.4 —7.6 -7.8 -8.1 -9.1
30 -5.9 -4.6 —7.0 -8.3 —8.S -8.7 -9.7
2S -6.6 -7.4 -7.8 ••9.0 -9.3 ••9.4 -10.4
20 -7.4 -8.2 -8.6 —9.9 -10.2 —10.2 -11.2
JS —8.4 —9.2 —9.6 —J09 —11.3 —11.2 -12.2
10 -9.5 -10.4 -10.8 -12.1 -12.6 -12.3 -13.3
5 -11.3 —12.1 -t2.5 —14.0 -14.6 —14.1 -15.1
8-FOOT UP-AND-GOTect (W'omen)

9S 3.2 3.ô 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0

3.7 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.3
OS «.o <.a ‹.s ‹.¢ x.ę s.3 ¢.‹
a.2 4.ô a.7 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.7
75 4.4 4.8 4.9 5.2 5.7 6.2 7.3
70 4.6 5.0 S.2 S.S ó.1 6.6 7.7
65 a.7 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.9 8.2
æ 4.9 5.3 5.6 5.9 ó.7 7.3 8.ó
55 s.o s.< s.e z.1 +.ę 7.¢ so
SO 5.2 5.ô 6.0 6.3 7.2 7.9 9.a
45 5.4 S.8 6.2 6.5 7.5 8.2 9.8
Æ0 S.5 S.9 &.4 &.7 7.8 8.S 10.2
35 5.7 6.1 6.6 6.9 8.1 8.9 10.6
30 5.8 6.2 &.8 7.1 8.3 9.2 11.1
2S &.0 ó.4 7.1 7.4 8.7 9.6 11.S
JO 6.2 6,6 7.3 7.6 9.0 10.0 12.1
15 6.4 6.8 7.7 8.0 9.5 10.5 12.7
JO &.7 7.1 8.0 8.3 10.0 11.1 13.S
5 7.2 7.6 8.6 8.9 10.8 12.0 14.6
B-FOOT UP-AND•GO Test (f4en)

9S 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.0 t,3

3.0 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 4.3 4.S
85 3.3 3.ę 3. ,9 4.5 4.5 5,1
3.ó 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.9 5.0 5.7
75 3.8 4,3 4.4 t,6 5.2 5.5 6.2
70 4.0 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.5 5.8 ó.ó
65 4.2 4,6 4.8 5.2 5.7 6.2 7.0
æ 4.4 4.ß 5.0 5.4 6.0 6.5 7.4
SS 4.ß 4,9 5.1 5.7 6.2 6,9 7.7
4.7 5.1 5.3 S.9 ó.4 7.2 8.1
IS 4.9 5.3 5.5 6.1 6.6 7.5 8.5
40 5.0 5.4 5.6 &.4 6.9 7.9 8.8
35 5.2 5.6 5.8 6.6 7.1 8.2 9.2
30 5.4 5.7 6.0 ó.9 7.3 8.ó 9.ó
25 5.6 5.9 6.2 7.2 7.6 8.9 10.0
20 5.8 ó.1 ó.4 7.S 7.9 9.4 JO.S
15 6.1 6.3 6.7 7.9 8.3 9.9 11.1
10 ó.4 ó.6 7.0 8.3 8.7 10.5 11.8
5 6.8 7.1 7.4 9.0 9.4 11,5 12.9
Personal Goals and Activity Plans
 Measurement Conversions
General Conversions

To convert measurements from English to metric, use these

conversion charts. Multiply the English measurement by the
appropriate conversion factor.
Weight

To convert Multiply by

Pounds to kilograms 0.454

Length

To convert Multiply by

Inches to centimeters 2.54

Feet to meters 0.305

Yards to meters 0.9144

Miles to kilometers 1.609

 1 kg = 2.205 pounds
1 pound = 16 ounces = 453.6 g = 0.454 kg
1 inch = 0.0254 m = 2.54 cm = 25.4 mm
1 foot = 12 inches = 0.3048 m = 30.48 cm = 304.8 mm
1 yard = 3 feet = 0.9144 m
1 mile = 5,280 feet = 1,760 yards = 1,609.35 m = 1.61 km
1 cm = 0.3937 inches
1 m = 100 cm = 1,000 mm = 39.37 inches = 3.28 feet = 1.09 yards
1 km = 0.62 miles

Conversions Specific to Each of the SFT Protocols

30-Second Chair Stand Test

Chair seat height of 17 inches = 43 cm
30-Second Arm Curl Test
5-pound dumbbell for women = 2.3 kg
8-pound dumbbell for men = 3.6 kg
Height and Weight
For 60-inch tape measure, use 150 cm tape measure.
For ease of measurement, position end 50 cm up from the floor.
2-Minute Step Test
String or cord about 30 inches long = 76 cm
Chair Sit-and-Reach Test
Chair seat height of 17 inches = 43 cm
18-inch ruler = 45 cm
Back Scratch Test
18-inch ruler = 45 cm
8-Foot Up-and-Go Test
Chair seat height of 17 inches = 43 cm
8 feet = 2.4 m
6-Minute Walk Test
50-yard course = 45.7 m
Note: For ease of use with metric system, the course can be set
up in meters (5 m x 20 m), with the final score converted to
yards for comparison with U.S. norms.
 References
Administration on Aging. (2010). A pro[ile o[older Americans: 2010. A report of
the Administration on Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Washington, DC.
Agarwal, S., & Kiely, P.D.W. (2006). Two simple, reliable and valid tests of
proximal muscle function, and their application to the management of idiopathic
inflammatory myositis. Rheumatology, 45, 874-879.
Alexander, N.B., Schultz, A.B., & Warwick, D.N. (1991). Rising from a chair:
Effects of age and functional ability on performance biomechanics. Journal
o[Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 46, M91-M98.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. (1966). Joint motion: Method o[
measuring and recording. Edinburgh: Livingstone.
American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). ACSM position stand: Exercise and
physical activity for older adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
41(7}, 1510-1530.
American College of Sports Medicine. (2010). ACSM's Guidelines [or exercise testing
and prescription (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards [or educational and
psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arnold, A.M., Newman, A.B., Cushman, M., Ding, J., & Kritchevsky, S. (2010). Body
weight dynamics and their association with physical function and mortality in older
adults: The cardiovascular health study. Journal o[Gerontology, 6SA, 63-70.
Baruth, M., Wilcox, S., Wegley, S., Buchner, D.M., Oiy, M.G., Phillips, A.,
... Bazzare, T.L. (2010). Changes in physical functioning in the Active
Living Everyday Program of the Active for Life initiative. International
Journal o[ Behavioral Medicine. [Online]. doi:10.1007/s12529-010-9108-7.
Baumgartner, T.A., Jackson, A.S., Mahar, M.T., & Rowe, D.A. (2007).
Measurement [or evaluation in physical education and exercise science (8th
ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Beck, A.M., Damkjaer, K., & Beyer, N. (2008). Multifaceted nutritional intervention
among nursing-home residents has a positive influence on nutrition and function.
Nutrition, 24(11-12), 1073-1080.
Bohannon, R.W. (2002). Quantitative testing of muscle strength: Issues and practical
options for the geriatric population. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 18(2}, 1-17.
Booth, F.W., Gordon, S.E., Carlson, C.J., & Hamilton, M.T. (2000). Waging war
on modern chronic diseases: Primary prevention through exercise biology.
Journal o[ Applied Physiology, 88, 774-787.
Borg, G. (1998). Borg's perceived exertion end pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Bouchard, D.R., Beliaeff, S., Dionne, I.J., & Brochu, M. (2007). Fat mass but not
fat- free mass is related to physical capacity in well-functioning older individuals:
Nutrition as a determinant of successful aging (NuAge)—the Quebec Longitudinal
Study. Journal o[Gerontology, 62, 1382-1388.
Bouchard, D.R., & Janssen, I. (2010). Dynapenic-obesity and physical function in
older adults. Journal o[Gerontology, 65A, 71-77.
Bravo, G., Gauthier, P., Roy, P., Tessier, D., Gaulin, P., Dubois, M., & Peloquin, L.
(1994). The functional fitness assessment battery: Reliability and validity data for
elderly women. Journal o[Aging end Physical Activity, 2, 67-79.
Brouha, L. (1943). A step test: A simple method of measuring physical fitness for
muscular work in young men. Research Quarterly, 14, 31-36.
Brown, M., & Rose, D.J. (2005). Flexibility training. In C.J. Jones & D.J. Rose
(Eds.), Physical activity instruction [or older adults (pp. 155-174). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Brown, M., Sinacore, D.R., Ehsani, A.A., Binder, E.F., Holloszy, J.O., & Kohrt,
W.M. (2000). Low-intensity exercise as a modifier of physical frailty in older adults.
Archives o[Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 960-965.
Burger, H., & Marincek, C. (2001). Functional testing of elderly subjects after lower
limb amputation. Prosthetics end Orthotics International, 2S(2), 102-107.
Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. (2011). Canadian Physical Activity
Guidelines. www.csep.ca/guidelines.
Cailliet, R. (1988). Low back pain syndrome. Philadelphia: Davis.
Cavani, V., Mier, C.M., Musto, A.A., & Tummers, N. (2002). Effects of a 6-
week resistance-training program on functional fitness of older adults. Journal
o[Aging and Physical Activity, 10(4}, 443-452.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Merck Company Foundation.
(2007). The state o[aging end health in America 2007. Whitehouse Station, NJ:
The Merck Company Foundation.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Costs of falls among older adults.
www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/fallcost.html.
Chakravarty, K., & Webley, M. (1993). Shoulder joint movement and its relationship
to disability in the elderly. Journal o[Rheumatology, 20, 1359-1361.
Chandler, J.M., & Hadley, E.C. (1996). Exercise to improve physiologic and
functional performance in old age. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 12, 761-784.
Cohen, J.J., Sveen, J.D., Walker, J.M., & Brummel-Smith, K. (1987). Establishing
criteria for community ambulation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 3(1), 71-77.
Cotten, D.J. (1971). A modified step test for group cardiovascular testing. Research
Quarterly, 42, 91-95.
Courneya, K.S., Booth, C.M., Gill, S., O'Brien, P., Vardy, J., Friedenreich, C.M., ...
Meyer, R.M. (2008). The colon health and life-long exercise change trial: A
randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.
 Current Oncology, 15(6), 8-16.
Cress, M.E., Petrella, J.K., Moore, T.L., & Schenkman, M.L. (2005). Continuous-scale
physical functional performance test: Validity, reliability, and sensitivity of data for
the short version. Physical Therapy, 85(4), 323-335.
Csuka, M., & McCarty, D.J. (1985). Simple method for measurement of lower
extremity muscle strength. American Journal o[Medicine, 78, 77-81.
Cureton, K.J., & Warren, G.L. (1990). Criterion-referenced standards for youth health-
related fitness tests: A tutorial. Research Quarterly [or Exercise and Sport, 61(i),
7- 19.
Damush, T.M., Perkins, A., & Miller, K. (2005). The implementation of an
oncologist referred, exercise self-management program for older breast cancer
survivors.
Psycho-Oncology, 1S(10), 884-890.
Demark-Wahnefried, W., Morey, M.C., Clipp., E.C., Pieper, C.F., Snyder, D.C.,
Sloane, R., & Cohen, H.J. (2003). Leading the way in exercise and diet (Project
LEAD): Intervening to improve function among older breast and prostate cancer
survivors. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 206-223.
DiBrezzo, R., Shadden, B.B., Raybon, B.H., & Powers, M. (2005). Exercise
intervention designed to improve strength and dynamic balance among community-
dwelling older adults. Journal o[Aging and Physical Activity, 13(2), 198-209.
Dobek, J.C., White, K.N., & Gunter, K.B. (2007). The effect of a novel ADL-
based training program on performance of activities of daily living and physical
fitness. Journal o[Aging and Physical Activity, 1S(l), 13-25.
Doherty, T.J. (2003). Invited review: Aging and sarcopenia. Journal o[Applied
Physiology, 95, 1717-1727.
Dugas, E. W. (1996). The development and validation of a 2-minute step test to
estimate aerobic endurance in older adults. Unpublished Master's Thesis, California
State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA.
Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2010). Older Americans
2010: Key indicators of well-being. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related
Statistics, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fenstermaker, K.L., Plowman, S.A., & Looney, M.A. (1992). Validation of the
Rockport Fitness Walking Test in females 65 years and older. Research Quarterly
[or Exercise and Sport, 63, 322-327.
Fiatarone Singh, M.A. (2002). Exercise to prevent and treat functional disability.
Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 18, 431-462.
Fleg, J.L., Morrell, C.H., Bos, A.G., Brant, L.J., Talbot, L.A., Wright, J.G., & Lakatta,
E.G. (2005). Accelerated longitudinal decline of aerobic capacity in healthy older
adults. Circulation, 112, 674-682. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.545459
Giuliani, C.A., Gruber-Baldini, A.L., Park, N.S., Schrodt, L.A., Rokoske, F., Sloane,
P.D., & Zimmerman, S. (2008). Physical performance characteristics of assisted
living residents and risk for adverse health outcomes. The Gerontologist, 48, 203-
 212.
Golding, L., Myers, C., & Sinning, W. (1989). Y's way to physical {itness (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gross, J., Fetto, J., & Rosen, E. (1996). Musculoskeletal examination. Cambridge:
Blackwell Science.
Guralnik, J.M., Ferrucci, L., Pieper, C.F., Leveille, S.G., Markides, K.S., Ostir, G.V., .
. Wallace, R.B. (2000). Lower extremity function and subsequent disability:
Consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone
compared with the Short Physical Performance Battery. Journal o[Gerontology,
SSA, M221-M231.
Guralnik, J.M., Simonsick, E.M., Ferrucci, L., Glynn, R.J., Berkman, L.F., Blazer,
D.G., Scherr, P.A., & Wallace, R.B. (1994). A short physical performance
battery assessing lower extremity function: Association with self-reported
disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. Journal
o[Gerontology, 49, M85-M94.
Hernandez, J.P., & Franke, W.D. (2005). Effects of a 6-mo endurance-training
program on venous compliance and maximal lower body negative pressure in older
men and women. Journal o[Applied Physiology, 99, 1070-1077.
Holland, G.J., Tanaka, K., Shigematsu, R., & Nakagaichi, M. (2002). Flexibility and
physical functions of older adults: A review. Journal o[Aging end Physical Activity,
10, 169-206.
Hooker, S.P., & Cirill, L.A. (2006). Evaluation of community coalitions ability
to create safe, effective exercise classes for older adults. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 29, 242-250.
Hruda, K.V., Hicks, A.L., & McCartney, N. (2003). Training for muscle power
in older adults: Effects on functional abilities. Canadian Journal o[Applied
Physiology, 28(2), 178-189.
Hughes, V.A., Frontera, W.R., Wood, M., Evans, W.J., Dallal, G.E., Roubenoff, R., &
Fiatarone Singh, M.A. (2001). Longitudinal muscle strength changes in older adults:
Influence of muscle mass, physical activity, and health. Journal o[Gerontology,
S6A(5), B209-B217.
Jackson, A.S., Sui, X., Hebert, J.R., Church, T.S., & Blair, S.N. (2009). Role of
lifestyle and aging on the longitudinal change in cardiorespiratoiy fitness. Archives
o[Internal Medicine, 169(19), 1781-1787.
Jackson, A.W., & Baker, A.A. (1986). The relationship of the sit and reach test to
criterion measures of hamstring and back flexibility in young females. Research
Quarterly [or Exercise and Sport, 57, 183-186.
Jackson, A.W., & Langford, N.J. (1989). The criterion-related validity of the sit-
and- reach test: Replication and extension of previous findings. Research Quarterly
[or Exercise and Sport, 60, 384-387.
James, T.W. (1999). The 30-second arm curl test as an indicator o{upper body
 strength in older odults. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University,
Fullerton.
Johnston, J. (1999). Validation o[a 2-minute step-in-place test relative to treadmill
performance in older odults. Unpublished master's thesis, California State
University, Fullerton.
Jones, C.J., Rikli, R.E., & Beam, W.C. (1999). A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of
lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Research Quarterly [or
Exercise and Sport, 70, 113-119.
Jones, C.J., Rikli, R.E., Max, J., & Noffal, G. (1998). The reliability and validity of a
chair sit-and-reach test as a measure of hamstring flexibility in older adults.
Research Quarterly [or Exercise and Sport, 69, 338-343.
Jones, C.J., & Rose, D.J. (Eds.). (2005). Physical activity instruction o[older odults.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jones, C.J., Rutledge, D.N., & Aquino, J. (2010). Predictors of physical
performance and functional ability in people 50+ with and without fibromyalgia.
Journal o[ Aging and Physical Activity, 18, 353-368.
Judge, J.O. (2003). Balance training to maintain mobility and prevent disability.
American Journal o[Preventive Medicine, 25, 150-156.
Kline, G.M., Porcari, J.P., Hintermeister, R., Freedson, P.S., Ward, A., McCarron,
R.F., Ross, J., & Rippe, J.M. (1987). Estimation of VO2max frOm a one-mile
track walk, gender, age, and body weight. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise,
19, 253-259.
Lambers, S., Van Laethem, C., Van Acker, K., & Calders, P. (2008). Influence of
combined exercise training on indices of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular risk in
type 2 diabetes patients. Clinical Rehabilitation, 22(6), 483-492.
Lerner-Frankiel, M.B., Vargas, S., Brown, M., Krusell, L., & Schoneberger,
W. (1986). Functional community ambulation: What are your criteria?
Clinical Management in Physical Therapy, 6(2), 12-15.
Liu, J., Baiqing, L., & Shnider, R. (2010). Effects of tai chi training on
improving physical function in patients with coronary heart diseases. Journal
o[Exercise Science and Fitness, 8(2}, 78-84.
Looney, M.A. (1989). Criterion-referenced measurement: Reliability. In M. J. Safrit &
T. M. Woods (Eds.), Measurement concepts in physical education and
exercise science (pp. 137-152). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Losonczy, K.G., Harris, T.B., Cornoni-Huntley, J., Simonsick, E.M., Wallace, R.B.,
Cook, N.R., Ostfeld, A.M., & Blazer, D.G. (1995). Does weight loss from middle
age to old age explain the inverse weight mortality relation in old age? American
Journal o[Epidemiology, 141, 312-321.
Macaluso, A., & De Vito, G. (2004). Muscle strength, power and adaptations to
resistance training in older people. European Journal o[Applied Physiology, 91,
450-472.
MacRae, P.G., Lacourse, M., & Moldavon, R. (1992). Physical performance
measures that predict faller status in community-dwelling older adults. Journal o[
Occupational and Sports Physical Therapy, 16, 123-128.
Magee, D.J. (1992). Orthopedic physical assessment. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Mahar, M.R., & Rowe, D.A. (2008). Practical guidelines for valid and reliable
youth fitness testing. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science,
12(3), 126-145.
McArdle, W.D., Katch, F.I., Pechar, G.S., Jacobson, L., & Ruck, S. (1972). Reliability
and interrelationships between maximal oxygen intake, physical work capacity
and step-test scores in college women. Medicine and Science in Sports, 4, 182-
186.
McMurdo, M.E., & Rennie, L. (1993). A controlled trial of exercise by residents of old
people's homes. Age and Aging, 22, 11-15.
Miotto, J.M., Chodzko-Zajko, W.J., Reich, J.L., & Supler, M.M. (1999). Reliability
and validity of the Fullerton Functional Fitness Test: An independent replication
study. Journal o[Aging and Physical Activity, 7, 339-353.
Morey, M.C., Pieper, C.F., & Cornoni-Huntley, J. (1998). Physical fitness and
functional limitations in community-dwelling older adults. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 30, 715-723.
Morrow, J.R., Jr., Jackson, A.W., Disch, J.G., & Mood, D.P. (2011). Measurement and
evaluation in human performance (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Nagi, S.Z. (1965). Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In M.B.
Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation (pp. 100-113). Washington, DC:
American Sociological Association.
Nagi, S.Z. (1991). Disability concepts revisited: Implication for prevention. In A.M.
Pope & A.R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for
prevention (pp. 309-327). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1991). National Health Intewiew Suwey 1991
{10): Vital Health Statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics.
National Institutes of Health. (2012). Research for a new age. NIH Publication No. 93-
1129.
www.healthandage.com/html/min/nih/content/booklets/research_new_age/page3.htm.
Nelson, M.E., Rejeski, W.J., Blair, S.N., Duncan, P.W., Judge, J.O., King, ...
Castaneda-Sceppa, C. (2007). Physical activity and public health in older adults:
Recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American
Heart Association. Medicine and Science in Sports end Exercise, 39(8), 1435-1445.
Osness, W.H., Adrian, M., Clark, B., Hoeger, W., Rabb, D., & Wiswell, R. (1996).
Functional {itness assessment [or adults over 60 years. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Paterson, D.H., Jones, G.R., & Rice, C.L. (2007). Ageing and physical activity:
Evidence to develop exercise recommendations for older adults. Applied Physiology,
Nutrition, and Metabolism, 32(Suppl. 2E), S69-S108.
Paterson, D.H., & Warburton, D.E.R. (2010). Physical activity and functional
 limitations in older adults: A systematic review related to Canada's Physical
Activity Guidelines. International Journal o[Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 7, 1-22.
Patterson, P., Wiksten, D.L., Ray, L., Flanders, C., & Sanphy, D. (1996). The validity
and reliability of the back saver sit-and-reach test in middle school girls and boys.
Research Quarterly [or Exercise and Sport, 64, 448-451.
Pearson, J.A., Burkhart, E., Pifalo, W.B., Palaggo-Toy, T., & Krohn, K. (2005).
A lifestyle modification intervention for the treatment of osteoporosis.
American Journal o[Health Promotion, 20(1), 28-33.
Peterson, M.J., Crowley, G.M., Sullivan, R.J., Morey, M.C. (2004). Physical function
in sedentary and exercising older veterans as compared to national norms. Journal
o[ Rehabilitation Research and Development, 41(5), 653-658.
Pettee Gabriel, K.K., Rankin, R.L., Lee., C., Charlton, M.E., Swan, P.D., &
Ainsworth, B.E. (2010). Test—retest reliability and validity of the 400-meter walk
test in healthy, middle-aged women. Journal o[Physical Activity and Health,
7, 649-657.
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. (2008). Physical Activity
Guidelines Advisory Committee report. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. www.health.gov/PAGuidelines/committeereport.aspx.
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991). The timed “up and go”: A test of
basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. Journal o[the American
Geriatric Society, 39, 142-148.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (1998). The reliability and validity of a 6-minute walk test
as a measure of physical endurance in older adults. Journal o[Aging and Physical
Activity, 6, 363-375.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (1999a). Development and validation of a functional
fitness test for community-residing older adults. Journal o[Aging end Physical
Activity, 1, 129-161.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (1999b). Functional fitness normative scores for
community- residing adults, ages 60-94. Journal o[Aging and Physical Activity,
1, 162-181.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (2000). Physical activity level, fitness, and functional ability
of community-residing older adults. Medicine end Science in Sports and
Exercise, 28, S153.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (2012). Development and validation of criterion-
referenced clinically relevant fitness standards for maintaining physical
independence in later years. The Gerontologist, 0,1-13
DOI:10.10937geronCgns071.
Rose, D. (2010). FallProo[! (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rose, D.J., Jones, C.J., & Lucchese, N. (2002). Predicting the probability of falls
in community-residing older adults using the 8-foot up-and-go: A new measure
of functional mobility. Journal o[Aging end Physical Activity, 10, 466-475.
Rosow, I., & Breslau, N. (1966). A Guttman Health Scale for the aged. Journal o[
 Gerontology, 21, 556-559.
Ross, R., & Janssen, I. (2007). Physical activity, fitness, and obesity. In C. Bouchard,
S.N. Blair, & W. Haskell (Eds.), Physical activity and health (pp.174-191).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Safrit, M.J., & Wood, T.M. (1995). Introduction to measurement in physical education
and exercise science. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book.
Sakai, T., Tanaka, K., & Holland, G.J. (2002). Functional and locomotive
characteristics of stroke survivors in Japanese community-based rehabilitation.
American Journal o[Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(9), 675-683.
Santana-Sosa, E., Barriopedro, M.I., Ló pez-Mojares, L.M., Pérez, M., & Lucia, A.
(2008). Exercise training is beneficial for Alzheimer's patients. International
Journal o[Sports Medicine, 29(10), 845-850.
Schmidt, W.D., Biwer, C.J., & Kalscheuer, L.K. (2001). Effects of long versus short
bout exercise on fitness and weight loss in overweight females. Journal o[the
American College o[Nutrition, 20(5), 494-501.
Seeman, T.E., Berkman, L.F., Charpentier, P.A., Blazer, D.G., Alpert, M.A., & Tinetti,
M.E. (1995). Behavioral and psychosocial predictors of physical performance:
MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. Journal o[Gerontology, 50, M177-M183.
Shephard, R.J. (1997). Aging, physical activity, and health. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Simonsick, E.M., Fan, E., & Fleg, J.L. (2006). Estimating cardiorespiratory fitness
in well-functioning older adults: Treadmill validation of the long distance corridor
walk. Journal o[the American Geriatrics Society, 54, 127-132.
Siu, A.L., Reuben, D.B., & Hays, R.D. (1990). Hierarchical measures of
physical function in ambulatory geriatrics. Journal o[the American Geriatrics
Society, 38, 1113-1119.
Sperling, L. (1980). Evaluation of upper extremity function in 70-year old men and
women. Scandinavian Journal o[Rehabilitative Medicine, 12, 139-144.
Spirduso, W.W., Francis, K.L., & MacRae., P.G. (2005). Physical dimensions o[
aging. (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Starkey, C., & Ryan, J.L. (1996). Evaluation o[orthopedic ond athletic injuries.
Philadelphia: Davis.
Sternfeld, B., Ngo, L., Satariano, W.A., & Tager, I.B. (2002). Association of body
composition with physical performance and self-reported functional limitation in
elderly men and women. American Journal o[Epidemiology, 156, 110-121.
Stump, T., Clark, D.O., Johnson, R.J., & Wolinsky, F.D. (1997). The structure of
health status among Hispanic, African American, and white older adults. The
Journals o[Gerontology, S2B(Special Issue), 49-60.
Takeshima, N., Rogers, N.L., Rogers, M.E., Islam, M.M., Koizumi, D., & Lee, S.
(2007). Functional fitness gain varies in older adults depending on exercise mode.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39(11), 2036-2043.
Tinetti, M.E., Speechley, M., & Ginter, S.F. (1988). Risk factors for falls among
elderly persons living in the community. New England Journal o[Medicine, 319,
1701-1707.
Tinetti, M.E., Williams, T.F., & Mayewski, R. (1986). Fall risk index for elderly
patients based on number of chronic conditions. American Journal o[Medicine, 80,
429-434.
UK Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Protection.
(2011). Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity from the four home
countries’ chief medical officers. London.
www.nutrinfo.com/archivos/ebooks/act_fca_uk.pdf.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Physical Activity Guidelines
for Americans. www.health.gov/paguidelines.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Healthy People 2020. Office
of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Washington, DC.
www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Medicare Current Beneficiary
Survey (MCBS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MCBS.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1999). Housing our elders.
Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research.
Vandervoort, A.A. (2002). Aging of the human neuromuscular system. Muscle and
Newe, 25, 17-25.
Wang, A.W., Gilbey, H.J., & Ackland, T.R. (2002). Perioperative exercise programs
improve early return of ambulatory function after total hip arthroplasty: A
randomized, controlled trial. American Journal o[Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 81(11), 801-806.
Warburton, D.E.R., Gledhill, N., & Quinney, A. (2001). The effects of changes in
musculoskeletal fitness and health. Canadian Journal o[Applied Physiology, 26(2),
161-216.
Warren, B.J., Dotson, R.G., Nieman, D.C., & Butterworth, D.E. (1993). Validation
of a 1-mile walk test in elderly women. Journal o[Aging end Physical Activity,
1, 13- 21.
Welk, G.J., & Meredith, M.D. (Eds.). (2008). Fitnessgra 'Activitygram
reference guide. Dallas, TX: Cooper Institute.
Wiacek, M., & Hagner, W. (2008). The history and economic impact on the functional
fitness of elderly in the south-eastern region of Poland: A comparison with US
citizens. Archives o[Gerontology end Geriatrics, 46(2), 221-226.
Wilk, M., Kocur, P., Rozanska,A., Przywarska, I., Dylewicz, P., Owczarski, T...
Borowicz-Bienkowska, S. (2005). Assessment of the selected physiological effects
of Nordic walking performed as a part of a physical exercise program during the
second phase of rehabilitation after a myocardial infarction. Medical Rehabilitation,
 9(2), 20-25.
Winnick, J.P., & Short, F.X. (1999). The Brockport Physical Fitness Test manual.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Woodward, T.W., & Best, T.M. (2000). The painful shoulder: Part I. Clinical
evaluation. American Family Physician, 61(10), 3079-3088.
World Health Organization. (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for
health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599979_eng.pdf.
Yamauchi, T., Islam, M.M., Koizumi, D., Rogers, M.E., Rogers, N.L., & Takeshima,
N. (2005). Effect of home-based well-rounded exercise in community-dwelling
older adults. Journal o[Sports Science and Medicine, 4(4), 563-571.
Yan, T., Wilber, K.H., Aguirre, R., & Trejo, L. (2009). Do sedentary older adults
benefit from community-based exercise? Results from the active start program. The
Cerontologist, 49, 847-855.
 About the Authors

Roberta E. Rikli, PhD, is professor of kinesiology and dean emeritus of

the college of health and human development at California State
University in Fullerton and was cofounder of the LifeSpan Wellness
Program at Fullerton. For the past two decades she has done extensive
work in physical performance assessment with a particular focus on
senior fitness. She has published numerous scientific papers on her work
and has made over 100 presentations at conferences and workshops in
the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Finland, Scotland, Brazil,
China, Korea, and Japan.
Dr. Rikli has served on the editorial boards of three scientific journals
and is a regular reviewer for several others. She has held leadership
positions in professional organizations, including the International
Society for Aging and Physical Activity; the American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD); the
American Kinesiology Association; and the National Academy of
Kinesiology.
Dr. Rikli lives in Orange, California, and enjoys playing golf, hiking,
and playing tennis.
C. Jessie Jones, PhD, is professor and chair of the department of
health science at California State University in Fullerton. She is
director of the Fibromyalgia and Pain Management Center at Fullerton
and cofounder of the Center for Successful Aging.
Dr. Jones is internationally known for her research, program design,
curriculum development, and instructor training in the field of exercise
science and aging. She has taught senior fitness classes and conducted
training workshops for senior fitness instructors for over 25 years. Her
work has been covered in numerous publications and presented at
conferences worldwide. Her professional memberships include the
Gerontological Society of America, the American Public Health
Association, and the American Academy for Pain Management.
Dr. Jones lives in Fullenon, California, where she enjoys dancing,
drumming, hiking, playing golf, and jogging with her dog.