112
Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
June 2015
Volume 18 Number 3
Official Research Journal of
Editor-in-Chief
Tommy
the American
Boone, PhD,
Society
MBA
of
Exercise
Physiologists
Review
Board
Todd Astorino, PhD
ISSN 1097-9751
Julien Baker,
PhD
Steve Brock, PhD
Lance Dalleck, PhD
Eric Goulet, PhD
Robert Gotshall, PhD
Alexander Hutchison, PhD
M. Knight-Maloney, PhD
Len Kravitz, PhD
James Laskin, PhD
Yit Aun Lim, PhD
Lonnie Lowery, PhD
Derek Marks, PhD
Cristine Mermier, PhD
Robert Robergs, PhD
Chantal Vella, PhD
Dale Wagner, PhD
Frank Wyatt, PhD
Ben Zhou, PhD
Official Research Journal
of the American Society of
Exercise Physiologists
ISSN 1097-9751
JEPonline
An Innovative Step Test Protocol Can Accurately
Assess VO2 Max in Athletes
Wanwisa Bungmark1, Onanong Kulaputana2, Chalerm
Chaiwatcharaporn1
1
Faculty of Sports Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand, 2Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand
ABSTRACT
Bungmark W, Kulaputana O, Chaiwatcharaporn C. An Innovative
Step Test Protocol Can Accurately Assess VO2 Max in Athletes.
JEPonline 2015;18(3):112-122. The purpose of this study was to finetune the step test protocol to accurately assess VO2 max in athletes
comparable to the use of standard gas-exchange maximal metabolic
exercise testing methods. As such, then, VO2 max tests can be
economically carried out by using low cost equipment with a simple
and reliable test protocol at the convenience of coaches and athletes.
A pilot study was carried out with 6 subjects to determine the effect of
various parameters that influence the accuracy of the typical step test
protocol. The parameters included age, body weight, body height, leg
length, thigh length, step height, hip joint angle, knee joint angle,
stepping tempo, test duration, and heart rate (HR) immediately at the
end of the test duration, to recovery HR resulting in 16 different testing
protocols to benchmark against the conventional 3-Minute Step Test,
the Cycle Ergometer Test, and the standard gas-exchange method.
Then, to fine-tune the step test protocol, a second study was carried
out with 32 subjects sampled from university level male basketball
players (aged 18 to 25) with a VO2 max of 47 to 65 mL·kg-1·min-1
(assessed by the gas-exchange method). The testing protocols
consisted of six competing protocols. An incremental height of 1 cm
resolution step box was developed to accurately accommodate a hip
joint of 73° and a knee joint of 90° for different subjects’ height test.
Stepwise linear regression indicated that the most accurate step test
protocol with respect to the gas-exchange method was the one with
an individualized step box height that achieved the knee joint angle of
90°, 30 steps·min-1, and HR measured by a HR monitor at the end of
the 3-min test duration. The resultant VO2 max assessments were
113
more accurate than the 3-Minute Step Test and the conventional Cycle Ergometer Test.
Key Words: Cardiorespiratory Fitness, VO2 Max, Step Test, Incremental Height Step Box
INTRODUCTION
Can a step test be used to accurately determine the cardiorespiratory fitness of athletes? If so, it
would be extremely helpful to coaches and athletes. After all, VO2 max is an important measure of an
athlete’s fitness. To be able to accurately and reliably determine VO2 max using low cost equipment
that is simple and fast with virtually zero setup time would be a huge step for anyone interested in a
quantifiable measure that can be used to track and assess the aerobic fitness status of athletes.
The purpose of this study was to fine-tune the step test protocol to accurately assess the VO2 max in
athletes comparable to the use of standard gas-exchange maximal metabolic exercise testing
methods. In the pilot study phase, various factors that are known to influence the accuracy of the step
test (with respect to the gold standard in maximal metabolic exercise testing with gas-exchange
method) were preliminarily investigated to determine legitimated ranges and their respective
influence. Key parameters in the step test have previously identified the subject’s step height [1,68,11,12], tempo [2-5,9], test duration [7,9], and measurement of the level of work done in terms of the
subject’s heart rate (HR) response [1,10,13]. It is expected that the statistical analyses and
physiological reasoning that results from the pilot study will lead to an increased focus on the ranges
of key parameters in the “fine-tuning” study that will result in the identification of the most appropriate
step test protocol in conjunction with the introduction and application of the 1 cm incremental height
step box.
METHODS
Subjects
A pilot study was carried out with 6 subjects to determine the effect of various parameters that
influence the accuracy of the typical step test protocol. Then, to fine-tune the step test protocol, a
second study was carried out with 32 subjects sampled from university level male basketball players
(aged 18 to 25) with a VO2 max of 47 to 65 mL·kg-1·min-1 (assessed by the gas-exchange method).
The 32 subjects were sampled from 4 of the 8 final round male basketball teams competing in the
40th University Sports of Thailand during the 10th to the 19th of January 2013 at Chonburi Province
in Thailand. All subjects were qualified and passed inclusion criteria stipulated in this study.
Procedures
In the pilot study, 6 subjects were scheduled to undergo 19 different test protocols (as presented in
Table 1) across a period of 2 to 3 hr·d-1 for 8 d within a 2-wk period. Resting HR and blood pressure
were measured after at least 10 min of rest, and a baseline EKG (Figure 1) was subsequently
monitored for any abnormality to ensure injury-free testing. Body weight, standing height, leg length,
and thigh length (Figures 2 and 3) were recorded. Prior to undertaking each test, details and
procedures for each test protocol were clarified and, then, the subject was hooked to a wireless HR
monitor. Proper stretching and warm-up exercises were executed before performing actual testing.
114
Table 1. Test Protocols in Pilot Study.
Test Protocol
PST1M
PST2M
Step Box Height
Step Test Protocol
(cm)
PST3M
PST1
PST2
PST3
PST4
PST5
PST6
PST7
PST8
PST9
PST10
PST11
PST12
PST13
PST14
PST15
PST16
Figure 1. Baseline EKG
Measurement
Description
Standard Gas-exchange Test
Cycle Ergometer Test
Tempo
(steps·min-1)
30
@ 73° hip joint angle
@ 90° knee joint angle
30
30
30
30
@ 73° hip joint angle
@ 73° hip joint angle
@ 90° knee joint angle
@ 90° knee joint angle
@ 73° hip joint angle
@ 73° hip joint angle
@ 90° knee joint angle
@ 90° knee joint angle
@ 73° hip joint angle
@ 90° knee joint angle
Figure 2. Leg Length
Measurement
24
24
24
26
30
24
24
26
30
26
30
24
24
24
24
26
26
Duration
(min)
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
4
4
Figure 3. Thigh Length
Measurement
115
In the fine-tuning study, 32 subjects were scheduled to undergo 9 different test protocols (as
presented in Table 2) that consisted of 2 to 3 hrs·d-1 for 4 days within a 2-wk period. The pre-test and
data recording procedures were carried out in the same manner as in the pilot study.
Table 2. Test Protocols in Fine-Tuning Study.
Test Protocol
Description
FST1M
Standard Gas Exchange Test
FST2M
Cycle Ergometer Test
Step Box Height
Tempo
Step Test Protocol
(cm)
(steps·min-1)
FST1
FST2
FST3
FST4
FST5
FST6
FST7
30
@ 90° knee joint
30
@ 90° knee joint
@ 90° knee joint
@ 90° knee joint
@ 73° hip joint
24
24
26
26
30
24
26
Duration
(min)
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
Measurements
For standard gas-exchange maximal metabolic exercise testing, the Bruce Treadmill Protocol was
carried out to assess the VO2 max of each subject (Figure 4) using a Cortex Biophysik MetaMax 3B
(Cortex, Germany). For the Cycle Ergometer Test (Figure 5), the Astrand Testing Protocol was
carried out using a Monark Ergomedic 828E (Monark, Sweden). For the different step test protocols,
an incremental height of 1 cm resolution step box was used in conjunction with a Polar wireless HR
monitor (Polar Electro Oy, FI-90440, Kempele, Finland) to measure HR immediately before the test,
immediately at the end of test, and recovery HRs at 15, 20, and 60 sec (with simultaneous manual
counting of the recovery HRs).
Figure 4. Standard Gas
Exchange Test Protocol
Figure 5. Cycle Ergometer
Test Protocol
Figure 6. Measuring Hip Joint
Angle in Step Test Protocol
116
Incremental Height Step Box
An incremental height of 1 cm resolution step box was developed to accommodate the accurate step
height to satisfy the 73° hip joint angle and the 90° knee joint angle test protocols for different
standing heights of the subjects. A goniometer (Figure 6) was used to ensure an accurate hip joint
angle or knee joint angle to determine the proper step box height precisely in 1 cm increments.
Statistical Analysis
Stepwise linear regression analyses were used to enter or remove independent variables using the F
statistics criteria stepwise method and corresponding correlation of the model of various step test
protocols and the Cycle Ergometer Test Protocol with respect to the VO2 max value obtained from the
standard gas-exchange test method of the same test subjects in both the pilot study and the finetuning study for accuracy comparison. The higher the correlation value, the higher the accuracy. A
regression equation was derived as assessment model to determine VO2 max for each test protocol.
Analyses were performed using the statistical package SPSS 14.0.
RESULTS
Comparison of correlation values using stepwise linear regression statistical analyses of all step test
protocols in pilot study are shown in Table 3. Comparison of correlation values using stepwise linear
regression of all step test protocols in the fine-tuning study are shown in Table 4. From using a
goniometer to control a knee joint angle of 90° to determine the proper step box height for each
subject, coupled with the subject’s anthropometric data, the most appropriate anthropometric factor
for proper step height selection was standing height (Table 5).
Table 3. Comparison of Correlation Values of Step Test Protocols in Pilot Study.
Protocol
P00
P15
P20
P60
C15
C20
PST3M
PST1
PST2
PST3
PST4
PST5
PST6
PST7
PST8
PST9
PST10
PST11
PST12
PST13
PST14
PST15
PST16
0.655
0.427
0.262
0.328
0.463
0.598
0.511
0.351
0.436
0.608
0.601
0.449
0.423
0.695
0.413
0.666
0.290
0.682
0.488
0.429
0.218
0.332
0.617
0.336
0.254
0.412
0.482
0.579
0.450
0.384
0.594
0.257
0.653
0.144
0.661
0.583
0.491
0.320
0.441
0.242
0.318
0.208
0.375
0.632
0.523
0.419
0.326
0.459
0.417
0.677
0.315
0.455
0.630
0.745
0.729
0.555
0.613
0.429
0.731
0.211
0.471
0.751
0.359
0.519
0.612
0.748
0.270
0.729
0.607
0.549
0.761
0.742
0.519
0.635
0.575
0.710
0.315
0.431
0.727
0.417
0.485
0.315
0.747
0.385
0.710
0.645
0.587
0.553
0.182
0.640
0.630
0.547
0.126
0.385
0.665
0.581
0.523
0.561
0.433
0.546
0.508
0.480
C60
0.676
0.477
0.737
0.748
0.490
0.509
0.623
0.701
0.442
0.220
0.734
0.524
0.672
0.440
0.746
0.634
0.685
Note. P00 = Heart rate immediately at the end of test duration measured by a HR monitor. P15 = Recovery HR measured by a HR monitor 15 sec
after the end of test duration. P20 = Recovery HR measured by a HR monitor 20 sec after the end of test duration. P60 = Recovery HR measured by a
HR monitor 60 sec after the end of test duration. C15 = Recovery pulse rate counted manually 15 sec after the end of test duration. C20 = Recovery
pulse rate counted manually 20 sec after the end of test duration. C60 = Recovery pulse rate counted manually 60 sec after the end of test duration.
117
Table 4. Comparison of Correlation Values of Step Test Protocols in Fine-Tuning Study.
Protocol
P00
P15
P20
P60
C15
C20
C60
FST1
FST2
FST3
FST4
FST5
FST6
FST7
0.689
0.636
0.748
0.746
0.796
0.710
0.771
0.627
0.695
0.717
0.728
0.747
0.631
0.724
0.635
0.720
0.714
0.744
0.760
0.649
0.747
0.533
0.533
0.754
0.533
0.533
0.533
0.792
0.686
0.628
0.772
0.629
0.716
0.533
0.742
0.696
0.727
0.792
0.714
0.768
0.632
0.740
0.706
0.640
0.845
0.671
0.707
0.533
0.733
Note. P00 = Heart rate immediately at the end of test duration measured by a HR monitor. P15 = Recovery HR measured by a HR monitor 15 sec
after the end of test duration. P20 = Recovery HR measured by a HR monitor 20 sec after the end of test duration. P60 = Recovery HR measured by a
HR monitor 60 sec after the end of test duration. C15 = Recovery pulse rate counted manually 15 sec after the end of test duration. C20 = Recovery
pulse rate counted manually 20 sec after the end of test duration. C60 = Recovery pulse rate counted manually 60 sec after the end of test duration.
Table 5. Comparison of Correlation between Step Box Height and Different Anthropometric
Values.
Comparison
Pearson Correlation
Step Box Height vs. Standing Height
Step Box Height vs. Leg Length
Step Box Height vs. Knee Height
Step Box Height vs. Thigh Length
0.751*
0.721*
0.704*
0.531*
Note. * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 7. Incremental Height Step Box set up with 15
x 1, 5 x 4 and 1 x 1 = 36 cm high for 166 to 168 cm
high subject.
Figure 8. Incremental Height Step Box set up with 15
x 1, 5 x 6 and 1 x 4 = 49 cm high for 207 to 209 cm
high subject.
A corresponding regression equation: BH = .31 x H – 16, can be used to construct a selection table
for proper testing step box height determination to ensure 90° knee joint angle accurately without
using a goniometer as shown in Table 6. The incremental height of one centimeter resolution from 19
to 50 cm step box can accommodate test subjects with a standing height from 110 to 210 cm to
comply with the 90° knee joint angle step test protocol.
118
Table 6. Step Box Height (BH) Selection for Standing Height (H) from 111 to 210 CM.
H
BH
H
BH
H
BH
H
BH
H
BH
111
19
131
25
151
31
171
37
191
44
112
19
132
25
152
31
172
38
192
44
113
19
133
26
153
32
173
38
193
44
114
20
134
26
154
32
174
38
194
45
115
20
135
26
155
32
175
39
195
45
116
20
136
26
156
33
176
39
196
45
117
21
137
27
157
33
177
39
197
45
118
21
138
27
158
33
178
40
198
46
119
21
139
27
159
34
179
40
199
46
120
21
140
28
160
34
180
40
200
46
121
22
141
28
161
34
181
40
201
47
122
22
142
28
162
35
182
41
202
47
123
22
143
29
163
35
183
41
203
47
124
23
144
29
164
35
184
41
204
48
125
23
145
29
165
35
185
42
205
48
126
23
146
30
166
36
186
42
206
48
127
24
147
30
167
36
187
42
207
49
128
24
148
30
168
36
188
43
208
49
129
24
149
30
169
37
189
43
209
49
130
25
150
31
170
37
190
43
210
50
DISCUSSION
The main objective of this study was to fine-tune the step test protocol to accurately determine VO2
max in athletes so that the test can be deployed economically with low cost equipment using a simple
test protocol. The three major factors that influence the accuracy of the step test protocol are: (a) step
height; (b) tempo; and (c) test duration. Possible step heights are fixed height, variable height with a
hip joint angle of 73°, and variable height with a knee joint angle of 90°. Possible tempos are 24, 26,
and 30 steps·min-1, and the test durations are 3, 4, and 5 min. The present study evaluated a
combination of 27 protocols.
However, in regards to the pilot study, for the fixed height of 30 cm, fast tempo of 26 and 30
steps·min-1 for a longer duration of 4 and 5 min were deemed too intense for the subjects, so 4
protocols were excluded. The Standard Step Test protocol with a 30 cm fixed height at 24 steps·min-1
tempo for 3 min was designated as PST3M (i.e., the benchmark for the other step test protocols).
Likewise, for variable height with an angle of 73° at the hip joint, fast tempo of 30 steps·min-1 for long
duration of 4 and 5 min were excluded together with fast tempo of 26 steps·min-1 for 5 min duration,
which was a decrease in 3 more protocols. The same reduction of 3 protocols was also applied for
variable height with a 90° knee joint angle. A total reduction of 10 protocols from the possible
combination of 27 protocols left 16 new step test protocols from PST1 to PST16 that were
benchmarked against the Standard Step Test protocol PST3M, the Cycle Ergometer Test PST2M,
and the Standard Gas-exchange Test PST1M (see Table 1).
119
Stepwise linear regression analyses of the pilot study in Table 3 were used to determine which
protocols would be further investigated in the fine-tuning study. Aside from the statistical point of view,
it is interesting to point out the physiological reasons associated with the failed protocols.
 PST8, variable height with 73° hip joint angle at 30 steps·min-1 for 3 min was found to be too
easy due to comfortable posture in short duration despite high tempo.
 PST11, variable height with 73° hip joint angle at 24 steps·min-1 for 4 min was also found to be
too easy due to comfortable posture at slow tempo despite longer duration.
 PST6, 30 cm fixed height at 24 steps·min-1 for 5 min was found to be too long. The slow tempo
and fixed height did not accommodate well for the different standing height of the subjects,
thus contributing to poor overall accuracy.
 PST12, variable height with 73° hip joint angle at 24 steps·min-1 for 5 min was found to be too
easy due to the comfortable posture at the slow tempo even with the longest duration.
 PST4, 30 cm fixed height at 30 steps·min-1 for 3 min was found (given the shorter duration but
higher tempo and fixed height) to contribute to poor overall accuracy.
 PST5, 30 centimeters fixed height at 24 steps·min-1 for 4 min was found (given the longer
duration but slower tempo and fixed height) to contribute to poor overall accuracy.
 PST1, variable height with 73° hip joint angle at 24 steps·min-1 for 3 min was found to be very
easy due to comfortable posture at slow tempo and short duration.
 PST16, variable height with 90° knee joint angle at 26 steps·min-1 for 4 min was found to be a
little too long despite biomechanically correct posture at moderate tempo.
 PST7, variable height with 73° hip joint angle at 26 steps·min-1 for 3 min was found to be still
too easy due to comfortable posture in short duration despite moderate tempo.
 PST14, variable height with 90° knee joint angle at 24 steps·min-1 for 5 min was found to be
too long despite biomechanically correct posture at low tempo.
The results from the pilot study have practically weeded out the too easy and too hard protocols from
further investigation. Table 4 presents the protocols that were tested. At first glance, from statistical
point of view, the FST3 C60 protocol (r = 0845) with a 30 cm fixed height at 26 steps·min-1 for 3 min
with recovery HR manual counting for 60 sec would be #1. But, due to the error-prone nature of
manually counting HR, we were reluctant to elect it as the future standard to use. Thus, in the final
analysis, the FST5 P00 protocol (r = .796), with a variable height and a 90° knee joint angle at 30
steps·min-1 for 3 min with HR monitor that determined HR immediately at the end of test duration was
selected. From a biomechanical point of view, the FST5 P00 protocol represents the correct posture
to perform the most efficient step test. From physiological point of view, the protocol strikes the
balance of testing load using the high tempo within a short duration. The use of the HR monitor
measurement immediately at the end of test duration without waiting for recovery contributes to a fast
and accurate assessment. Also, from its corresponding regression equation: Predicted VO2 max =
103.40 - 0.235 x HR - 0.211 x BW, a Fitness Evaluation Chart can be used in the field (see Table 7).
120
Table 7. Step Test Protocol Fitness Evaluation Chart.
Heart Rate at the End of 3 Min (beats·min-1)
BW
(kg)
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
67.0 65.8
64.7
63.5
62.3
61.1
60.0
58.8
57.6
50
65.9 64.8
63.6
62.4
61.2
60.1
58.9
57.7
56.5
55
64.9 63.7
62.5
61.4
60.2
59.0
57.8
56.7
55.5
60
63.8 62.7
61.5
60.3
59.1
58.0
56.8
55.6
54.4
65
62.8 61.6
60.4
59.3
58.1
56.9
55.7
54.6
53.4
70
61.7 60.6
59.4
58.2
57.0
55.9
54.7
53.5
52.3
75
60.7 59.5
58.3
57.1
56.0
54.8
53.6
52.4
51.3
80
59.6 58.4
57.3
56.1
54.9
53.7
52.6
51.4
50.2
85
58.6 57.4
56.2
55.0
53.9
52.7
51.5
50.3
49.2
90
57.5 56.3
55.2
54.0
52.8
51.6
50.5
49.3
48.1
95
56.5 55.3
54.1
52.9
51.8
50.6
49.4
48.2
47.1
100
55.4 54.2
53.0
51.9
50.7
49.5
48.3
47.2
46.0
105
54.3 53.2
52.0
50.8
49.6
48.5
47.3
46.1
44.9
110
53.3 52.1
50.9
49.8
48.6
47.4
46.2
45.1
43.9
115
52.2 51.1
49.9
48.7
47.5
46.4
45.2
44.0
42.8
120
155
56.4
55.4
54.3
53.3
52.2
51.2
50.1
49.0
48.0
46.9
45.9
44.8
43.8
42.7
41.7
160
55.3
54.2
53.1
52.1
51.0
50.0
48.9
47.9
46.8
45.8
44.7
43.6
42.6
41.5
40.5
Shaded areas are based on Shvartz E, Reihold RC. Aerobic fitness norms for males and females aged 6 to 75 years: A
review. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990;61:3-11. Shaded areas are evaluation of fitness classification for male aged 20 –
24 yrs; fair 38 – 43, average 44 – 50, good 51 – 56, very good 57 – 62, and excellent >62.
Table 7 serves as example of implementation in the field (given that an increment should be in 1 kg
and 1 beat·min-1 increment). It is important to note that a chart should be produced for evaluation in
each age group. This can be done with the development of an app that calculates VO2 max and
determines the subject’s fitness classification instantly from the test result.
This study has fine-tuned the step test protocol using an innovative incremental height of 1 cm
resolution step box for stepping at the tempo of 30 steps·min-1 with a HR measurement immediately
at the end of min 3 to accurately assess VO2 max of male athletes comparable to the gas-exchange
method. The step test is fast, simple, and accurate. Look up Table 6 for proper set up of step height,
then test for 3 min, and look up Table 7 again for VO2 max assessment and fitness classification.
Limitations of this Study
The 32 subjects in the fine-tuning phase of this study were limited to university level male basketball
players: (a) aged from 18 to 25 yrs; (b) body weight of 57.4 to 95.2 kg; (c) height of 168 to 196.5 cm;
and (d) VO2 max from 47 to 65 mL·kg-1·min-1 assessed by gas-exchange method. Some subject had
leg length discrepancy up to 3 cm from the average of 1.5 cm. The average leg length to standing
height ratio was 0.52; whereas, the average thigh height to standing height ratio was 0.24 from this
group of test subjects.
Further study should be carried out to generalize the test protocol for a broader population of subjects
that include male and female subjects of varying age with a wider range of body weight and body
height with more diverse anthropometric ratios peculiar to some sports types and body types.
Different anthropometric ratios may affect the selection of the step box height to ensure the knee joint
angle of 90° for accurate test result. Different sex will certainly result in different assessment equation
and evaluation. Eventually, whether the non-athlete subject and the athlete subject can share the
same predictive equation is subject to further investigation.
121
CONCLUSIONS
The findings indicate that the step test protocol developed in this study can accurately estimate VO2
max in athletes compared to the gold standard of maximal metabolic exercise testing. An innovative
incremental height of 1 cm resolution from a 19 to 50 cm step box was developed to accommodate
the test subjects’ standing height from 110 to 210 cm to insure knee angle of 90° during the step test.
A HR monitor was used to measure HR at the end of the 3rd-min of stepping with the tempo of 30
steps·min-1. VO2 max was assessed by the predictive assessment equation of 103.40 - 0.235 x HR –
0.211 x BW, where HR is the HR (in beats·min-1) immediately at the end of 3 min test duration, and
BW is the body weight of test subject in kg.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors are grateful to the Faculty of Sports Science, Chulalongkorn
University, for permission to publish this paper. The authors would like to give special thanks to
participating basketball athletes in this study from Sripatum University, Srinakharinwirot University,
Rattana Pundit University, and Institute of Physical Education for their cheerful participation and
collaboration. Also, the authors would like to express their deep appreciation to Dr. Boonsakdi
Lorpipatana for his resourcefulness, guidance, and assistance in preparation of this manuscript.
Address for correspondence: Dr. Chalerm Chaiwatcharaporn, Assistant Professor. Faculty of
Sports Science, Chulalongkorn University, Rama I Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. Telephone:
+668 7807-3113. Email: [email protected]
References
1. Devries K. Evaluation and prediction of physical fitness of The Harvard Step Test. Am J
Cardiol. 1964.
2. Donahue JM, Fox JB. A multi-method evaluation of decision and management science. Int J
Mag Sci. 2000;28:17-36.
3. Francis K, Brasher J. A height-adjusted step test for predicting maximal oxygen consumption
in males. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1992;32:282-287.
4. Francis K, Feinstein R. A simple height-specific and rate-Specific step test for children. South
Med J. 1991;84(2):169-174.
5. Francis K, Culpepper M. Height-adjusted, rate-specific, single-stage step test for predicting
maximal oxygen consumption. South Med J. 1989;82(5):602-606.
6. Francis K. A New Single-Stage Step Test for the clinical assessment of maximal oxygen
consumption. Phys Ther. 1990;70:662-663.
7. Irma R. A Modified Harvard Step
Arbeitsphysiologie. 1954;15:235-250.
Test
for
the
evaluation
of
physical
fitness.
122
8. Kevin S, Alison R. The Chester Step Test: A simple yet effective tool for the prediction of
aerobic capacity. Physiotherapy. 2004;90:183-188.
9. Mahdieh MS, Mohammad G, Hamid AA, Reza G. Maximal Step Test: A new approach to step
test improvement. World Appl Sci J. 2011;12:2058-2060.
10. McArdle WD, Katch FI, Peschar GS, Jacobson L, Ruck S. Reliability and interrelationships
between maximal oxygen intake, physical work capacity and step test scores in college
women. Med Sci Sports Exer. 1972;4:182-186.
11. Santo A, Golding LA. Predicting maximum oxygen uptake from a Modified 3-Minute Step Test.
ProQuest Medical Library. 2003;110-115.
12. Shinno N. Analysis of knee function in ascending and descending stairs. Med Sport. 1971;6:
202-207.
13. Siconolfi SF. A simple, valid Step Test for estimating maximal oxygen uptake in epidemiologic
studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1985.
14. Smothermon R. Cross validation of the Kasch Three-Minute Step Test. San Jose State
University. 1996.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in JEPonline are those of the authors and are not attributable to JEPonline,
the editorial staff or the ASEP organization.