Development of physical selection procedures for the British Army. Phase 2: relationship between physical performance tests and criterion tasks

This paper is the second in a series of three to describe the development of physical selection standards for the British Army. The first paper defined criterion tasks (single lift, carry, repetitive lift and carry, and loaded march tasks) and set standards on the criterion tasks for all British Army trades. The principal objective was to determine which combination of physical performance tests could be best used to predict criterion task performance. Secondary objectives included developing so-called 'gender-free' and 'gender-unbiased' models. The objectives were met by analysing performance data on the criterion tasks and a large battery of physical performance tests collected from 379 trained soldiers (mean age 23.5 (SD 4.45) years, stature 1734 (SD 79.5) mm, body mass 71.4 (SD 10.58) kg). Objective 1 was met: the most predictive physical performance tests were identified for all criterion tasks. Both single lift tasks were successfully modelled using muscle strength and fat free mass scores. The carry model incorporated muscle endurance and body size data, but the errors of prediction were large. The repetitive lift models included measures of muscle strength and endurance, and body size, but errors of prediction were also large. The loaded march tasks were successfully modelled incorporating indices of aerobic fitness, supplemented by measures of strength, endurance or body size and composition. The secondary objectives were partially fulfilled, though limitations in the data hampered the process. Although only one model (a loaded march) was gender-free, three models were gender-related (i.e. contained 'gender' explicitly in the model). The remaining six were gender-specific (i.e. were appropriate for men or for women). Owing to both a lower accuracy of prediction in women's scores and a greater tendency for the women's scores to be distributed around the pass standards, a greater percentage of women than men were misclassified as passing or failing, resulting in indirect discrimination. A validation of the models in a separate sample of the user population of recruits is reported in the third paper in this series.     

Effects of basic training on material handling ability and physical fitness of British Army recruits

No study has yet evaluated the efficacy of British Army basic training in improving material handling performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the current British Army basic training in improving material handling performance and physical fitness. Forty-seven males (19.4 (3.2)years of age, 1753 (59)mm in height, 71.0 (9.6)kg in weight) and 10 females (21.5 (3.5)years, 1623 (45)mm, 62.5 (5.2)kg) served as subjects. Testing was carried out in the week prior to, and in the final week of, an 11-week basic training course. Maximal box lifts to two different heights, and repetitive lifting and carrying of a 10 kg load did not improve with training. Static (38 cm upright pull) and dynamic (incremental dynamic lift to 145cm) lifting strength data concurred with the maximal box lift data in that no improvement was observed. Repetitive lifting and carrying of a 22kg load improved (29.5%, p<0.001), as did 3.2km loaded march performance with 25 kg (15.7%, p<0.001), but march performance with a 15kg load did not. Predicted VO2 max improved from 48.4 to 51.4 ml.kg-1.min-1, a change of 6.1% (p<0.05). Fat-free mass increased by 0.9 kg (1.5%, p<0.01), and body fat reduced by 2.7% of body mass (20.1%, p<0.001), resulting in a loss of 1.2 kg of body mass (1.7%, p<0.01). It is concluded that basic training in the British Army produces some favourable adaptations in recruits, especially in terms of aerobic fitness. However, the poor development of strength and material handling ability during training fails to improve the ability of soldiers to perform simulated military tasks, and it does little to reduce future injury risk while performing these tasks.     

Resistance training and the enhancement of the gains in material-handling ability and physical fitness of British Army recruits during basic training

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a modified British Army basic training that included resistance training in improving material-handling performance and physical fitness, and to compare the modified training directly with the normal basic training. Forty-three males [19.2 (2.6) years of age, 1764 (72) mm in height, 73.0 (10.6) kg in mass] and nine females [19.1 (2.2) years, 1641 (67) mm, 62.0 (7.2) kg] performed the modified basic training. Testing occurred in the week before and in the final week of the 11-week basic training. Improvements with the modified training were observed for all six material-handling tests, including 8–12% for maximal box lifting, 15–19% for repetitive lifting and carrying and 9–17% for loaded marching (all p <0.01), and other established measures of aerobic fitness, strength and kinanthropometric characteristics. Significantly greater improvements were observed for the modified training compared with the normal training in maximal box lift to 1.45 m (12.4 versus 1.7%, p <0.01), 3.2 km loaded march performance with 15 kg (8.9 versus 3.6%, p <0.05), estimated fat-free mass (4.2 versus 1.5%, p <0.001), predicted [Vdot]O_2max (1 min ^-1) (9.3 versus 4.1%, p <0.01) and dynamic lift to 1.45 m (15.5 versus 0.2%, p <0.001). It was concluded that the improvements in material-handling ability and other aspects of physical fitness brought about in recruits by British Army basic training can be enhanced by the use of a physical training programme that includes a carefully designed resistance training element. Of particular note are the improvements shown in performance on material-handling tasks that require muscular strength, as these represent many of the tasks that soldiers encounter in their military careers.     

A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual handling tasks: 2. Discomfort,Rating of Perceived Exertion and heart rate measures

Although many manual handling activities involve combinations of pull, lift, carry, lower and push, there are few reports of investigation of how to assess the risk in these combination tasks. Two strategies have been suggested in the literature for estimating the risk in a combination task based on the measures of the separate components of that task. The aim of the study was to compare the risks assessed in single manual handling tasks with those in combination tasks. Ratings of discomfort, exertion and heart rate were collected from nine male and nine female students, performing combination and single tasks. Combination tasks consisted of sequences of pull, lift, carry, lower and push tasks. Combination tasks were performed at 1.min^?1 and 3.min^?1 whilst single tasks (lift, lower, push, pull and carry) were performed at 3.min^?1 and 6.min^?1. The rating of exertion and heart rate for each combination task was compared to the exertion rating and heart rate of the single tasks which comprised the combination task using repeated measures anaylsis of variance with specified contrasts. Similar comparisons for the discomfort data were performed using Friedman and Wilcoxon tests. In at least one of the twelve comparisons performed for each dependent variable, the combination task value was significantly different to each single task value. The differences occurred regardless of whether the most critical single task value or an average of all single task values was used. It was concluded that the risk in combination manual tasks can not be accurately assessed by using estimates from discomfort, exertion ratings and heart rate measures of single tasks.