Study of measurement and experimental design problems associated with the step test

Area of Science:

• Exercise Physiology
• Biomedical Engineering
• Sports Science

Background:

• The classical Harvard Step Test (HST) scoring formula has limitations, particularly when individuals cannot complete the prescribed stepping duration.
• Previous attempts, like Insull et al.'s (1955) quadratic formula, aimed to create duration-independent HST scores.

Purpose of the Study:

• To develop and evaluate a simpler, linear scoring formula for the Harvard Step Test (HST) that is independent of stepping duration.
• To compare the sensitivity of new HST scoring formulas against classical and rapid versions in detecting changes due to physical conditioning.

Main Methods:

• A linear function was fitted to Insull's data relating HST score to stepping duration to derive new formulas.
• Twelve subjects underwent three different maximum stepping durations before and after a nine-day physical conditioning program (two miles daily).
• The sensitivity of classical, rapid, and new HST scoring formulas to physical conditioning changes was empirically evaluated.

Main Results:

• Both classical and rapid HST formulas were less sensitive to physical conditioning changes than the newly developed formulas.
• The new linear formulas demonstrated greater sensitivity in detecting improvements from physical training compared to older versions.
• New HST formulas yielded comparable scores to standard HST regardless of the stepping duration completed by subjects.

Conclusions:

• The inconsistencies in empirical results attributed to the original HST formulas contribute to its controversial nature.
• The newly developed HST scoring formulas are recommended for use over original versions due to enhanced sensitivity and duration independence.
• The classical HST's additional pulse counts are redundant; the rapid formula is more time-efficient, and the new formulas offer further improvements.