Vol 67, No 3 (2016)
Original article
Published online: 2016-09-27

open access

Page views 1597
Article views/downloads 1494
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The development and optimisation of a quantitative physical fitness scoring system for use amongst Naval Service personnel

Cliodhna Sargent, Sean Lacey, Cormac Gebruers, Jim O'Mahony
Pubmed: 27681218
IMH 2016;67(3):171-178.


Background: A lack of research currently exists in relation to the current physical fitness testing system that is used within the Irish Naval Service, not only in relation to the tests that are used but also in relation to the scores that should be achieved in order to pass the test. As such the aim of this study was to select tests for various components of physical fitness and create a scoring system that could be used to assess individuals more comprehensively.

Materials and methods: Seventy-five individuals took part in the study (71 males, 4 females). Each participant completed a battery of physical tests analysing the following physical fitness components: flexibility, power, agility, strength, speed, anaerobic conditioning and aerobic conditioning. The mean score ± 0.67 and ± 1 standard deviations were used for the selection of categories.

Results: A six category scoring system was produced for each component of physical fitness. Scores were assigned to each category allowing a total cumulative score and an overall percentage of the total to be calculated. The categories are as follows: Score 5, Score 10, Score 15, Score 20, Score 25, Score 30.

Conclusions: A quantitative scoring system has been produced that allows comprehensive physical fitness testing to be conducted. In order to achieve a complete picture of a participant’s physical fitness, all tests outlined should be included in the testing process. However, the flexible nature of this system allows for tests to be included or excluded to suit the needs of an individual or organisation. The fact that the scoring system is quantitative, the time involved is relatively short, multiple participants can be tested simultaneously and the pass rates can be decided upon by the host organisation makes this system versatile and comparable across multiple jurisdictions.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Navy Physical Readiness Test (PRT). www.navy.com/navy-life/life-as-a-sailor/fitness.html (09.05.2016).
  2. Defence Forces Fitness Tests 2014. www.military.ie/careers/tness-testing-centre/defence-forces-fitness-tests (12.10.2014).
  3. Fitness Testing Centre. 2014. www.military.ie/careers/tness-testing-centre (05.11.2014).
  4. RNFT policy and protocols Technical Report. British Royal Navy 2012.
  5. Whitehead PN, Schilling BK, Peterson DD, et al. Possible new modalities for the Navy physical readiness test. Mil Med. 2012; 177(11): 1417–1425.
  6. Arteaga R, Dorado C, Chavarren J, et al. Reliability of jumping performance in active men and women under different stretch loading conditions. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2000; 40(1): 26–34.
  7. Bilzon JLJ, Scarpello EG, Bilzon E, et al. Generic task-related occupational requirements for Royal Naval personnel. Occup Med (Lond). 2002; 52(8): 503–510.
  8. Vanderburgh PM. Occupational relevance and body mass bias in military physical fitness tests. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40(8): 1538–1545.
  9. Sporis G, Jukić I, Bok D, et al. Impact of body composition on performance in fitness tests among personnel of the Croatian navy. Coll Antropol. 2011; 35(2): 335–339.
  10. Gelen E. Acute effects of different warm-up methods on sprint, slalom dribbling, and penalty kick performance in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24(4): 950–956.
  11. Jackson A, Langford NJ. The criterion-related validity of the sit and reach test: replication and extension of previous findings. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989; 60(4): 384–387.
  12. Bandy WD, Irion JM, Briggler M. The effect of time and frequency of static stretching on flexibility of the hamstring muscles. Phys Ther. 1997; 77(10): 1090–1096.
  13. Hartig DE, Henderson JM. Increasing hamstring flexibility decreases lower extremity overuse injuries in military basic trainees. Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27(2): 173–176.
  14. Lemmink KA, Kemper HCG, de Greef MHG, et al. The validity of the sit-and-reach test and the modified sit-and-reach test in middle-aged to older men and women. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003; 74(3): 331–336.
  15. Mayorga-Vega D, Merino-Marban R, Viciana J. Criterion-Related Validity of Sit-and-Reach Tests for Estimating Hamstring and Lumbar Extensibility: a Meta-Analysis. J Sports Sci Med. 2014; 13(1): 1–14.
  16. Szivak TK, Kraemer WJ, Nindl BC, et al. Relationships of physical performance tests to military-relevant tasks in women. US Army Med Dep J. 2014: 20–26.
  17. Heinrich KM, Spencer V, Fehl N, et al. Mission essential fitness: comparison of functional circuit training to traditional Army physical training for active duty military. Mil Med. 2012; 177(10): 1125–1130.
  18. Operations, C.o.N., OPNav instruction 6110.1j Technical Reports. 2011, Department of Navy: 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20350–2000 Washington,.
  19. Physical fitness Assessment. Australian Defence Forces. www.defencejobs.gov.au/recruitmentCentre/howToJoin/tnessTest (26.11.2014).
  20. Little T, Williams AG. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed, and agility in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(1): 76–78.
  21. Markovic G, Jukic I, Milanovic D, et al. Effects of sprint and plyometric training on muscle function and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21(2): 543–549.
  22. Pendleton MHW. Reliability and validity of the Welsh rugby union shuttle run test. BSc dissertation. University of Wales, Cardiff 1997.
  23. Boddington MK, Lambert MI, St Clair Gibson A, et al. Reliability of a 5-m multiple shuttle test. J Sports Sci. 2001; 19(3): 223–228.
  24. Ramsbottom R, Brewer J, Williams C. A progressive shuttle run test to estimate maximal oxygen uptake. Br J Sports Med. 1988; 22(4): 141–144.
  25. Wilkinson DM, Blacker SD, Richmond VL, et al. Relationship between the 2.4-km run and multistage shuttle run test performance in military personnel. Mil Med. 2014; 179(2): 203–207.