Validity and Reliability of Firefighting Simulation Test Performance

Richard D.M. Stevenson, Andrew G. Siddall, Philip J.F. Turner, James L.J. Bilzon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of a firefighting simulation test (FFST). METHODS: Sixty-nine operational firefighters completed a best-effort FFST on one occasion and 22 participants completed a further FFST. All participants completed a maximal treadmill test to determine cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max). RESULTS: Time to complete the FFST demonstrated a strong inverse relationship with VO2max (r = -0.73), although the prediction error was high. Reliability of the FFST was high (r = 0.84, P = 0.01), demonstrating a coefficient of variation of 4.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The FFST demonstrated reasonable validity as a surrogate assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting. The FFST also demonstrated good reliability. Given the apparent magnitude of the prediction error, the FFST would be best used as a training tool, rather than as a primary means of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)479-483
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Volume61
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Validity and Reliability of Firefighting Simulation Test Performance. / Stevenson, Richard D.M.; Siddall, Andrew G.; Turner, Philip J.F.; Bilzon, James L.J.

In: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 61, No. 6, 01.06.2019, p. 479-483.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2eafbe286c1e43e69ae787699d76fb1d,
title = "Validity and Reliability of Firefighting Simulation Test Performance",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of a firefighting simulation test (FFST). METHODS: Sixty-nine operational firefighters completed a best-effort FFST on one occasion and 22 participants completed a further FFST. All participants completed a maximal treadmill test to determine cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max). RESULTS: Time to complete the FFST demonstrated a strong inverse relationship with VO2max (r = -0.73), although the prediction error was high. Reliability of the FFST was high (r = 0.84, P = 0.01), demonstrating a coefficient of variation of 4.5{\%}. CONCLUSIONS: The FFST demonstrated reasonable validity as a surrogate assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting. The FFST also demonstrated good reliability. Given the apparent magnitude of the prediction error, the FFST would be best used as a training tool, rather than as a primary means of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting.",
author = "Stevenson, {Richard D.M.} and Siddall, {Andrew G.} and Turner, {Philip J.F.} and Bilzon, {James L.J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/JOM.0000000000001583",
language = "English",
volume = "61",
pages = "479--483",
journal = "Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine",
issn = "1076-2752",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity and Reliability of Firefighting Simulation Test Performance

AU - Stevenson, Richard D.M.

AU - Siddall, Andrew G.

AU - Turner, Philip J.F.

AU - Bilzon, James L.J.

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of a firefighting simulation test (FFST). METHODS: Sixty-nine operational firefighters completed a best-effort FFST on one occasion and 22 participants completed a further FFST. All participants completed a maximal treadmill test to determine cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max). RESULTS: Time to complete the FFST demonstrated a strong inverse relationship with VO2max (r = -0.73), although the prediction error was high. Reliability of the FFST was high (r = 0.84, P = 0.01), demonstrating a coefficient of variation of 4.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The FFST demonstrated reasonable validity as a surrogate assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting. The FFST also demonstrated good reliability. Given the apparent magnitude of the prediction error, the FFST would be best used as a training tool, rather than as a primary means of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of a firefighting simulation test (FFST). METHODS: Sixty-nine operational firefighters completed a best-effort FFST on one occasion and 22 participants completed a further FFST. All participants completed a maximal treadmill test to determine cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max). RESULTS: Time to complete the FFST demonstrated a strong inverse relationship with VO2max (r = -0.73), although the prediction error was high. Reliability of the FFST was high (r = 0.84, P = 0.01), demonstrating a coefficient of variation of 4.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The FFST demonstrated reasonable validity as a surrogate assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting. The FFST also demonstrated good reliability. Given the apparent magnitude of the prediction error, the FFST would be best used as a training tool, rather than as a primary means of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness for firefighting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067372702&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001583

DO - 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001583

M3 - Article

VL - 61

SP - 479

EP - 483

JO - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

JF - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

SN - 1076-2752

IS - 6

ER -