4.3 Article

Development of a Fitness Test Battery for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Operators-A Pilot Study

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18157992

Keywords

tactical; fitness testing; police; anaerobic capacity; muscular endurance; aerobic capacity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the relationship between a Special Weapons and Tactics-specific fitness test (SORT) and an obstacle course (OC) in fourteen male SWAT members, finding a strong correlation between SORT and OC, indicating the reliability and validity of SORT as a measure of SWAT-specific fitness.
This investigation examined relationships between a Special Weapons and Tactics-specific fitness test (SORT) and an obstacle course (OC) used for qualification in fourteen male SWAT members from three local, regional police departments. The SORT included: squat, pushup, and lunge in 60 s; pullup hold; sled drag; and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test L1. The obstacle course included: 25 m sprint (repeated); window ascent; scale under a wall; 25 m serpentine run (repeated), body drag (20 m, repeated). Pearson coefficients examined SORT and OC relationships (p <= 0.05); intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) assessed agreement of SORT trials. Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated differences in SORT metrics across time. Coefficients of variation (COV) examined SORT scoring consistency. The YoYo test was related to all SORT assessments (r = -0.803-0.894), except sled drag. The remaining SORT metrics were related to >= two tests. SORT COVs ranged from 0.77-13.26% for trials 1-2 but decreased between trials 2-3 (0.95-8.97%). The OC was associated with YoYo, lunges, squats and sled drag (r = -0.790, -0.730, -0.766, and 0.802, respectively). No differences (p > 0.05) existed across SORT trials for event scores. The SORT battery appears to be a valid and reliable testing measure to assess SWAT occupational specific fitness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available