Battery Fitness Testing in Law Enforcement: A Critical Review of the Literature

Original Research

MOHAMMAD M. ZULFIQAR

1†

, JENNIFER WOOLAND

1†

, BEN SCHRAM

1,2‡

, J. JAY

DAWES

2,3‡

, ROBERT LOCKIE

2,4‡

, and ROBIN ORR

1,2‡

Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, AUSTRALIA;

Tactical Research Unit, Bond University, Robina, QLD, AUSTRALIA;

School of Kinesiology,

Applied Health, and Recreation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK, UNITED STATES;

Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, UNITED

STATES

†

Denotes graduate student author,

‡

Denotes professional author

ABSTRACT

International Journal of Exercise Science 14(4): 613-632, 2021. Police trainees undergoing training to

prepare them for the occupational demands of policing are often subjected to fitness testing. The aim of this review

was to critically appraise research studies employing police fitness tests. Method: A comprehensive search of four

databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Ebscohost [CINAHL and SportDiscus]) was conducted by two authors

independently. After duplicate articles were removed, articles that did not meet the pre-determined inclusion

criteria and met the exclusion criteria were removed. The remaining studies were critically appraised by two

authors independently using a Downs and Black Checklist. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was used to measure the

level of agreement between appraisers and calculated by a third author. The grading system proposed by Kennelly

was used to grade the methodological quality of the studies. Results: From an initial 7384 identified studies,

including four from additional sources, 11 studies met the criteria for review. The mean critical appraisal score for

the articles was 74.36 (± 1.48%) being considered ‘good’ quality and a ‘substantial’ level of agreement was found

between the two appraisers (k = 0.75). The most common measures assessed were muscle endurance (push-ups

and sit-ups) and aerobic capacity (running), with the least common measure being agility. Assessments of push-

ups and the 2.4-km (1.5-mile) run had the strongest correlations to law enforcement academy graduation across the

studies. Grip strength may predict occupational performance (marksmanship) as well as longevity. Conclusion:

The push-up and 2.4 km (1.5-mile) run fitness tests were the most popular fitness assessments and had the strongest

positive correlation to law enforcement academy graduation.

KEY WORDS: Police; aerobic capacity; assessment; recruits; tactical

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

614

INTRODUCTION

Tactical personnel, such as police officers, offer a sense of security in an endangered world.

Accordingly, police officers have physically and mentally demanding requirements to fulfil as

part of their occupation (10). Examples of these challenging tasks include grappling with

suspects or running towards an emergency situation (10). Without the service of incumbent

officers, the protection of society and maintenance of law and order may become compromised

(38). For this reason, the preservation and longevity of police officers is vital for society (5). The

tasks that police officers perform when protecting society from danger and eliminating threats

in real time has been shown to require adequate physical capacity to be performed effectively

and safely (10). These tasks exemplify the need for police officer to attain and maintain a certain

level of health and occupational physical fitness (2).

Recent research supports the notion that police officers’ fitness can improve occupational

performance (14, 28). For example, grip strength was positively correlated with a police officer’s

firearm marksmanship with increased grip strength found to be correlated with increased

accuracy (28). Agility tests have been shown to be related to policing tasks such as ascending

and descending stairs, a situation that may present itself during search and rescue tasks or

chasing offenders through an urban area (2). Likewise, lower body power may be required when

jumping over barriers and when chasing suspects (19). The importance of fitness in this

occupation is further highlighted whereby, upon recognizing that more physically fit law

enforcement officers have an increased ability to handle physical, emotional, and mental stresses

related to their occupation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation initiated a fitness program for

its agents (14). This physical training program mainly consisted of aerobic based training in the

form of running, however, certain challenges included obstacle courses, combining elements of

upper and lower body strength (14). Due to the evident need for fitness in police officers, it is

only logical that potential recruits partake in a thorough, yet efficient, physical screening process

for the safety of the officers as well as the civilian population.

Research shows that decreased muscular power, strength, metabolic fitness, and muscular

endurance are components of physical fitness that may be associated with injury amongst police

officers (27-30). A study conducted by Orr et al. (29) examined the relationship that push-ups

(muscle endurance), vertical jump (muscle power), and grip strength (muscle strength) had on

injury rates amongst police recruits. Recruits with the lowest push-up scores were more than

seven times as likely to develop an injury in comparison to recruits who scored highest in the

push-up category (29). Vertical jump and grip strength scores also had significant correlations

to injury risk (29). In a separate study a clinically significant relationship was found between

low vertical jump scores and the occurrence of injury or illness amongst police recruits (27).

Furthermore, Nabeel et al. (24) found that police officers that were more physically fit had lower

instances of musculoskeletal injuries. A possible explanation as to the decreased occurrence of

injury amongst physically fit police officers in contrast to their less fit colleagues may be due to

the reduced likelihood of reaching aerobic, muscular, and neuromuscular fatigue during

training or when performing occupational tasks (27). As physical fitness provides further

potential benefits beyond injury reduction for officers, it may be even more paramount.

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

615

Research states that aerobic/cardiovascular fitness has several health benefits (16). This is

important to consider as police officers may spend a great deal of time engaged in sedentary

tasks (4). Birzer and Craig (3) estimated that police officers spend an average of about five hours

sitting while on the job. Nonetheless, the need to perform strenuous physical tasks is an expected

challenge for incumbents to overcome if an adverse situation presents itself (8). For example, an

analysis by Decker et al. (12) on Australian police found that officers must meet the challenge of

adapting to very high physiological demands in times of crisis. This study presented cases of

officers attending to occupational tasks with very high heart rate measures, at times well above

their age-predicted maximum heart rate. As an example, in one day a 40-year-old male officer

exceeded his age-predicted maximum heart rate three separate times while attending to

occupational tasks (12). As police officers have a relatively high risk of suffering cardiovascular

disease, (which can potentially be fatal) (34), instances that force an officer to go from a sedentary

state to a physiologically demanding state become much more concerning (33). It should also be

noted that while an officer may appear to be performing a sedentary act (i.e., driving), the

physiological response due to the sympathetic response and situational stress may elevate heart

rate under these conditions. Thus, the need for cardiovascular fitness is quite evident in this

population.

Until a few decades ago, many police agencies selected police officers in the United States based

primarily off their height and body mass, as it was believed that taller and heavier officers had

higher levels of strength and endurance (3). Although this practice has generally been abolished,

it does highlight the perception that physical capacity of trainee police officers has been

considered for a substantial amount of time. More recently, attention has shifted from physical

characteristics of new trainees to the physical capabilities of these same trainees using fitness

testing. The importance of physical fitness testing extends to the point that liability for a police

officer’s lack of strength and ability may be placed on the department which hired the officer

(4). Therefore, the aim of this review was to critically appraise the research studies which report

on the employment of fitness tests in the police force.

METHODS

Protocol

To identify relevant literature to inform this review, a systematic search of key databases

(PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) was conducted. Relevant search terms were

derived from known literature and subject matter experts conducting research in this field.

These terms were intentionally kept broad to reduce the risk of selection bias. Table 1 outlines

the databases used, filters applied, and database-specific search terms. Searches were performed

by two authors independently with all identified articles extracted into EndNote. Once

identified articles were extracted, all duplicates were removed with the remaining articles

independently screened by two authors by the study’s title and abstract for relevance. A further

four articles were provided by an external source that were used in this review. The remaining

articles were then subjected to dedicated inclusion and exclusion criteria which were developed

prior to screening (Table 2). A 15-year limitation was applied in the search process as part of the

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

616

inclusion criteria to ensure the studies used were more recent and therefore more relevant in the

current law enforcement climate (36). Articles which reported on only one measure of fitness

were excluded as the assessments conducted as part of a battery of tests were of interest to this

review. The PRISMA diagram (Figure 1) outlines the search process. Any discrepancies in the

process by the two reviewers were adjudicated by a third author so that consensus was reached.

Table 1. Databases and Relevant Search Terms

Database

Search Terms

PubMed

Police OR Patrol Officers OR Cadet OR Recruit AND Exercise Test OR “Physical Fitness

Assessment” OR Fitness Test* OR “Entry Test”

Filters: Humans; English; Field: Title/Abstract

Embase

Police OR sheriff OR cadet OR “incumbent officers” AND fitness test* OR physical test*

OR “evaluation” OR strength OR cardiorespiratory OR endurance OR aerobic OR

training

Filters: English; Year: 1997-2018; Humans

CINAHL

Police OR Patrol Officers OR Cadet OR Recruit AND Exercise Test OR “Physical Fitness

Assessment” OR Fitness Test* OR “Entry Test” AND OR aerobic OR strength OR exam*

OR screen* OR test* OR orientation

Filters: English; Year: 1997-2018; Humans; Peer Reviewed

SportDiscus

“Police” OR patrol officer OR recruit OR cadets AND “Exercise Test” OR “Physical

fitness assessment” OR “Fitness test” OR “physical performance test” OR “Entry Test”

Filters: Published Date: 1997-2018; English; Peer Reviewed, Academic Journals

Statistical Analysis

To determine the methodological quality of the research, the Downs and Black (13) critical

appraisal tool was used. This tool employs a checklist of 27 questions with 25 of these questions

scoring either a ‘0’ or a ‘1’. Question five, identifying confounders, is marked out of 2 with ‘1’

point awarded for a ‘partial’ and ‘2’ points for a ‘yes’ for listing confounders. Question 27, which

discusses statistical power, is typically scored out of a possible ‘5’. However, it was modified for

this review to either a ‘0’ or a ‘1’ (power analysis reported). This approach has been used in

previous literature (25). Two authors independently appraised the articles with their results

provided to a third author who determined the level of interrater agreement using a Cohen’s

Kappa coefficient analysis. In the same manner as the reviewing process, any differences in final

scores for each article were adjudicated by the third author if consensus could not be met. Next,

a qualitative rating proposed by Kennelly was used to grade each study (17). The Kennelly grade

was then converted into a percentage score to provide a final grade reporting the quality of the

study. This was done by using the raw Downs and Black scores and dividing by 28, then

multiplying by 100 to receive a percentage. Scores < 45.4% were deemed ‘poor’ methodological

quality, while scores between 45.4% and 61% demonstrated ‘fair’ methodological quality. All

scores > 61.0% were deemed to be of ‘good’ methodological quality (15).

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

617

Figure 1: PRISMA (23) diagram summarizing the selection and screening process of the critical review

Table 2: Inclusion and Exclusion criteria applied to the literature search and examples

Inclusion Criteria

Examples

Must contain Law Enforcement Officers

Any study including police, cadets, recruits, patrol, incumbent

officers

Must contain a fitness/physical measure

Any study containing a measure of fitness, i.e. 1-mile run,

strength, power.

Must be within 15 year limitation to date of

Study must be within the years of 1997-2018

Exclusion Criteria

Examples

Testing only one fitness measure

Studies including only one fitness measure, obstacle course

Health Concerns

Studies including injuries, illnesses, i.e. fractures, cardiac

disease

Perceptions/opinion surveys

Studies including surveys on perceptions/options on fitness

assessments

Data relevant to the research theme was extracted from each article, including fitness tests

results and individual physical characteristics. Data extracted from the studies included author,

year, title; any data on subject characteristics such as age, height, and body mass; any data

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

618

relating to fitness measures focusing on strength, power, endurance, flexibility, aerobic,

anaerobic measures and agility. The definitions used to categorize the fitness measures were

taken from the National Strength and Conditioning Association (1). Power was defined as the

maximum amount of work per given unit of time; i.e. the ability of a muscle to exert force while

contracting at high speed. Muscular endurance was defined as the ability of a certain muscle or

muscle group to perform repeated contractions against a resistance less than maximal. Muscular

strength was defined as the amount of force that may be exerted by an individual in one

maximum muscle contraction. Anaerobic capacity was defined as the maximum amount of ATP

(adenosine triphosphate) during a specific mode of short-duration maximal exercise. Aerobic

capacity was defined as the maximum rate at which an individual can produce energy oxidation

of energy resources. Flexibility was defined as the range of motion about a body joint. The ability

to change the direction of body parts quickly and in a precise manner was known as agility.

Extracted data is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Fitness measure information extracted from each article

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Beck, A. Q., et al.

(2015) (2)

"Relationship of Physical

Fitness Measures vs.

Occupational Physical

Ability in Campus Law

Enforcement Officers."

n = 16 male campus LEOs

A(y) = 33.1 ± 8.7

Weight = 87.2 ± 11.2 kg

Height = 179.0 ± 7.9 cm

Muscular endurance

Pushup (repetitions, n = 14) 34.8 ± 12.6 repetitions

Curlup (repetitions, n = 14) 55.6 ± 45.9 repetitions

Muscular strength (kg)

Absolute 1RM bench press (n = 15) 93.1 ± 19.8 kg

Absolute 1RM leg press (n = 16) 647.0 ± 116.4 kg

Relative 1RM bench press (n = 14) 1.10 ± 0.30 kg

Relative 1RM leg press (n = 15) 7.60 ± 1.63 kg

Handgrip, left hand (kg, n = 15) 52.5 ± 5.9 kg

Handgrip, right hand (kg, n = 15) 55.9 ± 6.4 kg

Muscular power

Vertical jump height (cm, n = 15) 51.4 ± 10.2 cm

Relative vertical jump height (cm, n = 15) 0.60 ± 0.14 cm

Agility (seconds)

Agility test (n = 16) 18.2 ± 1.6 seconds

Aerobic endurance

Absolute V

peak (ml/min, n = 14) 3.67 ± 0.45 L/min

Relative V

peak (ml/min/kg, n = 14) 42.7 ± 5.9 ml/kg/min

Flexibility

Sit and reach (cm, n = 16) 32.1 ± 9.8 cm

OPAT time (s)

Overall time (seconds) 107.2 ± 17.9 seconds

Stair ascent/descent (seconds) 2.9 ± 0.6 seconds

159 m run (seconds) 42.8 ± 7.8 seconds

Barrier manoeuvre (seconds) 16.7 ± 3.4 seconds

Rescue/arrest (seconds) 22.3 ± 7.2 seconds

Sprint (seconds) 2.8 ± 0.8 seconds

1. Agility, aerobic capacity and muscular endurance was correlated to

occupational physical ability of campus LEOs.

2. Muscular strength, endurance, aerobic capacity and anaerobic endurance

are important to officers when performing occupational tasks such as

chasing and combative tasks.

3. Only the officers age was positively correlated to the overall OPAT time.

72% Good

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Cocke, C. et al.

(2016) (7)

"The Use of 2 Conditioning

Programs and the Fitness

Characteristics of Police

Academy Cadets."

n = 61 male police cadets

A(y) = 27.4 ± 5.9

Body Weight = 85.4 ± 11.8 kg

Randomized Training Group (n = 50)

Bench Press (kg) 88.45 ± 23.69 kg

Pushup (repetitions) 48.96 ± 15.15 repetitions

Situps (repetitions) 33.96 ± 9.02 repetitions

Vertical jump (cm) 55.32 ± 10.68 cm

Power (W) 5235.01 ± 866.29 W

Aerobic 2.4 km run (min) 12.54 ± 1.41 min

Anaerobic 300-m sprint (seconds) 53.36 ± 4.98 seconds

Periodized Training Group (n = 11)

Bench Press (kg) 106.20 ± 15.15 kg

Pushup (repetitions) 53.45 ± 14.40 repetitions

Situps (repetitions) 42.27 ± 8.51 repetitions

Vertical jump (cm) 55.32 ± 10.68 cm

Power (W) 5979.54 ± 762.59 (W)

Aerobic 2.4 km run (min) 11.49 ± 1.41 min

Anaerobic 300-m sprint (seconds) 51.75 ± 4.18 seconds

73% Good

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Dawes, J. J., et al.

(2017) (9)

"Physical Fitness

Characteristics of High vs.

Low Performers on an

Occupationally Specific

Physical Agility Test for

Patrol Officers."

n = 476 Male patrol officers

A(y) = 39.7 ± 7.7

Weight(kg) = 93.9 ± 15.7

n = 19 Female patrol officers

A(y) = 37.7 ± 8.6

Weight (kg) = 77.2 ± 12.8

Variable Group 1 (Less fit officers) Group 2 (Fit officers)

Est. VO2 (ml/kg/min) 25.06 ± 3.27 34.57 ± 4.99

SU (repetitions) 27.84 ± 7.95 40.97 ± 7.28

VJ (cm) 45.74 ± 7.46 48.23 ± 7.57

MSFT (number) 24.05 ± 8.63 52.05 ± 15.84

PU (reps) 30.34 ± 11.71 47.17 ± 12.93

LBD (kg) 168.74 ± 34.43 172.74 ± 31.41

HGD (kg) 54.07 ± 9.05 54.83 ± 7.69

BMI 30.37 ± 3.96 26.15 ± 2.89

PAT (sec) 217.16 ± 18.33 82.79 ± 19.06

The multistage fitness test, number of situps and vertical jump height best

predicted performance in the Physical Agility Test (PAT).

72% Good

Dawes, J. J., et al.

(2017) (10)

"A physical fitness profile

of state highway patrol

officers by gender and age."

n = 597 Male state troopers

A(Y) = 39.52 ± 8.09

Weight = 93.66 ± 15.72 kg

Height = 180.72 ± 7.06 cm

n = 34 Female state troopers

A(Y) = 36.20 ± 8.45

Weight(kg) = 74.02 ± 14.91

Height = 169.62 ± 6.65 cm

Group 1: Ages 20-29

Group 2: Ages 30-39

Group 3: Ages 40-49

Group 4: Ages 50-59

Group 5: Ages 60-69

Measure Female Officers Male officers

Vertical Jump (cm) 36.80 ± 5.69 50.74 ± 8.89

Leg/Back Dynamometer (kg) 116.53 ± 20.85 170.68 ± 37.46

Grip (kg) 37.875 ± 5.34 55.04 ± 7.77

Pushups (repetitions) 24.24 ± 11.63 39.09 ± 15.61

Situps (repetition) 31.06 ± 9.52 34.46 ± 10.29

Shuttles (number) 26.19 ± 10.86 38.04 ± 19.87

1. General decline in mean performance between male officer age groups in

weight, vertical jump, number of situp and pushups, and number of

shuttles completed.

2. Females did not vary considerably across the age groups.

3. Body weight in male officers tend to increase with age.

4. Isometric strength tests were similar for the male and female officers

across all age groups.

5. Older officers reported that previous injury or joint stress limited their

ability to finish the MSF, not their aerobic fitness.

6. Certain physical characteristics may decline with age across both male

and female law enforcement officers.

74% Good

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Dawes, J. J., et al.

(2016) (11)

"Associations between

anthropometric

characteristics and physical

performance in male law

enforcement officers: A

retrospective cohort study."

n = 76 Male LEOs

A(Y) = 39.42 ± 8.41

Weight = 84.21 ± 12.91 kg

All subjects belonged to a

volunteer fitness program

Measure Cohort Mean ± SD N = 76

Chest skinfold (mm) 13.74 ± 5.52 mm

Abdominal skinfold (mm) 24.57 ± 8.85 mm

Thigh skinfold (mm) 12.72 ± 4.99 mm

Sum of all skinfolds (mm) 51.01 ± 14.56 mm

Estimated body fat (%) 16.89 ± 4.60 %

Estimated lean mass (%) 70.21 ± 11.45 %

Estimated fat mass (kg) 14.24 ± 4.50 kg

Pushups (repetitions) 55.58 ± 17.35 repetitions

Situps (repetitions) 41.05 ± 6.96 repetitions

Vertical jump height cm) 61.26 ± 7.96 cm

Estimated peak power (W 5478.38 ± 829.96 W

Bench press (kg) 93.79 ± 25.91 kg

Bench press ratio (BPR) 1.10 ± 0.23 BPR

300 m (seconds) 56.03 ± 10.67 seconds

1.5 mile run (min:secs) 12.75 ± 2.30 seconds

Estimated VO2 max (ml/kg/min) 41.31 ± 6.50 ml/kg/min

1. Except for situps, 300-m run and 1.5 mile run, estimated body fat

percentage was significantly and negatively correlated with all the other

fitness measures.

2. For pushups, 1RM bench press, and vertical jump height, percentage of

lean body mass was significantly and positively correlated.

3. From the results of this study, percentage of body fat or fat mass or lean

mass is associated with physical fitness performance.

4. The percentage of lean mass may be more important than fat mass when

measuring strength and muscular endurance. Conversely, fat mass is a

greater predictor for aerobic fitness than lean mass. Correlations between

lean mass and performance measures were stronger in strength, muscular

endurance and power. Therefore, it suggests focusing on training to

increase lean muscle mass to improve these areas of performance.

75% Good

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Lockie, R. G., et al.

(2018) (21)

"Are there similarities in

physical fitness

characteristics of successful

candidates attending law

enforcement training

regardless of training

cohort?"

Total

n = 196 Male LEO candidates

n = 30 Female LEO candidates

Cohort 1 n = 90

A(y) = 28 ± 60

Height (m) = 1.76 ± 0.09

Weight (kg) = 82.56 ± 11.38

Cohort 2 n = 67

A(y) = 26 ± 50

Height (m) = 1.77 ± 0.08

Weight (kg) = 79.94 ± 11.54

Cohort 3 n = 69

A(y) = 27 ± 70

Height (m) = 1.74 ± 0.10

Weight (kg) = 78.12 ± 12.96

Overall (n = 226)

Measure

Pushups (repetitions) = 40 ± 13 repetitions

Situps (repetitions) = 40 ± 9 repetitions

75 PR (seconds) = 17.43 ± 1.23 seconds

Arm Ergometer (revolutions) = 128 ± 18 revolutions

2.4 km run time (min:sec) = 12:57 ± 1:49 min:sec

1. No significant differences for maximal number of pushups and situps in

1 minute, time to complete the 75-yard pursuit run, number of revolutions

on the arm ergometer test, time to complete 2.4-km run and age between

the three cohorts.

2. Regardless of cohorts attending physical training programs to prepare for

law enforcement agency (LEA) entry, candidates display similar levels of

physical fitness.

75% Good

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Lockie, R. G., et al.

(2018) (20)

"Analysis of the effects of

sex and age on upper and

lower body power for law

enforcement agency

recruits before academy

training.”

n = 142 Male LEO recruits

A(Y) = 27.46 ± 6.10

Height(m) = 1.76 ± 0.08

Weight (kg) = 82.54 ± 12.96

n = 37 Female LEO recruits

A(Y) = 28.49 ± 6.52

Height (m) = 1.63 ± 0.06

Weight (kg) = 64.25 ± 7.88

Male Recruits (n = 142)

VJ (cm) = 38.20 ± 10.34 cm

PAPw (W) = 3,174.46 ± 744.40 W

P:BM (W/kg) = 49.35 ± 9.90 W/kg

MBT (m) = 4.01 ± 0.61 m

RMBT (m/kg) = 0.063 ± 0.009 m/kg

Female Recruits (n = 37)

VJ (cm) = 54.36 ± 11.21 cm

PAPw (W) = 4,984.20 ± 950.51 W

P:BM (W/kg) = 60.60 ± 8.79 W/kg

MBT (m) = 6.21 ± 0.99m

RMBT (m/kg) = 0.076 ± 0.013 m/kg

73% Good

Author/ Year/ Title

Participants

(Gender, Age, Weight, Height)

Measures and Key Findings

Critical

Appraisal

Score

Lockie, R. G., et al. (2018)

(19)

"The Physical

Characteristics by Sex and

Age for Custody Assistants

from a Law Enforcement

Agency."

n = 69 Male custody assistants

A(y) = 27.53 ± 6.74

Weight (kg) = 81.27 ± 15.22

n = 39 Female custody assistants

A(Y) = 28.56 ± 7.13

Weight (kg) = 65.68 ± 11.11

Males

Grip Strength Left (kg) = 46.26 ± 15.22 kg

Grip Strength Right (kg) = 47.96 ± 9.70 kg

Pushups (repetitions) = 38.16 ± 12.29 repetitions

Situps (repetitions) = 39.23 ± 10.88 repetitions

201 m run (seconds) = 34.51 ± 8.91 seconds

2.4 km run (min:sec) = 13:48 ± 3:12 min:sec

VO2 max (ml/kg/min) = 40.29 ± 10.38 (ml/kg/min)

Females

Grip Strength Left (kg) = 31.91 ± 4.83 kg

Grip Strength Right (kg) = 34.17 ± 6.28 kg

Pushups (repetitions) = 18.54 ± 11.13 repetitions

Situps (repetitions) = 33.67 ± 14.16 repetitions

201 m run (seconds) = 41.23 ± 6.03 seconds

2.4 km run (min:sec) = 16:30 ± 2:14 min:sec

VO2 max (ml/kg/min) = 34.25 ± 6.94 ml/kg/min

77% Good

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

625

RESULTS

After the initial search, 7,379 articles were identified, following which 918 articles were removed

as duplicates. Upon screening by title and abstract for relevance to the research topic, a further

6,438 articles were removed. The remaining articles were considered against both inclusion and

exclusion criteria (Table 2), and a total of eleven articles met the inclusion, but not the exclusion

criteria (2, 9-11, 19, 35, 40). The mean critical appraisal score was 74.36% (σ = 1.48) ranging from

68% (26) to 82% (40). The methodological quality, based on the Kennelly Grading System, was

considered to be of ‘good’ quality (17). The level of agreement between the reviewers (k = 0.750)

was considered a ‘substantial agreement’ (39). Of the 11 studies used in this review, two studies

did not state the location where the research took place (10, 11). The remaining nine articles were

from the United States (2, 7, 9, 19-21, 26, 35, 40). From the 11 studies used for this review, only

two studies (2, 11) did not include female participants while the remaining nine studies had a

combination of both male and female participants (7, 9, 10, 19-21, 26, 35, 40). Across the 11

studies included in this review, several components of fitness were measured using physical

fitness tests. Elements of fitness measured included muscular endurance (2, 7, 9-11, 20, 21, 26,

35, 40), strength (2, 7, 9, 10, 20, 26), power (2, 7, 9-11, 19, 26), anaerobic fitness (7, 11, 20, 26),

aerobic fitness (2, 7, 9-11, 20, 21, 26, 35, 40), occupation related fitness (2, 9, 21), and agility (2, 4,

9, 10, 21).

Muscle Endurance: Push-ups were the primary measure for upper body muscular endurance and

were used in all but one study (19). Among the 10 studies that had included push-ups in their

fitness assessment, all but one study used an approach in which the personnel being tested were

to complete as many push-ups as they could within one minute (7, 9, 10, 19-21, 26, 35, 40). These

studies had similar guidelines to successfully completing the assessment, with the subject

starting in the “up” position with arms fully extended and then lowering down to a target

whether a partner’s fist, a sponge, or a bottle. The subject then returned back to the fully

extended elbow “up” position and repeated this as often as possible in one minute (7, 9-11, 20,

21, 26, 35, 40). In the remaining article that included push-ups as part of the fitness assessment,

there was no time constraint and law enforcement officers were directed to complete as many

pushups as they could in succession to volitional fatigue (2).

Sit-ups were another common method of muscular endurance testing used in included studies

to measure abdominal muscle endurance. The use of sit-ups was implemented in nine of the 11

studies (7, 9-11, 20, 21, 26, 35, 40). These studies had similar requirements for a successful sit-up,

as patients would start in a supine position with knees bent to 90° and feet flat on the floor, held

down by another person. The participant was then asked to complete as many sit-ups as possible

in a one-minute period (7, 9-11, 20, 21, 26, 35, 40). Another study also measured abdominal

muscle endurance using the curl-up test, which was a similar fitness measure to the sit-up. This

study, however, did not limit the completion of this fitness test to one minute as it had allowed

the participant to perform as many curl-ups as possible before reaching the point of fatigue (2).

Additionally, the methodology to complete a curl-up was slightly different, whereby although

adopting a similar starting position, the participant had their arms fully extended by their sides

with their third digit positioned at the level of a piece of tape. A second piece of tape was

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

626

positioned 10 cm further than the first piece of tape. The participants were given the cue to

complete a curl-up as many times as they could while their third digits touched the second piece

of tape. The participants were to match the speed of a metronome set at 50 beats per minute (2).

Muscle Strength: Muscle strength was measured in a total of six studies (2, 7, 9, 10, 20, 26). Out

of these six studies, five studies measured upper-body strength (2, 7, 9, 10, 20, 26). The most

common strength measure between all included studies was hand grip strength, which was

measured in four studies using a handgrip dynamometer (2, 9, 10, 20). Further, two studies

implemented the use of a one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press assessment to measure

upper-body strength (7, 26). Another study also measured upper-body strength using a flat

bench press, the test differed in that it did not measure the participant’s 1RM bench press.

Rather, the subject would start the test completing five repetitions of 60-80% of their estimated

5RM and the load would progressively increase by approximately 2.3-4.5 kg (with a 3-5 minute

rest in between) until the subject could only complete between 2-5 repetitions with the weight

on the bar (2). A similar methodology was used to conduct a lower body strength test using the

leg press, but the load for the leg press was progressively increased by 6.8-9 kg until the subject

could only complete between 2-5 repetitions (2). Finally, two studies analyzed isometric leg and

back strength using a leg-back chain dynamometer to measure pulling force through the legs

and back (9, 10).

Muscle Power: Lower-body power was the most reported measure of power in this review, and

the vertical jump test was used in all of the seven studies that tested for lower-body power (2, 7,

9-11, 19, 26). Two of these seven studies assessed vertical jump height using the “Just Jump”

apparatus (9, 10). The Just Jump technology calculates vertical height by measuring the length

of time the participants’ feet are not in contact with a 68.58 cm x 68.58 cm mat (10). The remaining

five studies assessed vertical jump height using the Vertec apparatus (2, 7, 11, 19, 26). To measure

vertical jump height using a Vertec apparatus, subjects were measured for their standing

upward reach height before performing a countermovement jump as high as possible; the aim

was for the subjects to displace the highest plastic fin on the device that they could at the apex

of their jump (11). Out of the seven studies measuring vertical jump, only one study included

an additional measurement of power by testing the ability of law enforcement recruits to

generate isolated upper-body power using a medicine ball throw (19). For this test, the recruits

sat against a wall with their legs outstretched in front of them on the ground and, utilizing a

chest pass movement, these recruits projected a 2 kg medicine ball the farthest distance they

could (19).

Anaerobic Capacity: A total of four studies assessed anaerobic fitness in study participants (7, 11,

20, 26). Out of these four studies, three used the 300-meter sprint test to test for anaerobic fitness

capacity amongst subjects (7, 11, 26). The remaining study used a 201-meter sprint test as the

anaerobic fitness assessment measure (20).

Aerobic Capacity: Aerobic fitness was a common measure used in studies included in this review,

and the test that was most often used to assess aerobic fitness was the 2.4 km (1.5 mile) run test

(7, 11, 20, 21, 26, 35, 40). Only one study included in this review did not assess aerobic capacity

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

627

of study subjects (19). Amongst the remaining 10 studies, only three studies did not use the 2.4

km run to measure aerobic fitness capacity (2, 9, 10). While two studies used the 20 Meter

Multistage Fitness Test (9, 10), Beck and colleagues assessed for VO2 peak aerobic capacity using

a metabolic cart to measure oxygen uptake of subjects on a treadmill with progressively

increasing speed every two minutes until the subject had reached self-reported exhaustion (2).

One study also tested the aerobic capacity of individuals with an upper body fitness test using

an arm ergometer, in addition to the 2.4 km run (21).

Occupation Related Physical Testing: Three studies incorporated a job-specific measure of physical

ability, focusing mainly on assessing the physical agility capacity of study subjects (2, 9, 21). One

of these studies had study participants complete an occupation related physical ability test

incorporating components of sprinting, direction changes, crawling, jumping, and overcoming

barriers while wearing unspecified tactical gear particular to these campus law enforcement

officers (2). The second study arranged a physical agility course that included a start from a

seated position and then required the subject to stand up, run in a pattern requiring constant

direction change for 30.48 meters, traverse through an obstacle of rings placed on the ground,

complete a simulated victim rescue, jump through barriers, crawl, and push a sled for a distance

of 14.64 meters (9). The participant was then required to repeat all these steps in the reverse

order. The third study required study subjects to complete a “75-Yard Pursuit Run” which

included linear sprints, direction changes, and stepping over barriers (21). This test simulated a

“foot pursuit” scenario that may be similar to what study subjects would do as part of their

occupation (21).

Agility: Only one study included a specific agility component to the fitness assessment that its

participants completed (2). Although there were components of agility measured during

occupation related physical assessments in studies included in this review (2, 9, 21), this study

did not include other components of job related tasks, and asked participants to complete an

agility course resembling a “Figure 8” pattern as fast as possible (2).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this review was to analyze and critically appraise the available literature

regarding fitness testing in the police force while documenting and comparing the findings of

the fitness tests conducted in the studies. The fitness measures assessed in the studies included

in this review were muscle endurance, muscle strength, muscle power, anaerobic fitness, aerobic

fitness, occupation related fitness, and agility. The most common fitness tests employed across

the 11 studies used in this review were the push-up, the sit-up, and the 2.4 km run.

It was evident from this review that push-ups were a commonly used test in many law

enforcement agencies. This may be a beneficial test to include in a physical fitness battery

particularly for police recruits as push-ups are a better measure of trunk muscular endurance

when compared to sit-ups (11). Furthermore, a study by Beck et al. (2) found that push-up

performance was related to several law enforcement occupational tasks. The push-up fitness test

was also found to be a predictor of recruit success in police academy (35). A retrospective cohort

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

628

study analyzed the relationship between police academy graduation and fitness testing results

(35). The fitness tests were comprised of push-ups completed in one minute, sit-ups completed

in one minute, sit and reach scores, and a 2.4 km run. Out of these tests, the push-up test was

among the two tests with the strongest association with graduation from the police academy

(35). This may indicate that a strong performance on the push-up test may predict good

performance on other physical fitness tests recruits have to complete to successfully pass

academy training.

Another muscular endurance test that was commonly used for fitness testing in the law

enforcement agencies discussed in this review was the sit-up test. Dawes et al. (11) found that

sit-ups were different to other measures of muscular endurance in regard to anthropometric

measures, as sit-ups had a stronger correlation with fat mass as opposed to lean muscle mass.

This may indicate that poorer performance on sit-ups was more related to body fat distribution

as opposed to muscular endurance, which the test is designed to assess (11). As such,

conditioning to reduce fat mass, if required, in addition to muscular endurance training may

improve sit-up performance.

The most common measure of muscle strength amongst the studies included in this review was

handgrip strength. This measure of upper body strength was most commonly measured using

a handgrip dynamometer. Interestingly, although grip strength is a commonly used measure of

upper body strength in fitness assessments in law enforcement agencies, grip strength has also

been shown to predict marksmanship amongst police officers (28). Due to the nature of firearm

handling, an officer’s ability to hold their firearm in a static position may be influenced by the

grip strength of their non-shooting hand. Thus, officers with stronger grip strength in their non-

shooting hand may also have better marksmanship in comparison to their colleagues with

weaker grip strength.

Of research including muscle power, the most often reported measurement was that of lower

body power, particularly the vertical jump test. Vertical jump height is a measure of fitness that

has been shown to provide beneficial predictive information as to possible injury or illness risk

in the tactical population (27). In a study conducted by Orr et al. (27) it was found that when

compared to the group of subjects that performed best on the vertical jump test, the group that

performed the worst had a three times greater risk for experiencing injury or illness. It was

hypothesized in the study that the risk of injury may be due to several possible reasons including

the association of lower vertical jump height score and neuromuscular fatigue which may cause

altered biomechanics and lead to injury (27). Another possibility may be the need for those with

lower vertical jump scores (and thus decreased lower body strength and power) to increase their

training or performance intensity to match the intensity of police recruits with a higher amount

of lower body strength and power (and thus a better vertical jump score) (27). Strong

correlations between vertical jump scores, lower body strength scores, and sprinting scores have

also been highlighted in previous literature (41). Although not significant, Beck at al. (2) found

that vertical jump performance displayed strong trends in correlation to police occupational

performance measures. This may indicate that a vertical jump test may be predictive of more

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

629

information in a physical fitness battery than just lower body power and could be used as a tool

to ensure officers are healthy and fit to complete policing duties with minimized risk of injury.

Aerobic fitness testing was a measure of fitness that was assessed quite frequently in the studies

included in this review. The most common measure of aerobic capacity amongst the studies in

this review was the 2.4 km run. This is unsurprising as the 2.4 km run is assessed quite frequently

amongst tactical personnel (6). It has been found that the 2.4 km run times, along with the push-

up test, had the strongest association with graduation from the police academy (35). Given that

aerobic fitness has been found to be predictive of injury risk in military trainee populations (18,

22, 32), these results support the potential use of aerobic fitness measures, like a 2.4 km run, as

one screening tool to select candidates with the highest potential for training success.

The agility of officers was assessed either by a combination of occupationally specific tasks that

also measured agility, or by having personnel complete a pure agility task. An example of a pure

agility task would be completing a “Figure 8” course as fast as possible (2). Beck et al. (2) found

strong positive correlations between agility tests and police occupational performance tasks.

This finding is not unsurprising given that a law enforcement officer would most likely have to

change direction suddenly if chasing a suspect (6). What is unexpected was the limited use of

this measure in fitness testing batteries.

Given the commonality of some tests (e.g., 2.4 km run, push-ups, and sit-ups) across law

enforcement, for example the relationships between some tests (e.g., 2.4 km run, and push-ups)

and graduation success, and the relationships between some tests (e.g., push-ups, handgrip

strength, and agility fitness tests) and occupational performance measures, a battery of fitness

tests may be of benefit. Using a battery of tests inclusive of 2.4 km run, push-ups, and sit-ups

will allow for comparisons of fitness levels between agencies and likewise inform graduation

success potential. The addition of strength (e.g., handgrip strength) and agility (e.g., “Figure 8”

course) can inform potential occupational performance capability. Finally, a battery of tests, can

be used to identify which components of a recruit’s fitness (e.g., aerobic fitness, muscular

endurance, etc.) requires greater attention as well as inform the impacts of an academy physical

training program on discrete fitness components.

However, prior to employing a battery of fitness tests, three considerations are needed. Firstly,

the intent of the battery of fitness tests must be determined. For example, whether the tests are

used to identify trainees at a greater risk of injury and graduation failure, as a measure of general

fitness and health, or as a measure of occupational performance capability (31), must be

determined as each of these intents may require different standards or even tests employed in

the battery. Secondly, if the intent of the fitness battery is to predict injury, then an assessment

that meets with agency’s training focus is needed. Tomes et al. (37) found that aerobic fitness

was a strong predictor of injury risk during training. However, the authors also noted that this

is likely the case when the academy training involved a sufficient volume of running as part of

its training program. As such, if the agency did little running during its academy, then a 2.4 km

run assessment may not be the most appropriate assessment to determine injury risk during

training. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if the intent of the fitness test is to determine

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

630

whether the recruit will be fit enough to complete occupational tasks, then assessments that best

mimic these tasks are needed. However, given the noted variances in occupational related

testing identified in this review, future research is needed to determine which occupationally

related tests are widely applicable to multiple agencies and as such which of these tests will be

employed to allow for comparisons between agencies while concomitantly ensuring graduating

officers are able to meet the physical requirements of policing.

Limitations to this literature review should be acknowledged. One notable limitation is the

limited amount of available peer reviewed literature that is specifically related to fitness testing

for the police population. While this is not anticipated to have affected this review as the studies

included were of high methodological quality and common themes presented in the results and

discussion were prevalent in these studies, further research is warranted for this topic to

accommodate the sheer volume and variations in police departments. A second limitation to

this review is the variety in measures of occupational-based performance in the studies. It is

difficult to compare the studies that included occupational related testing, definitively, since

these tests were not the same. As such, specificity to each measure could impact on the findings

presented in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that the 2.4 km run (measure of aerobic fitness) and the push-up and sit-up

tests (measures of muscular endurance) were the most common fitness measures conducted in

the law enforcement studies. The vertical jump was a common assessment for lower body power

and grip strength for upper body strength. Tests such as the 2.4 km run, and push-ups were

strong predictors of police academy graduation potential. Push-ups, handgrip strength, and

agility fitness tests were measures of physical fitness were correlated with occupational

performance. Due to the high risk of cardiovascular disease in this population, the use of aerobic

fitness measures (e.g., the 2.4 km run) may be of further benefit to assess fitness in law

enforcement populations. Ultimately, given the diversity of fitness requirements and

associations with injury risk, health, and occupational tasks, a battery of fitness tests, based on

the intent of the tests (e.g., predicting injury, health, occupation performance, etc.) may be of

most benefit.

REFERENCES

1. Baechle T, Earle R. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.

2. Beck A, Clasey J, Yates J, Koebke N, Palmer T, Abel M. Relationship of physical fitness measures vs. occupational

physical ability in campus law enforcement officers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 29(8):2340-50, 2015.

3. Birzer M, Craig D. Gender differences in police physical ability test performance. Am. J. Police 15(2):93-108, 1996.

4. Bissett D, Bissett J, Snell C. Physical agility tests and fitness standards: perceptions of law enforcement officers.

Police Pract Res 13(3):208-23, 2012.

5. Bittner E. Functions of the Police in Modern Society. National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Crime

and Delinquency1970.

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

631

6. Cesario K, Dulla J, Blood Good A, Moreno M, Dawes JJ, Lockie R. Relationships between Assessments in a

Physical Ability Test for Law Enforcement: Is There Redundancy in Certain Assessments? Int. J. Exerc. Sci.

11(4):1063-73, 2018.

7. Cocke C, Dawes J, Orr R. The Use of 2 Conditioning Programs and the Fitness Characteristics of Police Academy

Cadets. J. Athl. Train. 51(11):887-96, 2016.

8. Collingwood T, Hoffman R, Smith J. The need for physical fitness. Law and Order 51(6):44-50, 2003.

9. Dawes J, Lindsay K, Bero J, Elder C, Kornhauser C, Holmes R. Physical Fitness Characteristics of High vs. Low

Performers on an Occupationally Specific Physical Agility Test for Patrol Officers. J. Strength Cond. Res.

31(10):2808-15, 2017.

10. Dawes J, Orr R, Flores R, Lockie R, Kornhauser C, Holmes R. A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol

officers by gender and age. Ann Occup Environ Med 29(1):1-11, 2017.

11. Dawes J, Orr R, Siekaniec C, Vanderwoude A, Pope R. Associations between anthropometric characteristics and

physical performance in male law enforcement officers: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Occup Environ Med

28(1):1-7, 2016.

12. Decker A, Orr R, Pope R, Hinton B. Physiological demands of law enforcement occupational tasks in Australian

police officers. In. Tactical Research Unit Conference Papers 2016.

13. Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both

of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health

52(6):377-84, 1998.

14. Ebling P. Physical fitness in law enforcement: Follow the yellow brick road. FBI L. Enforcement Bull. 71:1, 2002.

15. Hunt A, Orr R, Billing D. Developing physical capability standards that are predictive of success on Special

Forces selection courses. Mil. Med. 178(6):619, 2013.

16. Janssen I, LeBlanc A. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged

children and youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act 7(1):40, 2010.

17. Kennelly J. Methodological Approach to Assessing the Evidence. In. Reducing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in

Reproductive and Perinatal Outcomes: Springer; 2011, pp. 7-19.

18. Knapik J, Graham B, Cobbs J, Thompson D, Steelman R, Jones B. A prospective investigation of injury incidence

and injury risk factors among Army recruits in military police training. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 14(1):1, 2013.

19. Lockie R, Dawes J, Orr R, Stierli M, Dulla J, Orjalo A. Analysis of the effects of sex and age on upper- and lower

-body power for law enforcement agency recruits before academy training J. Strength Cond. Res. 32(7):1968-74,

2018.

20. Lockie R, Orr R, Stierli M, Cesario K, Moreno M, Bloodgood A, Dulla J, Dawes J. The physical characteristics by

sex and age for custody assistants from a law enforcement agency. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018.

21. Lockie R, Stierli M, Cesario K, Moreno M, Bloodgood A, Orr R, Dulla J. Are there similarities in physical fitness

characteristics of successful candidates attending law enforcement training regardless of training cohort? J. Trainol.

7(1):5-9, 2018.

22. Meigh N, Steele M, Orr R. Metabolic fitness as a predictor of injury risk in conditioned military trainees

undertaking an arduous field training exercise. In Proceedings of the 1st Australian Conference on Physiological and

Physical Employment Standards. 2012: Canberra.

23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and

Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine 6(7):e1000097, 2009.

24. Nabeel I, Baker BA, McGrail JM, Flottemesch TJ. Correlation between physical activity, fitness, and

musculoskeletal injuries in police officers. Minn. Med. 90(9):40-3, 2007.

Int J Exerc Sci 14(4): 613-632, 2021

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

632

25. Orr R, Cocke C, Dawes J. The impact of two different conditioning programs on fitness characteristics of police

academy cadets. J. Sci. Med. Sport 19:e13, 2015.

26. Orr R, Dawes J, Pope R, Terry J. Assessing differences in anthropometric and fitness characteristics between

police academy cadets and incumbent officers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 32(9):2632-41, 2018.

27. Orr R, Pope R, Peterson S, Hinton B, Stierli M. Leg power as an indicator of risk of injury or illness in police

recruits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13(2):1-10, 2016.

28. Orr R, Pope R, Stierli M, Hinton B. Grip strength and its relationship to police recruit task performance and

injury risk: A retrospective cohort study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14(8):1-11, 2017.

29. Orr R, Stewart M, Pope R, Stierli M, Hinton B. Musculoskeletal fitness as a predictor of injury during police

academy training: A retrospective cohort study. In Proceedings of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy

Congress. 2017: Cape Town, South Africa2017.

30. Orr R, Stierli M, Hinton B, Steele M. The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Assessment as a predictor of injury risk in

police recruits. In Proceedings of the Tactical Strength and Conditioning Conference. 2013: Melbourne, Australia2013. p.

1-2.

31. Orr RM, Dulla J, Dawes JJ, Lockie RG. The different types of fitness testing in law enforcement. Police Chief

87(1):16-7, 2020.

32. Pope R, Herbert R, Kirwan JD, Graham BJ. Predicting Attrition in Basic Military Training. Mil. Med. 164(10):710-

4, 1999.

33. Ramey S, Perkhounkova Y, Moon M, Budde L, Tseng H-C, Clark MK. The effect of work shift and sleep duration

on various aspects of police officers' health. Workplace Health Saf. 60(5):215-22, 2012.

34. Ramey S, Perkhounkova Y, Moon M, Tseng H-C, Wilson A, Hein M, Hood K, Franke WD. Physical Activity in

Police Beyond Self-Report. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 56(3):338-43, 2014.

35. Shusko M, Benedetti L, Korre M, Eshleman E, Farioli A, Christophi C, Kales S. Recruit Fitness as a Predictor of

Police Academy Graduation. Occup. Med. 67(7):555-61, 2017.

36. Tomes C, Orr R, Pope R. The impact of body armor on physical performance of law enforcement personnel: a

systematic review. Ann Occup Environ Med 29(1):14, 2017.

37. Tomes C, Sawyer S, Orr R, Schram B. Ability of fitness testing to predict injury risk during initial tactical training:

a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inj Prev 26(1):67-81, 2020.

38. Verma A. Maintaining Law and Order in India: An Exercise in Police Discretion. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 7(1):65-

80, 1997.

39. Viera A, Garrett J. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam. Med. 37(5):360-3, 2005.

40. Violanti J, Ma C, Fekedulegn D, Andrew M, Gu J, Hartley T, Charles L, Burchfiel C. Associations Between Body

Fat Percentage and Fitness among Police Officers: A Statewide Study. Saf Health Work 8(1):36-41, 2017.

41. Wisløff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint

performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 38(3):285-8, 2004.