Self-Perceived and Self-Tested Endurance: Associations with Objective Measures

Abstract

Use of self-report (questionnaires) is often the most realistic means of screening physical fitness in large participant samples because this method is quicker and cheaper than objective testing. Yet, previous studies have reported equivocal validity to reports of self-perceived fitness. A hybrid self-report variant is the use of self-administered/reported objective measurement. I sought to investigate the relative validity of this variant method compared to self-perception reports. In total 26,452 young Norwegian men and women participated in this study. I collected data during obligatory selection for military conscript service. Approximately half of the participants were asked to rate their endurance level on a five-point Likert scale in an online questionnaire. The other half performed a self-administered 3000 m run and reported the result online. Within 18 months, all participants completed an objective maximal treadmill test at a conscript selection center. I used Spearman correlations (r_s) and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to investigate the relationships between these two self-report methods and the observed objective treadmill performance. Self-perceived and self-tested endurance were both identically correlated with the other-observed treadmill run for men (r _s = 0.59; p < .001) and for women (r_s = 0.50, p < .001); and ANOVAs revealed significant effects of self-perceived and self-tested endurance on treadmill run time, with higher self-reported endurance related to higher treadmill run time. In conclusion, self-perceived and self-tested endurance produced the same correlation coefficients with objectively measured treadmill run time. While there was a moderate relationship between self-reported and objectively measured endurance at the group level, there was substantial individual measurement error that should be considered for individual reports.