Literature concerning variables affecting performance levels of males and females was reviewed. Emphasis was placed on literature using both males and females as subjects in the areas of anthropometric, biomechanical, and physiological variables. When literature using both sexes as subjects was not available, comparable studies were considered for possible use.
The results of this review indicate that there are sex differences in anthropometry with regard to body dimensions. In biomechanics, sex differences were noted in reach envelopes strength and flexibility in particular. Physiological differences were noted in responses to heat/cold stress and altitude. These differences were then applied to a performance matrix under the categories of sensory, process and control. Differences noted were either very specific or did not exist at all. This is due in part to a lack of research involving variables as they actually affect performance levels between males and females.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsmussenE.Heebiøll-NielsenK.Isometric muscle strength in relation to age in men and women. Ergon., 1962, 2, 167–169.
2.
AstrandP.O.ChristensenE.H.Aerobic work capacity. Oxygen in the Animal Organism. DickensF.NeillE.WiddasW. F. (eds.), Pergamon Press: New York, 1964.
3.
AtomiY.MiyashitaM.Maximal aerobic power of Japanese active and sedentary adult females of different ages (20 to 62 years). Med. Sci. in Sports, 1974, 6(4), 223–225.
4.
BloswickD.S.Tracking decrement as a result of grid holding endurance. Ergon., 1974, 17 (1), 51–58.
5.
BolalekP.J.GrumblattA.G.Jr.A study to determine the adequacy of the tools and equipment used by the AF women in the craft skills. AF Inst. Tech. 1975, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
6.
BonjerF.H.Actual energy expenditure in relation to the physical working capacity. Ergon., 1962, 5(1), 29–31.
7.
BullockM.I.Cockpit design-pilot accommodation and accessibility to controls. Aerosp Med., 1973, 44(11), 1295–1299.
8.
ClarkD.H.Correlation between the strength/mass ratio and the speed of arm movement. Res. Quar., 1960, 31, 570–574.
9.
ClementF.J.Longitudinal and cross sectional assessments of age changes in physical strength as related to sex, social class, etc. J. Geron., 1974, 29(4), 423–429.
10.
CoteR.W.IIIBomarJ.B.Jr.RobertshawG. E.ThomasJ.C.Maximal aerobic power in women cadets at the U.S. AF Academy. Aviat., Space, & Environ Med., 1977, 48(2), 154–155.
11.
DamonA.StoudtH.W.The functional anthropometry of old men. Human Factors, 1963, 5, 484–491.
12.
DaviesC.T.M.MbelwaD.CrockfordG.WeinerJ.S.Exercise tolerance and body composition of male and female Africans aged 18–30 years. Human Biol., 1973, 45(1), 31–40.
13.
ElliottB.C.BlanksbyB.A.A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. Med. Sci. in Sports, 1976, 8(2), 84–87.
14.
FerrisB.B.StoudtH.W.Correlation of anthropometry and simple tests of pulmonary function. Archives of Environ. Health, 1971, 22, 672–676.
15.
FlintM.M.DrinkwaterB.L.HorvathS.M.Effects of training on women's response to submaximal exercise. Med. Sci. in Sports, 1974, 6(2), 89–94.
16.
GarrettJ.W.Anthropometry of the Hands of Male Air Force Flight Personnel. AMRL-TR-69-42. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB.
17.
GarrettJ.W.The adult human hand: Some anthropometric and biomechanical considerations. Human Factors, 1971, 13(2), 117–131.
18.
GlummM.M.The female in equipment design. Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, No. 760078. Detroit, MI, Feb. 23–27, 1976.
19.
HartungG.H.Responses of middle-aged women to maximal cycling exercise. Am. Corr. Ther. J., 1976, 28(4), 103–106.
20.
HowleyE.T.GloverM.E.The caloric sosts of running and walking one mile for men and woman. Medicine and Sci. in Sports, 1974, 6(4), 253.
21.
KarlssonJ.AstrandP.O.EkblomB.Training of the oxygen transport system in man. Journal of Applied Physiol., 1967, 22, 1601–1605.
22.
KennedyK.W.Reach capability of men and women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Goodwin Watson Institute for Research and Program Development, 1976.
23.
LaubachL.L.McConvilleJ.T.The relationship of strength to body size and typology. Med. Sci. in Sports, 1969, 1(4), 189–194.
24.
LibersonC.W.Sex differences in autonomic responses (heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure) to electric shock. Dissertation Abstract, 1973, 34(1-B), 441.
25.
MalinaR.M.JohnstonF.E.Significance of age, sex, and maturity differences in upper arm composition. Res. Quart., 1967, 38, 219–230.
26.
MartinE.G.Tests of muscular efficiency. Physiol. Review, 1921, 1, 454–475.
27.
MethanyE.BrouhaR.JohnsonR.E.ForbesW.H.Some physiologic responses of women and men to moderate and strenuous exercise: A comparative study. Am. J. Physiol.1942, 137, 318–326.
28.
NordgrenB.Anthropometric measures and muscle strength in young women. Scandinavian J. Rehabilitation Med., 1972, 4, 165–169.
29.
NunneleyS.A.Physiological responses of women to thermal stress: A review. Med. Sci. in Sports, in press.
30.
RobertsD.F.Functional anthropometry of elderly women. Ergon., 1960, 3(4), 321–327.
31.
RohmertW.JenikP.Isometric muscular strength in women. In Frontiers of Fitness, ShephardR.J. (ed.). C.C. Thomas: Springfield, IL, 1971, 79–97.
32.
ShockN.W.Age changes and sex differences in alveolar CO2 tension. Am. J. Physiol., 1971, 133, 610–616.
33.
SmithP.E.A test for susceptibility to noise—induced hearing loss. Am. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J., 1969, 30(3), 245–250.
34.
SnookS.H.The effects of age and physique on continuous-work capacity. Human Factors, 1971, 13(5), 467–479.
35.
SnookS.H.CirielloV.M.Maximum weights and work loads acceptable to female workers. J. Occup. Med., 1974, 16(8), 524–534.
36.
StullG.A.KearneyJ.T.Recovery of muscular endurance following rhythmic or sustained activity. J. Motor Behav., 1974, 6(1), 59–66.
37.
ThomasJ.R.CottenD.J.SpeithW.R.AbrahmN.L.Effects of fatigue on stabilometer performance and learning of males and females. Med. Sci. in Sports, 1975, 7(3), 203–206.
