Do Baseline Physical Fitness Measures Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Law enforcement officers experience high stress levels and perform various physical tasks. Thus, law enforcement academies emphasize physical fitness training and assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To examine fitness test-performances and determine which entry-level fitness components best predict likelihood of successful law enforcement academy graduation.
METHODS: Recruits (151 males, 42 females) completed initial academy fitness testing: one-repetition maximum bench press, push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, sit-and-reach, 1.5-mile run, and work performance test. Chi-square and t-tests were used to examine gender differences. Correlation coefficients assessed relationships, while logistical regression determined the best fitness components for predicting graduation (p<0.05).
RESULTS: Males had greater fitness performances except pull-ups, sit-ups and sit and reach (p<0.05). Distributions of below average fitness performances were similar between genders with majority of recruits performing below average on all tests. Gender, age, push-ups, and pull-ups explained 18% of the variance in graduation rates (p<0.05). Males were 4.68 (p<0.05) times more likely to graduate, but other predictors were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: No single fitness test predicted the likelihood of graduation and majority of performances were below average, suggesting the importance for proficiency across multiple fitness components. Considering lower fitness performances and graduation rates, females may further benefit from training programs prior to academy entrance.

Full text

Running Head: Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
1
The below manuscript will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal entitled
1
WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. The article appears here in its
2
accepted, peer-reviewed form prior to final copyediting, proofreading, or formatting by the
3
publisher.
4
5
6
7
Do Baseline Physical Fitness Measures Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
8
9
Daniel Marks1, Justin J. Merrigan1,2, Joel Martin1
10
11
1, Sports Medicine Assessment Research & Testing (SMART) Laboratory, George Mason
12
University, Manassas, VA
13
2, Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W
14
15
Corresponding Author:
16
Dr. Joel Martin
17
George Mason University
18
Science and Technology Campus
19
Katherine Johnson Hall 201E
20
10890 George Mason Circle, MS 4E5
21
Manassas, VA, 20110
22
Email; jmarti38@gmu.edu
23
Phone: 607-727-6499
24
25
26

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
2
ABSTRACT
27
BACKGROUND: Law enforcement officers experience high stress levels and perform various
28
physical tasks. Thus, law enforcement academies emphasize physical fitness training and
29
assessment.
30
OBJECTIVE: To examine fitness test-performances and determine which entry-level fitness
31
components best predict likelihood of successful law enforcement academy graduation.
32
METHODS: Recruits (151 males, 42 females) completed initial academy fitness testing: one-
33
repetition maximum bench press, push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, sit-and-reach, 1.5-mile run, and
34
work performance test. Chi-square and t-tests were used to examine gender differences.
35
Correlation coefficients assessed relationships, while logistical regression determined the best
36
fitness components for predicting graduation (p<0.05).
37
RESULTS: Males had greater fitness performances except pull-ups, sit-ups and sit and reach
38
(p<0.05). Distributions of below average fitness performances were similar between genders
39
with majority of recruits performing below average on all tests. Gender, age, push-ups, and pull-
40
ups explained 18% of the variance in graduation rates (p<0.05). Males were 4.68 (p<0.05) times
41
more likely to graduate, but other predictors were not significant.
42
CONCLUSIONS: No single fitness test predicted the likelihood of graduation and majority of
43
performances were below average, suggesting the importance for proficiency across multiple
44
fitness components. Considering lower fitness performances and graduation rates, females may
45
further benefit from training programs prior to academy entrance.
46
47
Key Words: Occupational health; Police; Fitness Assessment ; Tactical Fitness; Recruit;
48
Strength; Endurance
49

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
3
INTRODUCTION
50
At any moment and without warning, law enforcement officers may go from a sedentary
51
state to situations requiring maximal physical exertion [1]. Suspect pursuits, use of force incidents,
52
and high-risk encounters may arise without warning, requiring officers to perform at maximal
53
intensities beyond their current physical capabilities and/ or without being able to properly prepare
54
their bodies for exertion [2]. Additionally, stressors such as high workloads, frequent overtime,
55
physical altercations, and lack of autonomy may have negative implications on an officer’s overall
56
health and occupational readiness. Furthermore, low levels of fitness not only increases an officer’s
57
risk of musculoskeletal injury [3,4], but may also put their own, along with fellow officers’ lives
58
in jeopardy and compromise the safety of communities [5]. Therefore, law enforcement officers
59
should possess high levels of physical capacity in order to perform their occupational duties safely,
60
efficiently, and effectively [2,6–8]. Thus, recruits are typically required to complete physical
61
fitness testing batteries reflective of occupational duties of law enforcement [9,10].
62
Traditionally, training academies have implemented physical fitness assessments to assess
63
readiness and expose recruits to the physical demands of law enforcement. Recruits are subject to
64
administrative discipline or removal from the academy, under several criteria, which may become
65
a great economic burden on departments as assessments, uniforms, equipment, salary, and benefits
66
can cost up to $100,000 per recruit. In 2013, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that out of
67
those who failed the law enforcement academy, 19% of males and 24% of females failed due to
68
the inability to maintain physical fitness standards [11]. Furthermore, academy entry fitness levels
69
may predict the likelihood for injury during training, which may result in failure to complete the
70
academy [12]. Although standards may be set by State or National guidelines, law enforcement
71
officers may differ in physical fitness levels across agencies and requires continued investigation
72

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
4
[13]. Thus, it is imperative to identify potential areas for improvement to better prepare those
73
entering the academy for success and reduce financial burdens.
74
Previous literature has found pull-ups and 1.5-mile run time to be the best predictors of law
75
enforcement academy graduation [9,14]. The paucity of evidence on identifying fitness
76
components with the most influence of successful graduation is problematic since various fitness
77
testing batteries covering a wide array of fitness components exist across agencies. Therefore, it is
78
important to further investigate the relationship between baseline fitness levels and successful
79
completion of the academy to assist in developing targeted physical fitness goals to help recruits
80
better prepare for the law enforcement academy. Furthermore, due to the gender differences in
81
physiological components, performances on tactical fitness testing, and law enforcement academy
82
fail rates, it is imperative to evaluate fitness testing differences between males and females [15].
83
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze baseline academy recruit fitness
84
data to 1) study the relationship of physical fitness with successful completion of the academy and
85
2) evaluate gender differences in physical fitness performances.
86
METHODS
87
De-identified data were available for 193 recruits who completed the entire fitness testing
88
battery, were not removed from the academy due to academic or disciplinary reasons, and were
89
aged 18 or older (78% male, n=151; 20% female, n=42). Law enforcement training was completed
90
at a regional criminal justice academy from the period of 2016 to 2019 following Law-Fit protocols
91
(www.lawfit.org). The study population was 80% male and 20% female. One of the co-authors
92
(DM) obtained permission to use the data for research purposes. All data from these recruit classes
93
were transferred into an electronic file without personal identifiers. The university’s Institutional
94

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
5
Review Board approved (IRB#: 1491152-1) the use of preexisting data without requiring
95
participant consent as a retrospective analysis of deidentified data was performed.
96
All data in this study was collected by training academy staff who were certified academy
97
fitness specialists to ensure consistent testing and data collection procedures were followed.
98
During the first week of the academy, recruits completed the Law-Fit testing protocol
99
(www.lawfit.org) including: one-repetition maximum bench press, push-ups, sit-ups, sit & reach,
100
pull-ups, and 1.5-mile run. On the same day, all testing was conducted indoors from 0800-1100,
101
except the 1.5-mile run, which was conducted on an outdoor track from 1300-1600.
102
Maximal upper body strength was assessed using the 1-RM bench press with protocols
103
used in previously established research [7,16–18]. Recruits were instructed to start by lying on a
104
standard flat bench, positioned with their eyes directly under the barbell, and maintain 5 points of
105
contact (head, shoulders, hips, right and left foot) during all repetitions. To ensure safety, three
106
spotters were used: one directly behind the barbell, and two on each side of the barbell to unsure
107
safety. On the recruit’s command, the barbell was lifted off the rack, with assistance from spotters,
108
until it was positioned over the recruit’s chest. In a controlled manner, the bar was lowered until it
109
contacted the chest. Upon making contact, the recruit then pressed the barbell away from their
110
chest until full elbow extension was achieved. The heaviest load lifter for one repetition was
111
recorded as the 1-RM value and was then divided body mass to obtain a relative strength measure.
112
Upper body pushing endurance was tested via push-ups to failure. Recruits started in the
113
“up” position, forming a straight line from head to toe with elbows fully extended and hands flat
114
on the floor. On “go”, recruits lower their bodies until elbows were  90, then returned to full
115
elbow extension, while maintaining a flat back during each repetition. Recruits performed the
116
maximum number of repetitions possible until they could not maintain correct form or ceased
117

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
6
performance. Recruits were only allowed to rest in the “up” position and only fully completed
118
repetitions were counted.
119
Abdominal muscle endurance was tested using the sit-up test. Recruits were instructed to
120
lay on the floor with knees flexed to 90, heels flat on the ground, and hands clasped behind the
121
head. Feet were held in position by a partner. On “go”, recruits raised their shoulders off the floor,
122
with hands behind their head, until their elbows contacted their knees. Recruits then descended
123
until both shoulder blades contacted the ground. Recruits performed as many repetitions as
124
possible in a 60 second time period and were permitted to rest in the “down” position only
125
(shoulder blades on the ground). Only full repetitions were counted.
126
Low back and hamstring flexibility was tested using the sit and reach test. A sit-and-reach
127
box with a measuring scale on the upper side was placed against the wall. Recruits were barefoot
128
and instructed to sit with knees fully extended and feet together against the box. Zero distance was
129
marked where the feet were in contact with the box. Recruits placed their hands-on top of one
130
another with palms down and the tips of middle fingers aligned. Recruits leaned forward slowly
131
and reached as far along the scale as possible, holding the position for 3-5 seconds. The farthest
132
point at which both middle fingers touched was the distance measured in centimeters. Each recruit
133
was monitored to ensure they maintained completely extended knees. If recruits failed to keep
134
their knees extended, they were allowed to have a partner assist them.
135
Upper body pulling endurance was measured though pull-ups to failure. Recruits were
136
instructed to hang from a bar with elbows fully extended and hands roughly shoulder width apart
137
using a pronated grip. Recruits would then pull themselves up while maintaining a vertical
138
alignment until their chin was completely over the bar. The recruit then returned to the start
139
position with elbows completely extended. Recruits performed the maximum number of
140

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
7
repetitions until they were unable to get their chin completely over the bar, and only fully
141
completed repetitions were counted.
142
The 1.5-mile run was used to measure aerobic capacity and performed using an outdoor
143
law enforcement driving track. The track measured 0.38 miles. Recruits were instructed to run this
144
course 4 times as fast as possible. However, if recruits experienced pain or shortness of breath,
145
they were advised to slow their pace. The 1.5 mile run time was measured for each recruit through
146
the use of a digital stopwatch measured to the nearest 0.10 seconds.
147
The work performance test is an obstacle course including a variety of tasks meant to
148
simulate law enforcement occupational duties. The test includes running, jumping, climbing over
149
obstacles, identifying suspects, dragging victims, and pulling the firearms trigger with the
150
dominant and non-dominant hand. A layout of the course can be found at
151
https://www.lawfit.org/lawfit-work-performance-test/. The time to complete the course was
152
recorded using a stopwatch.
153
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean  SD unless otherwise noted. Normality of data
154
was tested using the Shapiro-Wilks test. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to test for
155
multicollinearity and evaluate relationships among variables using the following effect size
156
determinants; weak, r = 0.10-0.40; moderate, r = 0.41-0.70; strong, r > 0.71 [19]. Backward
157
logistical regression analysis was performed with removal testing based on the probability of the
158
likelihood-ratio scale (0.100) to determine the effects of fitness test performance on graduation.
159
Chi-square test of goodness-of fit was used to evaluate the distributions between males and females
160
for those ≥ or < the below average cut point for each test according to Law-Fit standards
161
(https://www.lawfit.org/lawfit-fitness-profiles/). To further evaluate gender differences between
162

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
8
performances, independent samples t-tests were run. All statistical analyses were performed using
163
SPSS (version 26; IBM, Somers, NY, USA), and an alpha level of p < 0.05.
164
RESULTS
165
Males had greater performances in all fitness testing except for pull-ups and sit-ups (Table 1).
166
Comparison of the proportions of males and females performing above and below the poor standard
167
for fitness testing are displayed in Table 2. Weak to moderate correlation coefficients were observed
168
among fitness testing (Table 3). The logistical regression estimation terminated at iteration model
169
7 after parameter estimates changed by less than 0.001 (Table 4). The final regression model
170
including gender, age, push-ups, and pull-ups explained 18% of the variance in graduation rates,
171
χ2(2) = 12.76, p < 0.05. Males were 4.68 (p < 0.05) times more likely of graduating, while other
172
predictors (push-ups, pull-ups, and age) were not significant.
173
DISCUSSION
174
The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze baseline academy recruit fitness data, to
175
study the relationship among fitness components and determine which fitness components may
176
contribute to successful graduation from the academy. A secondary purpose was to determine gender
177
differences in these performance capabilities and graduation rates. The first principal finding from
178
the current study was that no single fitness test increased a recruit’s odds of graduation, which may
179
suggest the importance of high performance in all physical fitness components tested. Another
180
principal finding was that males were more likely to graduate from the academy than females.
181
When broken down by test, a greater percentage of females performed below average on sit-ups
182
and pull-ups compared to males. Finally, males performed significantly better on all fitness tests
183
compared to females with the exception of sit-ups and sit and reach.
184
Prior literature, examining recruit fitness levels in training academies suggests high levels
185
of performance across the entire fitness spectrum is more advantageous than high levels of
186

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
9
performance in one specific area for recruit’s entering the law enforcement academy. The key
187
physical fitness characteristics for recruits include, but are not limited to, aerobic capacity,
188
anaerobic capacity, muscular strength, muscular endurance, agility, and flexibility [19,20].
189
However, when predicting graduation rates, previous evidence supports that push-ups and 1.5-
190
mile run times are the best contributors to successful graduation [9,14]. However, the current study
191
included bench press, pull-ups, and the work performance test, in addition to what was included
192
in the prior studies (i.e. sit-ups, push-ups, sit and reach, and 1.5-mile run). Thus, more robust
193
testing including other fitness components may reduce the heavy influence of 1-2 select fitness
194
tests. Another reason for the disagreement in findings is that majority of males and females in the
195
current study fell below average on performance standards for the push-up and 1.5-mile run
196
assessments. This may also bring to question what other contributing factors may exist in regard
197
to predicting successful graduation upon entry into the academy (i.e. academic standings).
198
Regardless, the current findings reaffirm the importance of training across the full fitness spectrum,
199
and not in just one individual area, prior to entering the academy.
200
However, gender was a significant predictor of successful graduation with females in the
201
current cohort being more likely to fail than males. Prior literature has mixed results, as fail rates
202
in females have been higher than males in some cohorts [9], but not others [14]. The divergent
203
pass and fail rates by gender may be dependent on the stringency of fitness assessment standards
204
for males and females, as well as the fitness tests being assessed. Thus, the current study evaluated
205
average and above compared to below average scores for each test in males and females. The
206
results suggested that males had a higher proportion of below average performances on the relative
207
bench press, but all other testing was not statistically different between genders. The Law-Fit
208
standards are meant to be gender neutral due to innate physiological differences between genders.
209

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
10
Thus, the cut offs for below average performances on majority of Law-Fit standards are lower for
210
females compared to males and should result in similar proportions of fitness performance
211
categorization, as noted in the current study. However, due to the larger differences between
212
genders in terms of maximal upper body strength [21,22], the cut offs may be bias in favor of
213
females. Moreover, the majority of performances in fitness testing for males and females were
214
below average and may suggest that law enforcement recruits enter the academy with low fitness
215
levels. Thus, it may be important for recruits to consider training the fitness components in the
216
academy testing for longer periods prior to entering the academy.
217
Yet, due to the occupational tasks of law enforcement officers, it may also be important to
218
consider the absolute differences in performances between males and females. For example, in the
219
current study, the time to complete the work performance test was longer for females compared to
220
males. Prior literature, although not evaluating a multitude of assessments in a single course, has
221
found females to underperform on the body drag test compared to males [23]. Since this is a
222
specific task, the lower power development in females [24,25] may explain the greater
223
performances in the body drag by males. However, the work performance test includes a multitude
224
of physical fitness components. In support of this, only small correlations existed for select fitness
225
components in relation to the work performance test. Of importance, as scores in the push-ups, sit-
226
ups, 1.5-mile run, and absolute bench press increased, the time to complete the work performance
227
test decreased. Thus, the lower performances by females on the work performance test are likely
228
attributed to the lower absolute performances on the majority of fitness tests. Two exceptions to
229
this are the sit-up and sit & reach tests. This is in agreement with prior findings of no differences
230
in sit-up performances between males and females [26], supporting the similar Law-Fit sit-up
231
standards for males and females. In addition, females have been found to possess greater lower
232

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
11
back and hip flexibility than males [27]. The current findings of higher sit and reach performances
233
agrees with the aforementioned and support the higher Law-Fit sit and reach standards in females.
234
Thus, when making comparisons gender neutral cut-points for fitness assessments, understanding
235
the absolute differences between performances may be important. Yet, the absolute differences in
236
performances between males and females may suggest that females would greatly benefit from
237
physical training prior to entry to close the gender gap on occupational performances such as the
238
work performance fitness test.
239
These suggestions provided are not without several limitations. First, it should be reiterated
240
that the data analyzed from baseline fitness testing at the start of the academy. The findings of our
241
study cannot comment directly on recruit fitness during the law enforcement academy and
242
subsequent performance as a law enforcement officer. Second, the high graduation rate may have
243
created difficulty when attempting to explain the variance in likelihood to pass via fitness
244
performances. Despite these limitations, focus on performance capabilities across a range of fitness
245
components may increase the likelihood of graduating from the law enforcement academy. Our
246
study also possessed several strengths. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to
247
analyze physical fitness measurements of law enforcement recruits in a regional criminal justice
248
academy and reinforces the notion that training and assessments of law enforcement recruits
249
should emphasize a wide range of fitness components. Moreover, our study adds to recent
250
literature on the continuous efforts in developing evidence-based fitness testing for law
251
enforcement academies.
252
CONCLUSIONS
253
The findings of our study may help law enforcement professionals inform incoming recruit
254
classes of the minimum fitness standards and physical training recommendations to prepare for
255

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
12
law enforcement academies. A multi-component fitness assessment is suggested based on current
256
evidence. Individualized exercise programs should then be developed, based on fitness assessment
257
results, to help recruits improve physical fitness levels needed for the academy and law
258
enforcement occupational duties.
259
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
260
None.
261
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
262
Author (DM) was employed at the regional criminal justice academy and obtained data used in
263
the study. The data was collected prior to the start of the author’s employment.
264

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
13
References
265
[1] Orr RM, Ford K, Stierli M. Implementation of an ability-based training program in police
266
force recruits. J Strength Cond Res 2016;30(10):2781–7.
267
[2] Bonneau J, Brown J. Physical ability, fitness and police work. J Clin Forensic Med
268
1995;2(3):157–64.
269
[3] Nabeel I, Baker BA, McGrail MP Jr, Flottemesch TJ. Correlation between physical activity,
270
fitness, and musculoskeletal injuries in police officers. Minnesota Medicine
271
2007;90(9):40–3.
272
[4] Knapik JJ, Spiess A, Swedler D, Grier T, Hauret K, Yoder J, et al. Retrospective
273
examination of injuries and physical fitness during Federal Bureau of Investigation new
274
agent training. J Occup Med Toxicol 2011;6:26.
275
[5] Keating, PA. Municipal liability for requiring unfit police officers to carry guns. Fordham
276
Urb. LJ 1982;11:1001:.
277
[6] Boyce RW, Jones GR, Schendt KE, Lloyd CL, Boone EL. Longitudinal changes in strength
278
of police officers with gender comparisons. J Strength Cond Res 2009 Nov;23(8):2411–
279
8.
280
[7] Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Siekaniec CL, Vanderwoude AA, Pope R. Associations between
281
anthropometric characteristics and physical performance in male law enforcement
282
officers: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Occup Environ Med 2016;28(1):26
283
[8] Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Balfany K, Gonzales CE, Beitzel MM, Dulla JM, et al. Physical
284
fitness characteristics that relate to work sample test battery performance in law
285
enforcement recruits. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(11):2477.
286

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
14
[9] Korre M, Loh K, Eshleman EJ, Lessa FS, Porto LG, Christophi CA, et al. Recruit fitness
287
and police academy performance: a prospective validation study. Occup Med 2019;69(8-
288
9)541-548.
289
[10] Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Kornhauser CL, Holmes RJ. Cross-sectional and retrospective cohort
290
analysis of the effects of age on flexibility, strength endurance, lower-body power, and
291
aerobic fitness in law enforcement officers. J Strength Cond Res 2019;33(2):451–458.
292
[11] Reaves BA. State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2013. Washington, DC:
293
Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016.
294
[12] Butler RJ, Contreras M, Burton LC, Plisky PJ, Goode A, Kiesel K. Modifiable risk factors
295
predict injuries in firefighters during training academies. Work 2013;46:11–7.
296
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-121545.
297
[13] Myers CJ, Orr RM, Goad KS, Schram BL, Lockie R, Kornhauser C, et al. Comparing levels
298
of fitness of police Officers between two United States law enforcement agencies. Work
299
2019;63:615–22. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192954.
300
[14] Shusko M, Benedetti L, Korre M, Eshleman EJ, Farioli A, Christophi CA, et al. Recruit
301
fitness as a predictor of police academy graduation. Occup Med 2017 Oct 1;67(7):555–
302
561.
303
[15] Draicchio C, Martin JR, Fyock-Martin MB, Merrigan JJ. Retrospective cohort analysis of
304
the Army Physical Fitness Test and the Occupational Physical Assessment Test in
305
Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets: A Brief Report. Mil Med 2020:usz489.
306
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz489.
307
308

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
15
[16] National Strength & Conditioning Association. Miller TA, eds. NSCA’s guide to tests and
309
assessments. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2012.
310
[17] Cocke C, Dawes J, Orr RM. The use of 2 conditioning programs and the fitness
311
characteristics of police academy cadets. J Athl Train 2016;51(11):887–896.
312
[18] Merrigan JJ, Martin JR. Is the OUTPUT Sports unit reliable and valid when estimating
313
back squat and bench press concentric velocity? J Strength Cond Res n.d.;AoP.
314
[19] Crawley AA, Sherman RA, Crawley WR, Cosio-Lima LM. Physical fitness of police
315
academy cadets: baseline characteristics and changes during a 16-week academy. J
316
Strength Cond Res 2016;30(5):1416–1424.
317
[20] Beck AQ, Clasey JL, Yates JW, Koebke NC, Palmer TG, Abel MG. Relationship of
318
physical fitness measures vs. occupational physical ability in campus law enforcement
319
officers. J Strength Cond Res 2015;29(8):2340–2350.
320
[21] Miller AEJ, MacDougall JD, Tarnopolsky MA, Sale DG. Gender differences in strength and
321
muscle fiber characteristics. Eur J Appl Physiol 1993;66(3):254–262.
322
[22] Merrigan JJ, White JB, Hu YE, Stone JD, Oliver JM, Jones MT. Differences in elbow
323
extensor muscle characteristics between resistance-trained men and women. Eur J Appl
324
Physiol 2018;118(11):2359–66.
325
[23] Moreno MR, Dulla JM, Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Cesario A, Lockie RG. Lower-body power and
326
its relationship with body drag velocity in law enforcement recruits. Int J Exerc Sci
327
2019;12(4):847-858.
328
[24] Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Stierli M, Dulla JM, Orjalo AJ. Analysis of the effects of
329
sex and age on upper- and lower-body power for law enforcement agency recruits before
330
academy training. J Strength Cond Res 2018;32(7):1968.
331

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
16
[25] Merrigan JJ, Dabbs NC, Jones MT. Isometric mid-thigh pull kinetics: sex differences and
332
response to whole-body vibration. J Strength Cond Res 2020;Publish Ahead of Print.
333
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003726.
334
[26] Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Flores RR, Lockie RG, Kornhauser C, Holmes R. A physical fitness
335
profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age. Ann Occup Environ Med
336
2017;29:16.
337
[27] Mier CM, Shapiro BS. Sex differences in pelvic and hip flexibility in men and women
338
matched for sit-and-reach score. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27(4):1031–5.
339
340
341
342

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
17
Table 1. Gender comparisons on law enforcement recruit baseline LawFit testing.
Combined
(n=193)
Males
(n=151)
Females
(n=42)
t
p-value
Effect
Size
Age (years)
28.5  7.7
28.9  7.8
27.2  6.9
1.235
0.218
0.42
Body Mass (kg)
90.6  20.5
96.2  18.8
70.4  11.4
8.425
<0.001
1.58*
Bench Press (1-RM, kg)
76.9  29.0
86.4  24.6
41.8  16.0
11.242
<0.001
2.14*
Relative Bench (% Body Mass)
84.7  26.8
91.1  24.2
58.6  20.4
7.336
<0.001
1.46*
Push-Ups (# of repetitions)
28.3  17.9
30.5  18.2
20.5  14.8
3.257
0.001
0.61*
Sit-Ups (# of repetitions)
38.0  11.0
38.2  10.6
37.3  12.4
0.438
0.662
0.09
Sit & Reach (cm)
31.6  7.2
30.3  7.1
36.0  5.6
-4.717
<0.001
0.93*
Pull-Ups (# of repetitions)
7.9  9.3
8.5  9.3
5.8  9.4
1.702
0.090
0.31
1.5-Mile Run (mm:ss)
14:42  2:34
14:27  2:33
15:40  2:26
-2.706
0.007
0.49*
Work Performance Test (mm:ss)
1:160:17
1:120:12
1:310:22
-5.502
<0.001
1.09*
*, indicates significant difference between males and females
343
344

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
18
Table 2. Gender distributions of above versus below average LawFit test scores.
345
346
Males
Females
Chi-Square, X2
Graduation
Pass
145 (96%)
37 (88%)
3.846 *
Fail
6 (4%)
5 (12%)
Bench Press
Above
44 (29%)
19 (45%)
3.874 *
Below
107 (71%)
23 (55%)
Sit-Ups
Above
57 (38%)
17 (40%)
0.103
Below
94 (62%)
25 (60%)
Sit & Reach
Above
86 (57%)
33 (48%)
0.911
Below
65 (43%)
12 (52%)
Pull-Ups
Above
78 (52%)
18 (43%)
1.018
Below
73 (48%)
24 (57%)
1.5 Mile Run
Above
38 (25%)
8 (19%)
0.678
Below
115 (75%)
34 (91%)
Push-Up
Above
43 (28%)
18 (43%)
3.144
Below
108 (72%)
24 (57%)
Work Performance
Course
Above
44 (29%)
18 (43%)
2.836
Below
107 (71%)
24 (57%)
*, indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05
347
348
349

Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
19
Table 3. Correlation matrix of fitness test from recruit entry LawFit assessments.
350
Age
Push-
Up
Sit-Up
Sit &
Reach
Pull-Up
1.5
Mile
Run
Relative
Bench
Bench
1-RM
Body
Mass
Body Mass
0.12
-0.16**
-0.38**
-0.38**
0.10
0.39**
-0.45**
0.576**
-0.12
Bench 1-RM
0.10
0.46**
0.16*
-0.13
0.23**
0.14
-0.78**
-0.33**
Relative Bench
0.41**
-0.37**
-0.25
0.13
-0.21**
0.23**
0.32**
1.5 Mile Run
0.09
-0.52**
-0.60**
-0.15*
-0.07
0.35**
Pull-Up
0.01
0.31**
-0.02
-0.06
0.16*
Sit & Reach
-0.15*
0.15**
0.19**
0.10
Sit-Up
-0.15*
0.56**
-0.28**
Push-Up
0.03
-0.24**
Work Perf.
-0.02
* and **, statistical significance at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively; 1-RM, one-repetition maximum; Work
Perf, work performance test
351
352

Running Head: Do Fitness Levels Predict Law Enforcement Academy Graduation?
20
Table 4. Backward logistic regression models to predict likelihood of police cadet academy graduation.
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
χ2
p-value
χ2
p-value
χ2
p-value
χ2
p-value
χ2
p-value
χ2
p-value
Step
-0.193
0.661
-0.619
0.431
-0.261
0.609
-1.751
0.186
-1.04
0.308
-2.621
0.105
Model
16.43
0.037
15.81
0.027
15.55
0.016
13.8
0.017
12.76
0.013
10.14
0.017
R Square
0.230
0.222
0.219
0.195
0.181
0.144
Exp B (95% CI)
Exp B (95% CI)
Exp B (95% CI)
Exp B (95% CI)
Exp B (95% CI)
Exp B (95% CI)
Gender
3.20 (0.35, 29.45)
2.14 (0.30, 15.17)
2.95 (0.64, 13.68)
3.61 (0.82, 15.92)
4.68* (1.14, 19.17)
*4.67 (1.16, 18.74)
Push-Up
0.94 (0.87, 1.01)
0.95 (0.89, 1.02)
0.96 (0.91, 1.02)
0.97 (0.92, 1.02)
0.95* (0.91, 1.00)
*0.95 (0.90, 1.00)
Pull-Ups
1.09 (0.96, 1.24)
1.10 (0.96, 1.27)
1.11 (0.96, 1.28)
1.11 (0.96, 1.28)
1.10* (0.97, 1.25)
1.12 (0.98, 1.29)
Age
0.94* (0.87, 1.00)
0.94* (0.87, 1.01)
0.94* (0.87, 1.01)
0.93* (0.87, 1.00)
0.94 (0.88, 1.01)
n/a
Sit-Up
0.93 (0.84, 1.02)
0.94 (0.85, 1.03)
0.94 (0.85, 1.03)
0.96 (0.88, 1.04)
n/a
n/a
Run time
1.00 (0.99, 1.00)
1.00 (0.99, 1.00)
1.00 (0.99, 1.00)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bench
1.02 (0.97, 1.07)
1.01 (0.97, 1.05)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Weight
0.97 (0.91, 1.04)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
*, indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05)
Model 1 was not included as it was not statistically significant.
Sit and Reach was removed for all models after 1.
353