Antropomotoryka nr 55.indb - Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego w ...

Physical fitness norms in children and adolescents: the physical education approach
ness improvement) has lost its significance? Certainly
not, and in the face of modern civilizational threats, it
has actually gained in significance [3]. However, we
should not be satisfied with the current state of affairs.
The physical development of the young generation
must be endorsed even more strongly than before because
life no longer provides the necessary stimuli for it
in sufficient quality and quantity. Concurrently, stimulating
actions should be included in the process of proper
education as it must ensure students develop proper
behaviors in their adult life. In this way, short-term and
long-term educational tasks will be fulfilled.
PROBLEMS
or why proper establishing physical fitness norms for
children and adolescents is impossible
If sustaining the development of physical fitness is one
of the fundamental objectives of physical education, then
assessment of physical fitness must also be its integral
part. The normalization of physical fitness is a complex
issue and any comprehensive discussion of its intricacies
is clearly beyond the scope of this paper. Is establishing
norms of physical fitness necessary at all? It is
a rhetorical question. Without normalization, assessment
and interpretation of results seem impossible.
Considering the importance of improvement of
physical fitness development, physical education may
be referred to as “health-related fitness education”. The
attainment of desired educational goals also depends
on properly established norms of physical fitness that
must account for specific needs and determinants. This
may involve problems that must not be ignored.
It is a truism to repeat constantly (but is nevertheless
necessary to repeat) that the range of ontogenetic
variability, including the level of physical fitness, is determined
simultaneously by genetic and environmental
factors. Additionally, in the case of children and adolescents,
also the pace of physical maturity must be taken
into consideration [4]. The establishment of norms of
physical fitness must account for all the above factors.
Individual differences resulting from genetic and environmental
variations are particularly visible in a comparison
of morphological traits, which also significantly
determine physical fitness effects. With such significant
differences, the use of population norms, based on
the average value of given characteristics in particular
populations, is an oversimplification. Such procedures
are not only wrong but also harmful [5]. Szopa [5] notes
that if the process of setting population norms involved
only the basic categories of variability resulting from
genetic and environmental factors as well as the pace
of maturity, the number of possible combinations would
lead to 243 distinct classifications. He admits, however,
that such research would be impossible for the lack of
representative samples.
Having considered all these problems, is the establishment
of logically explained norms of physical fitness
of children and adolescents an unfeasible task?
Unfortunately yes, however, facing the necessity of
existence of some sort of frame of reference, we must
undertake such procedures that will be of lesser evil.
MISTAKES
or what we do wrong in establishing and interpreting
norms of physical fitness of children and adolescents
One of the most common mistakes is nearly thoughtless
application of physical fitness assessment. According
to Osiński [6], mere learning of standard procedures
and routine interpretation of results are not sufficient.
A physical fitness test without its proper place in a specific
conception of physical fitness “is only a senseless
and random collection of jumps, throws or strength or
coordination exercises” [6].
The fundamental mistake in establishing and applying
norms of physical fitness of children and adolescents
is the use of population norms with reference to
calendar age in which individual scores are evaluated
against a normative reference scale for a population.
Simple statistical calculations based on arithmetic
means and standard deviation contain a serious error
because they fail to account for the lack of homogeneity
of the population and frequent non-normal distribution
of results [7]. Besides, scores calculated in this way are
only of descriptive character, and the information “what
is”, but for some reason, they are regarded as “prescriptive”
or “normal”. Such norms may not constitute a biological
frame of reference [5]. The only explanation for
such erroneous treatment is probably the deeply rooted
belief in the “fairness” of norms [8]. Teachers are often
convinced about the validity of assessment based on
“objective” criteria, whereas from the standpoint of efficiency
of fitness education such criteria may be highly
discouraging [9]. Differences in biological age may render
attainment of an appropriate physical fitness level
impossible and thus discourage a student from performing
an exercise [10, 11].
– 93 –