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

Robert Szeklicki
Additionally, the averaging of scores in cross-sectional
studies makes the population norm useless for
tracking the dynamics of a child’s individual development.
On the other hand, results of longitudinal studies
can only pertain to the studied population [5].
By the way, another common mistake worth mentioning
here is the use of well known WHO adult categories
of overweight and obesity in the assessment of
body build in children and adolescents. Apart from serious
doubts about the usefulness of BMI for obesity assessment,
we must remember that a child is not simply
a miniature of an adult. As Cole et al. [12, 13] observe
the BMI ranges in children differ substantially from the
categories of underweight, overweight and obesity in
adults.
GOOD EXAMPLES
or how to establish and apply norms of physical
fitness in children and adolescents
In the opinion of many authors [5, 9, 10, 14, 15] the assessment
of development of functional traits must account
for the purpose of norm setting and somatic development
(in the case of motor fitness assessment).
To precisely determine the purpose of establishing
norms the concept of physical fitness and the role of
fitness education must be first defined. Present-day
physical education stresses the importance of those
components of fitness education which constitute the
notion of positive health and determine a low risk of
health problems [16]. It is referred to as “health-related
fitness” (H-RF), which does not defy but remains
clearly distinct from the so-called “performance-related
fitness” [17]. Such an understanding of physical fitness
fully relates to the mission of physical education discussed
earlier.
The first and foremost aim of assessment tests (and
corresponding assessment norms) within the concept
of H-RF is health promotion and care for functional efficiency
and wellbeing. Tests play an important educational
role [18], and they should be integrated in school
curricula and used as pedagogical tools [14]. Apart
from its important (but not primary) diagnostic function
a physical fitness test should be an aid in the propagation
of knowledge about the significance of physical
fitness and support the development of appropriate
attitudes towards it. Thus, there should be premises
to undertake specific actions in the future, especially
aimed at promoting appropriate physical activity. The
presentation and interpretation of test results should
not be based on biological heredity only but on encouragement
of an active lifestyle [10]. In this way, tasks traditionally
associated only with performance of physical
exercises become part of proper education.
The diagnostic function of physical fitness norms
must provide the answer to the important question
“How much fitness needs good health”? [11]. The complexity
of this issue has made any comprehensive,
mathematical and theoretical establishment of criteria
impossible [19]. The standards are usually set arbitrarily.
The level of achievement corresponding to the state
of complete health is estimated by means of “criterion
values” [11], “criterion-referenced standards” [14] or “criterion
health status” [16]. Similarly, years ago Wolański
[20] considered a “target norm” (desired standard) in
reference to biological development. An individual
must realize whether he or she has achieved a desired
standard (from the standpoint of health), not only how
it contrasts with the rest of population [21]. A good example
may be also the “healthy fitness zone” used in
“FITNESSGRAM” developed by “The Cooper Institue”
[22], that focuses on the range of desired physical fitness
standard from the perspective of health needs. An
exerciser must be made aware of his or her needs and
encouraged to adopt desired attitudes [15]. The aims
should be useful, attainable, and each next measurement
and evaluation should verify their attainment [14,
21]. The present level of physical fitness is important,
but it is much more important what it will be in 15 or 20
years [21].
Accounting for the level of somatic development in
the assessment of such functional traits as physical fitness
is a relatively easy task. It involves simultaneously
the impact of genetic and environmental factors and the
level of body’s maturity. There are many indices that
can be used in such a comprehensive evaluation, however,
their measurement and interpretation in physical
education can be often difficult due to the unavailability
of appropriate research methods and tools, lack of specialist
medical knowledge or problems with processing
and simple interpreting complex research results. Body
height may appear to be a parameter that can be easily
measured and yield sufficient data. It is certainly not the
best index of genetic and environmental influences, as
well as the level of somatic maturation, but nevertheless
quite useful in physical education. This was noted,
for example, by the authors of national norms of physical
fitness for children and adolescents in Poland [23,
24], who proposed two categories of physical fitness
– 94 –