Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Review and Proposal of a Field-Based Physical Fitness-Test Battery in Preschool Children: The PREFIT Battery

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Physical fitness is a powerful health marker in childhood and adolescence, and it is reasonable to think that it might be just as important in younger children, i.e. preschoolers. At the moment, researchers, clinicians and sport practitioners do not have enough information about which fitness tests are more reliable, valid and informative from the health point of view to be implemented in preschool children.

Objective

Our aim was to systematically review the studies conducted in preschool children using field-based fitness tests, and examine their (1) reliability, (2) validity, and (3) relationship with health outcomes. Our ultimate goal was to propose a field-based physical fitness-test battery to be used in preschool children.

Data Sources

PubMed and Web of Science.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies conducted in healthy preschool children that included field-based fitness tests.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

When using PubMed, we included Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms to enhance the power of the search. A set of fitness-related terms were combined with ‘child, preschool’ [MeSH]. The same strategy and terms were used for Web of Science (except for the MeSH option). Since no previous reviews with a similar aim were identified, we searched for all articles published up to 1 April 2014 (no starting date). A total of 2,109 articles were identified, of which 22 articles were finally selected for this review.

Results

Most studies focused on reliability of the fitness tests (n = 21, 96 %), while very few focused on validity (0 criterion-related validity and 4 (18 %) convergent validity) or relationship with health outcomes (0 longitudinal and 1 (5 %) cross-sectional study). Motor fitness, particularly balance, was the most studied fitness component, while cardiorespiratory fitness was the least studied. After analyzing the information retrieved in the current systematic review about fitness testing in preschool children, we propose the PREFIT battery, field-based FITness testing in PREschool children. The PREFIT battery is composed of the following tests: the 20 m shuttle-run test for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness, the handgrip-strength and the standing long-jump tests for assessing musculoskeletal fitness, and the 4 × 10 m shuttle run and the one-leg-stance tests for assessing motor fitness, i.e. speed/agility and balance, respectively. The rationale for the selection of each of the tests included in the PREFIT battery is provided in this review, as well as directions for future research.

Limitations

Levels of evidence based on quality assessment of selected studies could not be constructed due to the limited number of studies identified for each test.

Conclusions

The present systematic review has identified a need for further research on the validity of fitness tests in preschool children, as well as on their relationship with health. Due to this limited information, the PREFIT battery hereby proposed is based on the output of the current systematic review in preschool children, together with existing evidence in older children and adolescents. While we wait for more evidence to be accumulated in preschool children, the PREFIT battery hereby proposed is a useful tool for assessing physical fitness in children aged 3–5 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Castillo MJ, et al. Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: a powerful marker of health. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ruiz JR, Castro-Pinero J, Artero EG, et al. Predictive validity of health-related fitness in youth: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(12):909–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith JJ, Eather N, Morgan PJ, et al. The health benefits of muscular fitness for children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(9):1209–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ortega FB, Labayen I, Ruiz JR, et al. Improvements in fitness reduce the risk of becoming overweight across puberty. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(10):1891–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ortega FB, Silventoinen K, Tynelius P, et al. Muscular strength in male adolescents and premature death: cohort study of one million participants. BMJ. 2012;345:e7279.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Artero EG, Espana-Romero V, Castro-Pinero J, et al. Reliability of field-based fitness tests in youth. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32(3):159–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Castro-Pinero J, Artero EG, Espana-Romero V, et al. Criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in youth: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(13):934–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ruiz JR, Castro-Pinero J, Espana-Romero V, et al. Field-based fitness assessment in young people: the ALPHA health-related fitness test battery for children and adolescents. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(6):518–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Fitness measures and health outcomes in youth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Library of Medicine. Medical Subject Headings. MeSH Descriptor Data. 2014 [cited 2014 Sept 14]. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2014/MB_cgi?mode=&index=2553&field=all&HM=&II=&PA=&form=&input=.

  11. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Klower Health, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56(2):81–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor HL, Buskirk E, Henschel A. Maximal oxygen intake as an objective measure of cardio-respiratory performance. J Appl Physiol. 1955;8(1):73–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):126–31.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burgi F, Meyer U, Granacher U, et al. Relationship of physical activity with motor skills, aerobic fitness and body fat in preschool children: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study (Ballabeina). Int J Obes (Lond). 2011;35(7):937–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burgi F, Meyer U, Niederer I, et al. Socio-cultural determinants of adiposity and physical activity in preschool children: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:733.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ebenegger V, Marques-Vidal P, Kriemler S, et al. Differences in aerobic fitness and lifestyle characteristics in preschoolers according to their weight status and sports club participation. Obes Facts. 2012;5(1):23–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Niederer I, Kriemler S, Gut J, et al. Relationship of aerobic fitness and motor skills with memory and attention in preschoolers (Ballabeina): a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. BMC Pediatr. 2011;11:34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Niederer I, Kriemler S, Zahner L, et al. BMI group-related differences in physical fitness and physical activity in preschool-age children: a cross-sectional analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2012;83(1):12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Puder JJ, Marques-Vidal P, Schindler C, et al. Effect of multidimensional lifestyle intervention on fitness and adiposity in predominantly migrant preschool children (Ballabeina): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6195.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reeves L, Broeder CE, Kennedy-Honeycutt L, et al. Relationship of fitness and gross motor skills for five- to six-yr.-old children. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;89(3 Pt 1):739–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rikli RE, Petray C, Baumgartner TA. The reliability of distance run tests for children in grades K-4. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992;63(3):270–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bénéfice E, Fouere T, Malina RM. Early nutritional history and motor performance of Senegalese children, 4–6 years of age. Ann Hum Biol. 1999;26(5):443–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oja L, Jürimäe T. Assessment of motor ability of 4- and 5-year-old children. Am J Hum Biol. 1997;9(5):659–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Molenaar HM, Zuidam JM, Selles RW, et al. Age-specific reliability of two grip-strength dynamometers when used by children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(5):1053–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krombholz H. Testbatterie zur Erfassung motorischer Leistungen im Vorschulalter MoTB 3–7. Beschreibung, Gütekriterien, Normwerte und ausgewählte Ergebnisse [A test battery for measuring motor performance of preschool children MoTB 3–7. Description, quality criteria, norms, and selected results]. 2011. Available at: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2011/2711/

  27. Molenaar HM, Selles RW, Schreuders TA, et al. Reliability of hand strength measurements using the Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer in children. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(10):1796–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rose KJ, Burns J, Ryan MM, et al. Reliability of quantifying foot and ankle muscle strength in very young children. Muscle Nerve. 2008;37(5):626–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Koslow RE. Sit and reach flexibility measures for boys and girls aged 3 through 8 years. Percept Mot Skills. 1987;64(3):1103–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Deitz JC, Kartin D, Kopp K. Review of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2007;27(4):87–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nguyen T, Obeid J, Timmons BW. Reliability of fitness measures in 3- to 5-year-old children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2011;23(2):250–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hua J, Gu G, Meng W, et al. Age band 1 of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition: exploring its usefulness in mainland China. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34(2):801–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kasuga K, Demura S, Aoki H, et al. Sex and age-level differences of walking time in preschool children on an obstacle frame. J Physiol Anthropol. 2012;31:8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. De Kegel A, Baetens T, Peersman W, et al. Ghent developmental balance test: a new tool to evaluate balance performance in toddlers and preschool children. Phys Ther. 2012;92(6):841–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Smits-Engelsman BC, Niemeijer AS, van Waelvelde H. Is the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2nd edition a reliable instrument to measure motor performance in 3 year old children? Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(4):1370–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ellinoudis T, Evaggelinou C, Kourtessis T, et al. Reliability and validity of age band 1 of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children–second edition. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(3):1046–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sun SH, Zhu YC, Shih CL, et al. Development and initial validation of the Preschooler Gross Motor Quality Scale. Res Dev Disabil. 2010;31(6):1187–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kroes M, Vissers YL, Sleijpen FA, et al. Reliability and validity of a qualitative and quantitative motor test for 5- to 6-year-old children. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2004;8(3):135–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Broadstone BJ, Westcott SL, Deitz JC. Test–retest reliability of two tiltboard tests in children. Phys Ther. 1993;73(9):618–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Greenspan KA. Relationships among age, sex, and lateral dominance for 3- to 6-year-old children performing unilateral stance. Percept Mot Skills. 1990;71(2):615–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim CI, Han DW, Park IH. Reliability and validity of the Test of Gross Motor Development-II in Korean preschool children: applying AHP. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(4):800–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cools W, Martelaer KD, Samaey C, et al. Movement skill assessment of typically developing preschool children: a review of seven movement skill assessment tools. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(2):154–68.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee-Valkov PM, Aaron DH, Eladoumikdachi F, et al. Measuring normal hand dexterity values in normal 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children and their relationship with grip and pinch strength. J Hand Ther. 2003;16(1):22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Butterfield SA, Lehnhard RA, Coladarci T. Age, sex, and body mass index in performance of selected locomotor and fitness tasks by children in grades K-2. Percept Mot Skills. 2002;94(1):80–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Butterfield SA, Lehnhard RA, Loovis EM, et al. Grip strength performances by 5- to 19-year-olds. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;109(2):362–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Haishi K, Okuzumi H, Kokubun M, et al. Verbal regulation of grip force in preschoolers. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;108(2):540–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Molenaar HM, Selles RW, Zuidam JM, et al. Growth diagrams for grip strength in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):217–23.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yoshizawa S, Ishizaki T, Honda H. Physical fitness of children aged 5 and 6 years. J Hum Ergol (Tokyo). 1977;6(1):41–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fjortoft I, Pedersen AV, Sigmundsson H, et al. Measuring physical fitness in children who are 5–12 years old with a test battery that is functional and easy to administer. Phys Ther. 2011;91(7):1087–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Duger T, Bumin G, Uyanik M, et al. The assessment of Bruininks–Oseretsky test of motor proficiency in children. Pediatr Rehabil. 1999;3(3):125–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Venetsanou F, Kambas A, Aggeloussis N, et al. Motor assessment of preschool aged children: a preliminary investigation of the validity of the Bruininks–Oseretsky test of motor proficiency—short form. Hum Mov Sci. 2009;28(4):543–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Woll A, Worth A, Mundermann A, et al. Age- and sex-dependent disparity in physical fitness between obese and normal weight children and adolescents. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2013;53(1):48–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Woll A, Kurth BM, Opper E, et al. The ‘Motorik-Modul’ (MoMo): physical fitness and physical activity in German children and adolescents. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(9):1129–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Krombholz H. Physical performance in relation to age, sex, birth order, social class, and sports activities of preschool children. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;102(2):477–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kambas A, Aggeloussis N. Construct validity of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-short form for a sample of Greek preschool and primary school children. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;102(1):65–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Welon Z, Sekita B. Physical fitness, body size, and body build in pre-school children. Stud Phys Anthrop. 1975;2:25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kondric M, Trajkovski B, Strbad M, et al. Anthropometric influence on physical fitness among preschool children: gender-specific linear and curvilinear regression models. Coll Antropol. 2013;37(4):1245–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Atwater SW, Crowe TK, Deitz JC, et al. Interrater and test–retest reliability of two pediatric balance tests. Phys Ther. 1990;70(2):79–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. An MH, Yi CH, Jeon HS, et al. Age-related changes of single-limb standing balance in children with and without deafness. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73(11):1539–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nemet D, Geva D, Eliakim A. Health promotion intervention in low socioeconomic kindergarten children. J Pediatr. 2011;158(5):796–801 e1.

  61. Booth ML, Macaskill P, Phongsavan P, et al. Methods of the NSW Schools Fitness and Physical Activity Survey, 1997. J Sci Med Sport. 1998;1(2):111–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Reuben DB, Magasi S, McCreath HE, et al. Motor assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013;80(11 Suppl 3):S65–75.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Artero EG, Espana-Romero V, Castro-Pinero J, et al. Criterion-related validity of field-based muscular fitness tests in youth. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2012;52(3):263–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Castro-Pinero J, Ortega FB, Artero EG, et al. Assessing muscular strength in youth: usefulness of standing long jump as a general index of muscular fitness. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(7):1810–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Espana-Romero V, Ortega FB, Vicente-Rodriguez G, et al. Elbow position affects handgrip strength in adolescents: validity and reliability of Jamar, DynEx, and TKK dynamometers. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(1):272–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Espana-Romero V, Artero EG, Santaliestra-Pasias AM, et al. Hand span influences optimal grip span in boys and girls aged 6–12 years. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2008;33(3):378–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ruiz JR, Espana-Romero V, Ortega FB, et al. Hand span influences optimal grip span in male and female teenagers. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2006;31(8):1367–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Hager-Ross C, Rosblad B. Norms for grip strength in children aged 4–16 years. Acta Paediatr. 2002;91(6):617–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vicente-Rodriguez G, Rey-Lopez JP, Ruiz JR, et al. Interrater reliability and time measurement validity of speed–agility field tests in adolescents. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(7):2059–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kakebeeke TH, Caflisch J, Chaouch A, et al. Neuromotor development in children. Part 3: motor performance in 3- to 5-year-olds. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(3):248–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Benefice E, Cames C. Physical activity patterns of rural Senegalese adolescent girls during the dry and rainy seasons measured by movement registration and direct observation methods. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53(8):636–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Vanesa España-Romero and David Jiménez-Pavón from the University of Cádiz, Spain, and Manuel J. Castillo, from the University of Granada, Spain, for the valuable comments on an earlier draft. Francisco B. Ortega and Jonatan R. Ruiz were supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC-2011-09011 and RYC-2010-05957, respectively). All the authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PROFITH “PROmoting FITness and Health through physical activity” Research Group, Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Carretera de Alfacar s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Francisco B. Ortega, Cristina Cadenas-Sánchez, Guillermo Sánchez-Delgado, José Mora-González, Borja Martínez-Téllez, Palma Chillón & Jonatan R. Ruiz

  2. Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Francisco B. Ortega, Marie Löf & Jonatan R. Ruiz

  3. Department of Education, Area of Physical Education and Sport, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

    Enrique G. Artero

  4. Department of Physical Education, School of Education, University of Cádiz, Puerto Real, Spain

    Jose Castro-Piñero

  5. Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria, Spain

    Idoia Labayen

Authors
  1. Francisco B. Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Cadenas-Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guillermo Sánchez-Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José Mora-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Borja Martínez-Téllez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Enrique G. Artero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jose Castro-Piñero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Idoia Labayen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Palma Chillón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marie Löf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jonatan R. Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco B. Ortega.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 48 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortega, F.B., Cadenas-Sánchez, C., Sánchez-Delgado, G. et al. Systematic Review and Proposal of a Field-Based Physical Fitness-Test Battery in Preschool Children: The PREFIT Battery. Sports Med 45, 533–555 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0281-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0281-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation