physical educaticaj submitted to the graduate - repositories

COHPARX ON OP niE RLUTXONSHXPb BEHriKEN PHTtiXCAL

FITNESS ^ D DBI^iaC AND STATIC £THENGTH

b y

LEON A. BLASCHKF, B*S* i n ? • £ •

A THESIS

IN

PHYSICAL EDUCATICaj

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Technological College

in Partial Pulfillowit of the Re<|iiiresiimt8 for

the Degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATIOK

APPHOVED

August, ^965 ^ (7 T . i. I L C 'NOLOGICAL COLL,£G£

LUB30CK. TEXAS

-t lBRARY

805 T ]9Qb

Mo. CI n o

f\hH^^?\^!

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Dr* Eichard A* Berger for his direction

of this thesis and to the other iseinbers of m^ committee, Dr* Easson

W* Kireilis and "Qr^ John W* Cobb^ Jr*« for their helpful criticism*

Appreciation is also esqpressed to Dr* Herman 6* Segrest for his

helpful suggestions VJKI to the subjects idic were very cooperative*

Lecn Audrey Blaschke

Texas Technological College

Lubbockf Texas

August, 1965

ii

COITONTS

ACX1I0WI£DC3KENT5 ii

I* INTRODUCTION * 1

Purpose of the Study •*••***•• *••• 1

Definition of Texi&s*****.***.******************* ^

Static Strength***************************** ^

Dynamic Strength*********** **•**•****•* '^

Physical Fitness*********** *********** '^

Review of the Liter^ure************************ ^

C<»5>arisoo Between the Effects of Static t^xiA Dynamic Strength Training on DSjuamlc Physical Perforoance***•***•••**•****************** ^

Eelationship Between Static and Dynamic >:trength********************** 4

Relationship of strength to Pe rfo rmance •***••*•*•* *••*•**••*••* 4

Conqparison Between Relationships of static and Dynamic Strength to Performance**************************** B

II* METHODS -m PHOCEDUHES*** ** 10

Procedure***«*•*••******* •****••******•**• 1<

Q3rnasic strength Test*********** ***** IC-

Static strength Test******* •**•*•***** -i-

Physical Fitness Test*********************** 13

Statistical Analysis** ***************** 16

i n . PRtSENTATI(»3 im .J .LI^Io OF HE£.ULTS**.* 17

Analysis of Results ****** • 17

iv

IV* SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ****** ^

Suzn&azy* ****••**•••******••****••****•**••**•*•* ^

Conc lus ions**** **************#.>*«******e**»***** ^0

LIST OF HEFIRENCES ******* ^2

APPENDIX ****** ^5

CHAPTHl I

INTRODUCTION

Coaches and physical oducatoi'o liavo long boon ^j^^ of the

relationship that exists betwoon ou3cul<u* stz^îgth «ind physical

performance* The is^rtance of sUMngth in att«iini«ient of ukills

and reaching new peaks in perfosm^noe io i cognlsiied* Knowledge

of the importance of strength for iJB|>rovlng athletic pwrfonaance

has brought about intensive reaearch to dotertalne tho taoat effective

means of improving strength* The traditional oothod to Increase

strength has been weight training* However, in the last decade,

research has been focused on L different method for increasing

strength iMch involves static laxsclo contractions* A study by

Hettinger and Mailer (17) in 1953 gave impetus to the use of static

training for increasing strength* Since then, a nusOser of studies

have been done ccmparing static and dsrnazoic training to strength

iiBe proveaent and physical performance* However, few studies have

been done that investigated the relatlonahip of both otutic and

dynamic strength to physical fitnoss ;ind to dota;. aino which was

more highly related to phjêlc^ fitaoso*

lû'pose gl a a r' ^ y

The purpose of this study was twofold:

1* To deteradne the rel&ticnship of both ot it ic md di/namc

strength to physical fitness*

^0 To determine wtisther static or dynamic stron^h 10,3 more

related to physical fitness*

2

Statl^9 Strength. This is the force a eontraeting muscle can aiÔy

to an innovable object without the length of the ousde changing

or aovsMoat of a bod gr part occurring*

Dynamic Strength* This is the force a eontraeting muscle can apply

in moving an object a prescribed distance* The movement of the

muscle shortens its length and causes a movement of the limb*

Câmle strength and isotonic strength are synonjfrmous terms*

Physical Fitness* Physical fitness refers to the organic capacity

of the individual to perform the tasks of daily living without

laadue tiredness and fatigue and still have a reserve of strength

and energy to meet satisfactorily sudden energsr demands*

Beyiew M thg |4ter#û|^

q<aap^s«^ Bel wyefi jfeg ?^f ec^s of S%^%1<^ ^ ^ y n ^ c S^rer^h

•^r^Mm m SzSSfi^ flysicfig êrformgnce*

Baer et al* (2) measured the differential effects of static

and dynamic training on static strength, wixk capacity, and reaction

time* Each subject participated in one of six programs for either a

four^ or a six-week period* One group trained statically and five

groups trained dynamically* Sixty-three subjects participated in

the training programs nthXch were designed to increase the strength

of the wrist flexors* Woi^ capacity was determined with ai ergograph

Wtiile a strain guage was used to measure isoioetric tension* Reaction

time was measured with an electronic device* ithou^ significant

improvement occurred within groups, no significant differences were

found between the effects of static training and dynanic t. air*ing

In work capacity, reaction time, or static strength*

Meadows (k3) arelated the effects of static and dynamic training

on the force and speed of the offensive charge in football* Eighty-

foiu^ subjeets were equated into three groups of twenty-ei^t each*

One group trained staticallyt another dynamically, idiile the third

was a control group* Bteadows found Uaat both experimental groups

improved significantly in speed and force of the offensive football

charge* However, these groups were not significantly different

from each other*

Denniscn et al* (11} examined the effects of static and dynamic

exercise programs upon aouscular endurance* Two groups of ten sub

jects each participated twice a week for eight weeks in static and

<fyttm±G training programs* C oe group performed the C<îmander Set,

consisting of thirteen static exercises designed to activate the

lazê muscle groups of the body, %ddle Uie other group participated

in a weii^t training program* The criterion for measuring imiscular

endurance was chinning and diiîng* Endurance was determined both

before and after the eight week period* Statistical improvement in

chiiming and dipping ability was noted in both groups; however, the

groups were not significantly different in znus<mlar endurance*

Berger (4) studied the effects of static ond dynamic strength

improvemfint on vertical Jump ability* Eighty-eight subjects were

divided into four groups* One group trained witl* the it uit exercise

for 10 repetitions each session, sxixi the second grou^ trained with

50-60 per cent of the lO-HK for ten repetitions of jumping 3qu t:.<

The third group trained statically ^t two different positions of

the squat exercise iiAile the fourth group did ten vertical jun^s

each training session* The tr^.ining period was for seven weeks*

The two groups that trained dynamically i&^^roved significantly

more in vertical Jump than the other two groups*

Of the four studies that have examined iêther significant

differences existed between static and dynamic training in ability

to iiqprove performance, <»ily one study indicated that dynamic

training inproved performance significantly more than static training*

Therefore y the evidence iAiht (i ynamic training was more effective for

iaûroving physical performance was not conclusive*

Rei^t^ôi^s^p M%yf^m ^JkM& jyoi M M ^ Str^^li

Richards (^) studied the relati(»i8hip between static and

dynamic strength* Knee extension was determined both statically

and dynamically* static leg strength was measured with the leg at

ei^ydegrees* Dynamic leg strength was computed by the amount of

load that could be raised once using maximiiB muscular exertion*

A correlati<m of *67 was found betwewi static and dynamic strength*

Berger (5) found . similar correlation of *68 ifhen fifteen subjects

were tested in the saxoe manner and dynamic strength was related to

static strength*

These relatively low correlations found between static and

( j namic strength indicate that improvement in either of the two

methods woiild not necessarily lead to £i corresponding increase in

the other*

ge|.tt4of? 8h4rP 9l ^J^£em%h %o Perfoymaage

Rarick (26), by W^ms of factor analysis, studied a battery

of athletic md physiologic tests to deterjidne ndiether comnion

elemsnts associated with speed might be isoiated* One of the

factors found was strength which was determined from static tests

of the back and leg lift* Both static strength tests related

eigaifieantly to the factor of speed of aovsoent*

Harris (14) determined the relationship that exi3ted between

force Bad velocity in athletic events of various kinds for 163

Junior high girls* Intercorrelations were determined for thirtemi

different physical tests* Static leg strength and static back

strength were aaong the tests* Significant correlation coefficients

were found betwe^fi the static strength test and seven pbysic&l per

formance tests consisting of the Sargent Jump, 40 yard dash, broad

Jua^t baaket1l:»all throw for distance, three pound ahot for distance,

twelve poimd shot for distance, ^ d obstacle relay*

A study waa d«me by Easch (27) to determine the relationship

of static Bxm strength to speed of arm movemi^it* Am& strength was

measured and correlated with the maximum speed of the firm* Speed

of movement was measured by a c<mtact chronosoope yideh was specially

designed for this purpose* Arm strength was measured by the pull

exerted against a Chatillions Is^roved Spring Balance* An insignificant

correlation was found between the two coiiyxments*

The relationship between static strength $nd sx««<i of arm

movement w ^ studied by Kemy et al* (16)* Arm strength was

measured Itiy a sipping scale* Lateral arm adduction speed was deter

mined md related to static strength of the arm* No significant

relationship was found between static strength and speed of arm

movement*

Smith (29) measured the leg strength of seventy mle subjects*

The vertiCv.1 Jump was related to both leg strength and a leg strength

macs ratio. Insigzjificant correlation coefficients were obtedned.

and the author concluded that static strength and vertical Jus^

were not related*

Cosena (10) tested tiio hundred and f i f ty college rryn at the

tiniversity of California and found a significant relationship

between the strength Index^ which i s oonôlsed of four static

tests and two dynamic tests^ and a general ability test consisting

of baseball throw, football throw, bar ®aap, Zsa^mt Broi^ Jump,

dodging* 300 yard run, Roger's /.na StrKJgth, KcCloy»s i rm Strength*

back md leg l i f t , knee resistance and pull, arm push and pull,

and l^rt rmd rlît grip*

Brown (S) tested two hundred and eight freshi^m at Southern

Hethodist University to determine the relationship of the i:trength

Index, to eleven different pt^sical fitness and motor ability tests*

He found correlation coeiîcients ranging from *32S to *689, 'which

were a l l significant* The folloiidng teste \iere correlated to the

3tre93gth Indexi

Tixrem l 2 ^ ôuthom M^ thodiist University Tea^: sit-ups,

240 yard shuttle run, ;ii^ chins (r *=» •J?^)*

f t e i c ^ mmm Mmi '^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ * ^coro derived from

caz^saring an achioved Strength Index with a norm based upon the

individual's sex, wî^t, md r> c (r " *576)*

lf&xn<m^& Outdoor Test Foarm ^t Softball throw, diins, bar

snap, siXid vertical juj!^ (r - •639)*

(Seneral Hotor Capacity fcoret Vertic.^ Juisyp, squat thrust,

and Iow£i Brace (r ^ *543)«

Oefioral Motor /b i l i ty r cores 60 yard daah, standing broad

jump, running high jun^, and twelve pound shot-put (r *6C7)*

Q««=>ef# Motor Achiev^iwnt Quotientt This is found by dividing

the Qeneral Motor Ability Score by the General Motor Capacity

Score (r * •535)*

Motor Quotigftti The Qeneral Motor Capacity 5core is divided

by the norm for the Qeneral Motor Capacity Score as found in KcCloy^s

Tables (22) (r « •328).

If^ypi^f fiyi^mlc strength Indexi Chins, dips, and vertical

Jump (r » •535)«

Indiaiata University Hotor Fitness Index? Chins, push-ups,

and vertical Jump (r « *580)*

L!I togtt 240 yard shuttle run, chins, and turn Juo^)

(r *»*516)*

tars^n^s Outdoor Test F o m Bi Softball throw, chins, bar

snap, and vertical Jump (r «* •626}*

Habee (ZL) tested 110 subjects and related the Strength Index

to both the AAHPEH Physical Fitness Test and the Barrow Motor

Ability Test* The correlaticsi coefficients obtained were both

significant beyond the *01 level* Based on the results the author

concluded that there is a significant arelationship between the

strength Index and both the AAHP£E Physical Fitness Test and the

Barrow Motor Ability Test*

Berger and Habee (7) related the . ;HP::.R Physical Fitness Test

to predicted 1-HM chin and 1-RM dip, and total dynazoic strength*

Fifty-three subjects were tested on items conprising the AiiiPIR

Physical Fitness Test* Also, each subject was tested Icr 1~HI. of

seven weight training lifts while l-BM chin and dip wore predicted

from number of chins and dips able to be performed at bodyweijht*

3

Correlati<m coefficients obtained between all variables were highly

significant (P <C *00l}* The authors concluded that predicted 1-RM

chin and dip, and total dynamic strength are equally effective for

predicting physical fitness as determined by the AAliP£R Physical

Fitness Test*

Comparison Between Relationships o£ Static and Dynamic Strength

Larson (18) compared static and dynamic strength variables to

a criterion measure of motor ability* The traits which influence

performance on certain selected motor skills were determined and

co^;»ared* It was found that dynamic strength was loore closely

related to dynamic physical performance (r « *84) than was static

strength (r ~ *49)»

Larson (19) in a later study, by means of factor analysis and ^

intercorrelations, obtained insigifnicant correlation coefficients

between a factor he called gross body coordination and static

strength tests of right grip, left grip, back and legs* Significant

coefficients were obtained between a factor of motor ability and

static strength tests of arm pushing, legs, left and right grip and

back* When dynamic strength was related to gross body coordination,

significant but negative correlation coefficients were found with

dips, chins, and Roger's Arm Strength, but positive coefficients

were obtained between motor ability and dynamic stren^^th tests of

dips, chins, and floor push-ups. The author concluded that the

motor ability tests correlated highly with dynamic strength and

relatively low with static strength*

V

Henderson (15) related static and dynamic strength to leg power*

Sixty-three subjects were tested for static and dynamic strength, and

leg power* The tests were administered in four different sequmices

in order to control for the issprcvemi^t ^cpeeted frcmt taking the tests*

A significently high relationship was noted between both leg power

and static and dynamic strength* Although dynamic strength showed

a higher coefficient, neither was more related to leg power than the

other*

Only three studies have been dene to determine i^hether static

or dynamic strength was more related to physical fitness* Of these,

only two have shown dynamic strength to be higher related thfin static

strength* rince the evidence is not conclusive, the present study

was undertaken to determine the relationship of both static and

dyxiamic strength to pl^sical fitness, and then detersdne whether

these relvitionships were significantly different*

CHAPTER II

WSTHOK. /JiD PROCa^DtHl^.

In recent years great interest has been shown in the use of

static training for Uie improvement of muscular strength* Prior

to the last decade, the emphasis in training for improving strm)gth

involved primarily weight training* Interest in static training

was initiated by various research studies %^ch have shown that

strength can be greatly enh^mced by static muscle contraction*

Because of this, intensive research comparing this form of training

with wei^t training has been conducted* Hie fairpose of this stiidy

was to determine the relationship of both static and dynamic strength

to physical fitness end to determine which relationship was more

hi^ly related to physical fitness*

Procedure

Eighty-three male students enrolled in an introductory physical

education course at Texas Technological College were used as subjects*

The subjects were given three different tests i a dynamic strength

test, a static strength test, and a physical fitness test. The tests

were administered during a foiir week period in Uie same sequence for

all subjects*

Dynamic Str^ength Test

Berger (6) correlated actual 1-RK chin and 1-RM dip to the

total amount of %ieight lifted for six wei^t training lifts* The

lifts were the curl, sit-up, bent over rowing, military press,

bench press, and deep knee bend* The nailtiple correlation coefficient

iO

n

between total dynanie strength and both 1-RH chin and l-HH dip

amounted to •90* The derived equation to predict total dynamic

strength was 1,0$ l-RK chin -*• *74 1-1^ dip -f 322*

In the same study by Serger an evaluation was made to see if

predieting total d^ynamio strength from predicted l-ffl( chin and 1-RM

dip would vaiy fleetly from the prediction of total dynamic strength

from aetual 1-RM chin and 1-RM dip* Predictions of 1-RM chin and

dip were made from information of the number of chins and dips per

formed at bodyweight* This method to predict 1-BM chin and dip was

devised by Berger (3) in an earlier study and found to be highly

aceurate* The relationship between total strength, as predicted

from actual 1*191 chin and dip, and total strength, as predicted from

predicted 1-RM chin and dip, was found to be *94* Because of this

high correlation, predicted 1-RM chin and 1-RK dip rather than actual

values to i redict total dynamic strength was employed* Testing was

greatly simplified for this reason since the testing of large groups

for actual 1-RM values would have been quite time consuming*

Chins* The starting position for the chin was with the arms

extended and palms facing away from the subject while grasping an

overhead bar* The subject ccm^leted a chin wh«a the arms were

sufficiently flexed to permit the chin to rise above the bar* .dl

swaying, swinging, or kicking during the test was prevented*

D^ps* The starting position for the dip was with arms strtijit

and supporting the weight of the body between parallel bars* The

irms were flexed until the upper arms were parallel to the ground

and then extended until the starting position was again attained*

1-c

All ewayiag, swinging, or kicking during the test was prevented by

the tester* If the arms vere not completely extended, the dip ims

not counted*

Bodyweight was determined prior to administering the chinning

and dipping tests*

static t:trength Test

Total static strength was determined by four cable-tension

stzvngth tests* These four were chosen on the basis of a study

done by Clarke (9) who administered eighteen cable tensicsi tests,

aeaeurin^ total static strength, and found by statistical analysis

of the results that these four correlated the hiêst wiUi the

eighteen item test (r ^ *976)* These four tests were used to assess

total static strength rather than the eii^teen item test because of

the greater administrative feasibility*

The four cable-tension tests were the following t

Truxak Extensions starting Positions ^ ubject in prone position;

hips in 130 degrees extension and adduction; knees fully extended;

hands clasped behind back* iittachDents: Trunk strap ground chest,

close under arm pits; pulling assâbly attached bene«^th subject

through slit in table* Actions Extension of the trunk was attempted*

l-j£tens ons Starting Positions i:-ubject in fitting position.

leaning backward, arms extended to the rear, hands gra3pir.£ alaes of

the table; left knee (test side) in H^-degree extension* >ttach-

mentss Regulation strap around leg midway between knee .uicl uui^c

joints; pulling assesÎy attached to hook cX lower cud or the table*

Actions Extension of the knee was attempted*

13

Shoulder Extensions Starting Positions Subject in supine

position, hips tad knees flexed, feet resting eonfortably on the

table; upper left arm (test side) addueted to 190 degrees at shoulder,

elbow flexed with wrist in prone position* Attachmentss Regulation

strap around huiasrus midway between shoulder and elbow joints;

lulling assoibly attached to wall beyond subjects head* Actions

Extension of the shoulder was attested*

M O ^ fl# tfftr r^f?:iQhs Starting Positions Subject in supine

positicm, hips in 180 degree extension and adduction, knees in 180

degrees ext«asion, arms folded on chest; left ankle (test side) in

90 degree flexion, mid position of inversion bnd aversion* i»ttach-

mentss Regulation strap around foot above mstatarsal-^^alangeal

Joint; pulling asseably attached to wall at subject*s head* ActionS

Fxteneion of the ankle was attempted*

These four cable-tensicm tests have an objectivity coefficient

of *87 to *9B LS reported by Claiiie (9)* Bach subject was permitted

two trials at each test and the better of Ui& two triads was recorded*

Phys^c^ nW^s SS^

The physical fitness test consisted of the following itemss

medicine ball put, softball throw, fifty yard dash, 600 yard run,

«a minute sit-ups, leg power, forty yard shuttle run .Xiu cidiii>»

These items were chosen because, according to the autJ criiii,::. in

the profession of physical education (l)(i2C)(-^)(.-5){3^), they

measure aspects of motor perfonaance comprising i/ot l pliy^icai

fitness*

Medicine Boxl Put* 1 ach subject stood behind a rectr:.lnin^

liSM and was allowed three successive trials in pitting a six

iyi«^»^»

pound medicine ball* A distance of fifteen feet behind the

reetraiBing line was designated as the area in iiddch a run mey

be made while performing the medicine ball put* Scoring was

recorded to the nearest foot; the best of three trials being

recorded*

iSfiteali Throw* The field was marked in fiv. ^i^rd intervals,

with football side markers placed at each interval to designate

distance* A r^gulati<m softball was used for the test* Each sub

ject was allowed three throws, with a short inm to the starting

line permitted* Scoring was to the nearest foot for the best of

three throws*

Si.i&»hundre4 lard fiun* The subjects used a standlrjg start*

The object was to cover the prescribed distance in the shortest

possible time* The time was recorded in minutes and seconds*

Fifty J^stXd Dash* This score was the amount of hixae between

the starter*® signal and the instant the subject crossed the finish

line* Tims was recorded to the nearest tenth of a second*

T%io-alnute 3it-ups* The starting position was supine with

knees s t r ^ h t and feet approximately twelve inches .ip rt* With

the hands clasped behind the head, the subject rflsed the trunk

and touched on© elbow to the oposita knee and 'alternated this for

each repetition*

Leg F<^wer* The test used to measure leg poifs.- w. s a niodific.--

tion of a leg power test devised by Gray, Start, end dlcncroas (11)*

The investigators determined leg power in terms of tl.o .rinci^c

power '= work/till^* The authors concluded th it the tc:3t was valid

for msasuring the power of the legs developed ir. .:. vjsrtical ju.i> «

15

The modified leg power test was found by Gray et al* (12) in a

later st idy to correlete .989 with the original criterion measure

of power* The modified leg power test was considered Justified

for use in this study for that reason*

The modified leg power test was administered in the following

marmer* The subject stood sidew^s to a Jump board with the pre

ferred arm ext«)ded above the head and next to the bocird* The

other arm was placed behind the back* The height of the extended

hand was marked on the board i«hile standing on tiptoe* Maintaining

a straight back and the position of the arms, the subject adopted

a full squat position* \ihea stationary and in this position, the

stibject sprang upwards and marked the maximum height of the J\a&p

board by means of chalked fingers* Fach Jump was scored to the

nearest quarter inch* Three att^oipts were made and the best score

was recorded*

l!2l?iX Xard Shitttl. 1 ^ * The subject stood behind one of two

parallel lines which ^mre spaced thirty feet ap irt* Two vioodon

blocks were placed Just behind the other side of the second line*

On a signal, the subject ran to the second line, picked up one of

the blocks and placed it behind the starting line, rm b ck to

pick up the second block and returned to the starting line. Time

required to complete the test was the score, which was noasured

to the nearest tenth of a second*

ChJas* Chins were administered the same wpy as described in

the dynamic strength test*

16

Total dynanie strength end total static strei^h were both

related to physical fitness by laaans of mtdtiple correlation (30)*

The significance of the difference bet%#een the two coefficients

were determined by the critical ratio using Fisher's Z function (32).

ciu.nm III

PHEi,ENTATIC»; AKD AK/XXSIS OF REXCLTi

This study waa designed to conp ir® the relationship between

phyeioal fitncjss md both total static and totca dynamic strength,

and to determine if static or dynamic strength was more related to

physical fitness* Data were collected from ei^ty-three male stu

dents at Texas Tedinological College \ho vere tested for static

strength, dynamic strength, and physical fitness* Correlation co

efficients were then determined between pl^xici^ fitness O K ! both

total static and total dynaiaic strength* These two correlation

coefficients were then ccaspared to seo if they were significantly

different*

.\nal:rsi3 of Results

The correlation coefficient found in the present study between

static strength and physical fitness wac .46, dch w«s significant

beyond the *01 level* The relationship obt^Oned by h'arris (14)

between static and physical performance (r ^ .^2) vus in agreement

tdth this study* Harris found a eignifiCcAt ixluticnship between

back and leg dynaiaometric^ strength ^ d Sargent Junq;, IX yard dash,

broad Jump, basketball throw for distance, three pound shot for dis

tance, twelve pound shot for distimce .xd obstc^cle rclc: ^ tine*

Larson (19) &^so obtained significant correliiticr. coefficients

between a composite motor ability score and four strength tests of

leg strength (r #61), left grip strength (r .73), '-C t jrip

strength (r - *76), iJid back strength (r - .6^). Co oric (10) found

17

u flu-'•'•f-y-• ' '-j.^.înig'

18

a »i«nificant relationship (r *» *567) between the strength Index,

coaproeed of four static tests and two dynamic tests, and a general

ability test consisting of baseball throw, football throw, bar snap,

Sargent Broad JUB^, dodging, 300 yard run, Rcêr»s /ow strength,

MeCloy's Arm Strength, back and leg lift and right grip* Brown (8)

studied the relationship of the Strength Index to numerous physical

fitness and motor ability tests* The Strength Index correlated

*576 with Physical Fitness Index, *689 with Larson Outdoor Test A,

*542 with the General Motor Capacity Scores, *607 with the Qeneral

Motor Ability Score, *535 idth Oeneral Motor Achievement quotient,

*328 with Motor Quotient Test, •535 vith Larson*a Dynamic Strength

Index, *580 with the Indiana Motor Fitness Index, and *6a6 with

Larson*s Outdoor Test B* Henderson (15) found a significant

relationship betwe«i static leg atr«jgth and leg power (r » *64)*

Insignificant relationships were obtained by Rasch (27),

Bmxr md Whitely (16), and Smith (30) between static leg and back

strength and phaîcal performance which involved speed of movement

in the first two ai«i vertical Juop in the last* In the present

8ti>dy# sn insignificant relationship was also found between the

fifty yard dash, i^ch measiires speed, and total static strwigth*

This is in agreement with the results obtained by ." -asch, Henxy

and Whitely*

Although significant relationships have been found between

static strength and composite physical performance tests, the

relationship with speed is not conclusive*

A correlati<ai of *76, %*ich was significant beyond the *01

level, was found in the present study between dynamic strength and

19

physical fitness* The correlation was in agreement with the results

obtained in a previous study by Larson (19) who found significant

correlation coefficients between a motor ability test and dynamic

strength test of dips (r « *68), chinning (r - *79), and vertical

Jump (r =«= *6l)* Henderson (15) obtained a significantly high

relationship between dynamic leg strength and leg power (r = *7l)*

Mabee (21) found a significant relationship between the Strength

Index which contains two static tests and two dynamic tests, and

both the AAHPER Physical Fitness Test (r « *58), and the Barrow

Motor Ability Test (r « .52)* Berger and Mabee (7) found significant

relationships between the AAHPER Physical Fitness Test and predicted

1-RM chin and 1-RM dip, and total dynamic strength which exceeded

*50*

The correlation coefficients of *46 and *76 found between

physical fitness and static and dynamic strength, respectively, were

analysed to determine vdiether they were significantly different*

The two coefficients were found to be significantly different beyond

the *001 level* I^amic strength was considered to be iDoze highly

related to physical fitness than static strength*

The result was supported by Larson (18) who found by factor

analysis that dynamic strength (r « mSZ) was more related to motor

ability than was static strength (r = .49)• Henderson (15) found

that neither static leg strength (r -^ •64) nor dynamic leg strength

(r =" *7l) was mere related to power than the other; however, if the

author had used twice the number of subjects and obt^dnec the oams

coefficients, then a significant difference would have been obtained

at the *C5 level*

• W^f • 'K^l^»"*»"

CHAPTER I ?

£U»!ART AHD CORCLU&IORS

KûoBiary

The fttrpose of this study was to determine lAether physical

fitness was significantly related to total static strength and total

dynamic strength and, if so, i^ch relaUonship was greater* Data

was obtained from eigbty-thr^ male college students at Texas

Technological College* Each subject was measured for iîysical

fitness, static strength, and dynamic strength* Items coo^rising

the piqrsical fitness tests weres medicine ball put, softball throw,

fifty yard dasy, 600 yard run, two minute sit-ups, leg power, forty

yard shuttle run, and chins* Static strength was measured by four

cable-tension tests considered by Clarke (9) to be indicative of

total static strength* The fo\ir tests were trunk extension, knee

extension, shoulder extension, and ankle plantar flexion* The

dynamic strength test was comprised of predicted 1-RM chin and dip

%îch was found by Berger (3) to relate highly to total dynamic

strength* The two correlati(»i coefficients between physical fitness

and static and dynamic strength were *46 and *76, respectively, both

significant beyond the *01 level* The two coefficients were significcJitl

different farws each other beyond the *001 level*

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study the following conclusions

were drawns

1* There is a highly significant relationship oetwoen lii aical

fitness and both static and dynamic strength (P < *Cl)*

•»r

2* Z ynafflic strength is more highly related to physical fitness

than static strength (P <.001).

LIST or EEFEKEWCES

1* AAHPER louth Fitness Test Manual, AAHKIR-MEA, Fitness Oepartamt, 1201 Sixteenth St* K*W*, Washington 6, D*C*, 1958.

2* Baer, Adrian D*, et al* "The Effect of Various Exercise Programs on Isometric Tension, Eisdurance and Reaction Tims in the Human*" A y ^ M y ^ St Phyf^c^ Medicine j ^ RâbilitaUon 36s445-502; August, 1955*

3« Berger, Richard A*, wDstermination of & Method to Predict 1-RM Chin and Bip From Repetitive Dips and Chins*" PubUcation pending Research Quarterly*

Y 4« Berger, Richard A*, "The Effects of Dynamic and static Training CO Vertical Jva^ Ability*" llesearch Quarterly 34s419-24, 1964*

5* Berber, Richard A*, "The Effects of Selected Progressive Resistance Exercise Programs on Strength, i yper>trophy and strength Decrement*" Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan :::tate University, 1956*

6* Berger, Richard A*, "Prediction of Total Eynamlc ; trength From Chinning and Dipping Strength*" Unpublished study Texas Technological College*

7* Berber, Richard A* and Daniel D* Mabee, "Relationship of the AAHf^R Physical Fitness Test to Predict 1-RM Chin, 1-RM dip, and Total Iâmic : trength*" Materials to be j^blished in Research >uai*terly* 1965.

8* &?own, Howard '*, "A Ccasârative itudy of Motor Fitness Tests*" Unpublislîsd Dissertation, University of Indiana, 1955*

- 9* Claims, H* K*, '»Construction of a Muscular Strength Tests for Boys in Orades 4, 5, and 6*" Research ..uarterly 33s515-522; Deceiaber, 1962*

10* Cozens, Frederick, »*i:.trength Tests as Measures of Oeneral Athletic Ability in College Men." Research wuarterly ll$45-5^, 1940*

11* Dennison, J* D*, K* L* Howell, and v;* R* Koreford, "I ffects of Isonsetric &nd Isotcaiic Exercise Programs upon MuscuLir Lndurance*" Research .uarterly 32s34^52; October, 1961*

12. Gray, R* K*, K* B* ^tart, and D* J* Olaicross, ",. Test of Leg Power*" Research ûarterj^ 33844-3<; March, 1962*

13* Gray, R* K., K. B* etart, and D* J* Glencross, ".' Useful Modification of the Vertical Power Ju.Tiii;." Research jurUrix 33S-JC-35; May, 1962*

23

14* Hurls, Jane E*, "The Differential Measurement of Force and ISJ^JIJ? '**** ^ **** " ^ ^^^^"^^ Girls*" Research quarterly 0!NI9-1O5; December, 1937. ^^^ ^^

15. Itevterson, Joe M*, "The Relationship of i:tatic and Cynamlc Strength to Power*" Unpublished Master's Thesis, Texas Technological College, 1963.

16* Henry, P. M., and J* D* Whitely, "Relationships Between Individual Differences in Strength, Speed, and Mass in Arm Mov€«aent*" Research Quarterly 31s 24-33; March, I960*

17* Jfettinger, T*, and E* A* MuUer, "Musekelleistung and Muskeltrainung," Arbeit9physiolo<îy 15t2; October, 1953.

18* Larson, L. A*, "A Factor Analysis of tor Ability Variables, and Tests, with Tests for College !^^*" Research Quarterly 12S499-517; October, 19U.

19. Larson, L. A*, "A Factor and Validity Analysis of Strength Variables and Tests Combination of Chinning, Dipping, and Vertical Juaap*" Research wuarterly lls82-96; Dec«nber, 1940*

20* Larson, L* A * , "Some Findings Resulting From the Amy Air Force Training Program*" Reseftrcii Quarterly 17s2; May, 1946*

21* Mabee, Daniel D*, "Relationship of Strength to Physical Performance*" Unpublished Master's Thesis, Texas Technological College*

'^m McCloy, Charles and Norma Young, Tests aiyi Measurements ^ Health ^ d Physical Educaticm. Appleton-Century-Croft, Inc*, Hew tork, 1954.

23. Meadows, Paul, "The Effects of Isotonic and Isometric Muscle Contraction Training on 3peed, Force, and ctrength*" Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Illinois, Urbana, 1959.

24. fillips, B* £*, "The JCR Test*" Research Âxarterly ISsl; March, 1947.

25* Physical Fitness Manual for the U* . * Navy, Cha.ter IV* Bureau of Kaval Personnel, Training Division, Physic.^ iêction, 1943.

26* Rarick, Lavfi'ence, "AH nulysis of the ^poed Factor in tir^le Athletic Activities," I ese irch wttftft rlY 8se9-iC5; December, 1937.

27. Rasch, Phillip J*, "The Relationship of /.ra Strength, Weight, and Length to Speed of Arm Movement*" Resoarch û,rterl> 2583'^3'«; October, 1954*

24

28* Richards, Bertram D*, *1l Coaparison of Cable Tensioiaeter Strength, 1-RM, and lO-BH Values Obtained in Knee Extension*" Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1956*

29. Smith, Locm £*, "Rolationahip Between Explosive Leg Strength and Performance in the Vertical JUB^*" Reeear<^ quarterly 32s405-^I October, 19^-1 •

30* Smith, Melton G*, A Simplified Guide %SL Statistics for Psychology JS^ Education* Hew Tork; MacMillan Company, 1955.

31. State of Indiana Physical Fitness Manual for High School Boys* Bulletin No* 136, Department of Public Instruction, Indiana, 1944.

32* Tate, Merle *, Statistics jUgi Education* New lork; MacMillan Coa^pany, 1955*

n ®C!)iM)eOES©(|}

O

s§i^î^^^»î^g^s^^^«^j5^«g^^§si^^^ in

1^

I »/N«Ae*.«Aes »o ^J5^SiSI^35S^^8ggSI 0? Qi *0 ^ ^ ^ * o ?5 f*>iO ^ o^ c^H

r-l H! '"V r-l H H

11 ^§§^§§5§S§?§S:8§8S&»ggSg8:SS5ScJS8c;jS V3

^

9 I O 4>

12

O H l H O » | H 4 v N H H H H H H H r 4 H H 4 r 4 r 5 r 5 r 5 r 5 r H r ^ r ? r ^ o 5 H ( ' 5 1-1 fH H iM

?î^Si3S<S^S5:332f335:?^:|:5^:3 35 S 13553^3?; ?5««3:I3

-5 HI

1 * ^ !.'>

«A \ 0 WN * * »A \ 0 "43 M\ <*\ C«->0 »A rN 00 O - ^ t >0 O^ sO t > Ô C*-»A rvi «A C\i COCO * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Q 0 » . 0 ^ 0 * Q 0 0 » > O . 0 N 0 O 0 > . 0 v ^ J ^ O 0 ^ O 0 ^ O O O O 0 < k C j v 0 O 0 Q 0 ^ O 0 0 N O

v.. a

• * * • * * * * * * * • * * * * * * * * * * * • • * • * * * • * • NO >o ô >o-<o r-M5 ^ c ^ ^ NO NO NO ^ ^«•ô >o c^-ô o-so >o c^>o ô o r*»>o >o ô >o vo o

91

» sO'<or«-Qw%«A<n-4-^«o 4 -4Q^•Q^«^ ' iQO»AQf*^r^ -4 ^.v-jtw> ^ ^ / « > j

>* 4*

u

e -• ^ ^ - ^ ' ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ 3 ;:1 ; :5::J^:3 ?:T3 ^ ^ - J '^ " 'i-^:? ^"3 7?»< ^ < 5:

^

I f f ^§i ^^5^SiS ^^g^^^^^^^^s«^4 ,rig

4^§^^^^^^^S3^^^^^ ;||! ^^s^9 :?^^^

I l1S§gg§' 33Sl ^^«S3^:|:| ^â^^1?^

?/i

H H H r^ r HI H H f-< H[ H H r4 5^ H r H H r r-f r H iH H H H . J H^ V

i - ' - ^ - " ^ - ^ - - - - - ' « * « « * o o a * M * « w i ^ * w w « O 9 « * « * 4 * * « * *

H Oj H f"i H ^ < 'V "V H --» t-^ vHl rH r-l r^ r-J *-4 V >2 H r-4 H ' H

a P ^5S5cSqf5î^!J!3?a:3435::J3'$3:;;i^^3«.i^^;'<c^'^3:}3

%

NO r^ HI m =^ cv rH ^ .o «» 150 A J wN ^ t/> i> u^ txj i> o : N V ;r </\ 4> o Â ,> « « * * i » « * e e « i * « * o o e * * c * * * * f r V b * * *

ON O O Q O O O O O O* O Q •> w> ON O Cv CN Q C O'-> Ox .> o •?» O > O O >>

*

a

rg o CN O O :M -O ''>i vo eo kA Q lAsO «^ o O '-' 'J >'*i <r\ > O O ' ''- * '' -^ - t '-A • • « * * e * « « * « . . . « . * . » « . « . * ' * * * * ' * ' ^ *

'O NO ^ c*" sO c* <i ?•" - o '-o •*) t^ <> " c^ '^ •^ " ;>- 'O '-j t*" f^ '--" J " -> • -"5 o o

a* 2 f^:a3::i^3«SS^:31^^S^^S?5^^^S^t^^^«^>'>-i^'^--^

(0 sO ~ * o si c>-iH 0^rH iTkcA<» sO .0 H ' -) o 4 -< ^ ^ - « * > Q ^ •'> -" c^ "- , " "

H »-4 .-» "H •"'

;^^)5^S^?^S^-.i:S43:|:3:S53'5S< •l;X.: =<tr.-X'xSi ; J J'2^

WKW--'

Pj 3 « 1^ M <i> f <A i j R A ^ <*N o r - f ^ 5 - H sA

» A O ' O "A t-» - 4 - ^ «> Q l A (-4 « ( -J- NO (*\-'-'i ' n C^ ^5 fM \ «^ cv 0 | c«S iV ?^ '^^ o} *v >/ N» V ^

10

:> u\ Q«;; ? H H ^

83 5 :4^4Sf? ( ^ r-f i ' ''V r 4 i ^ H H

Is (H r-^ H r-4 r-1 rHI (-1 f- f cH !~S f - t J H H I —• rH -"< H H -^

CJ

33S^52^:SStS:^^:'î3^'?Sâi28 • • * • * • « • « ' « »

r H r - t f"*l r-4 H t ~4 ' -^ X' <• ^ <'~\ •—^. '^ r^\ t 6 i « « c *

\ . H <\' •;%' <:v

•^

a I to Q H ovo t> ON <»> 4 <*> H>^ o i^ 'JD *^Sr Q d M

««,

• H

£1

rH ••-< '-<"v " i ; ^ w* CNt t.n o ^0 <J -'x C^ ' ^ - 4 « * 4 1 * * • « • « • « € • « • •

O O O tJ i O <:>» •'*-' . - i -.••?•>. >.3 , > (.>-• O ON Q .•'^ * - i C^ C> f-\ -~i t~\ - H cH "'-i H '"-J ' - • H • - • !•«

«

k A -^ -.^ O (Nf « J w> î - t 'v' ' •« '•'^' '•••» • , ^ iJ »A ->•• ^ --4

I V v o s> r - i > v o -£> t * ^ ^ > •••.-' - ^ V..5 j > -1) >^ o - •:•• -v)

e 4 ^

2 B ^ 1

' \ '

wi

A,** **'jf

4> •r» V '

^ >.«H -4- • '••'1 ••'*\^.0 *'"v - ^ ' ' -O e« »Vv> -if<-J ; - ;•-• f ^ ^.J -'^ '••1 •-• •'. -^^ --,'.? c ^ - «

I «0 r - .; O "- -O ON sO sO .^ £>si> • '\ Q 00 Q H •>- O rH r-i -i 4 H H "H

c'\>£» C^ tip ^^v v j 1 'I A -'• ' A ' C^ < 5 O N 0 » C ^ > * J O l ^ w j ^ p - o - c ^ . t s . ^ ^ J v , c s « | s « yj3

physical educaticaj submitted to the graduate - repositories

Documents