impact of physical performance testing on women in the workforce and the possibility that a test will be challenged for failure to comply with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Appropriate validation methodology has been the subject of ongoing debate (Jackson, 1994).

Civilian performance testing is classified into two types by the nature of the abilities measured. Physical fitness tests seek to measure performance on one or a series of tasks that have shown some ability to predict general aerobic fitness or strength. Physical abilities tests (also known as job sample tests or task performance tests) seek to measure performance on tasks that simulate actual job-related activities. Performance tests may be administered as a part of a recruitment qualification test only, or they may be administered regularly to current employees. For such tests to be valid, the abilities measured must be demonstrated to be necessary to (and predictive of) the performance of the actual job (Arvey et al., 1992; Hogan, 1991). An additional concern is that when physical abilities tests are administered as qualification (entrance) exams, performance may be more reflective of prior learning than of aptitude. Thus, the population of subjects used to establish cut-off scores must be identified.

Although most performance test validation studies are not published, those that are have been primarily in the areas of firefighting, police work, chemical and steel plant work, coal mining, utility line work, and military jobs (Jackson, 1994). This discussion will focus only on the civilian uniformed services, that is, government law enforcement and firefighting.

A preemployment test for police officers (Wilmore and Davis, 1979) measured both fitness and physical abilities, but test performance proved unrelated to actual supervisor-rated job performance (criterion validity). The Metropolitan Ontario Police Department developed a jobspecific Police Officers' Physical Abilities Test (POPAT) to screen new recruits (Rhodes and Farenholtz, 1992). Although task performance correlated poorly with fitness test performance, established officers who scored poorly on the Police Officers' Physical Abilities Test also scored poorly on routine tests of fitness, and the test has been demonstrated to have content validity and accepted for screening of new recruits.

A group of municipal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies (compiled from a list of forces represented at a December 1996 symposium on Women in Uniform, forces listed on the Internet, and those in the Washington, D.C. area) were contacted and questioned regarding their body composition, fitness, and performance testing practices (see Appendix E for inquiry letter and response tables). The results (Table E-1) demonstrate that approximately half of these agencies regularly assess body composition, while the majority assess fitness on a regular basis.

According to a report cited by Jackson (1994), most major fire departments administer physical ability tests for recruitment (a large percentage of fire departments are small, comprise volunteers, and may not conduct such testing). Several physical abilities test batteries for firefighters

Front Matter (R1-R16)

Executive Summary (1-24)

1 Introduction (25-32)

2 Body Composition (33-60)

3 Physical Fitness Policies and Programs (61-86)

4 Weight Management (87-108)

5 Nutritional Concerns of Military Women (109-126)

6 Pregnancy and Lactation and Postpartum Return-To-Duty Fitness (127-156)

7 Conclusions and Recommendations (157-170)

Appendixes (171-172)

A Workshop Summary, Agenda, Participants, and Abstracts (173-252)

B Practices and Policies Tables (253-262)

C Military Occupational Specialty Classification Tables (263-280)

D Search Strategy for Literature Review (281-284)

E Civilian Inquiry Letter and Table of Responses (285-290)

F Abbreviations (291-294)

G Bibliography (295-334)

H Biographical Sketches (335-338)

Index (339-352)