Physical employment standards developed for the Armed Forces – A summary of the international status

Abstract

Job-related Physical Employment Standards (PES) for the Armed Forces have been developed by numerous nations using a common methodology described in another presentation in this thematic session. The current presentation will describe the PES tests and procedures used by different groups and examples of how they are used to select and evaluate personnel for work and/or deployment. Job-related PES are developed based on a Job Task Analysis (JTA) where the critical physically demanding tasks personnel are required to perform are defined and the physical fitness to perform in a job-role are derived. The ‘components of fitness’ to perform soldiering tasks identified through a JTA are reasonably common between nations, typically comprising of; aerobic capacity, anaerobic power, muscular strength, muscular endurance and mobility/agility. The tests within a PES used to evaluate the components of fitness vary between Armed Forces and tend to fall in to one of two groupings. The first group of ‘task simulations’ are tests where the physical actions and equipment are similar to the actual task that soldiers perform but are performed in a more controlled and/or incremental manner compared to the actual task. Common examples of task simulation tests include lifting equipment such as ammunition boxes, carrying equipment such as water cans or sandbags and loaded marching. Secondly, ‘predictive tests’ are usually performed with very little or none of the equipment used to perform the actual military tasks they are predicting performance on. Common examples of predictive tests include timed runs, shuttle running, grip strength, upright pull, medicine ball throw, horizontal standing jump. A PES has the utility to measure personnel's physical capacity at different points in their military training cycle and the type of test used at each point varies between nations. Predictive tests are typically used at the point of selection into service and/or to evaluate return to duty following an injury. This is because predictive tests are simple to administer to large groups, are safer and more controlled and require minimal skill or training compared to task simulations tests. However, as task simulations have greater face-validity and more closely replicate the actual physical demands of job-roles they are more commonly used to assess the physical capacity of serving personnel on an annual basis and/or prior to deployments.